Topic: Favorite Hypercardioid condenser *capsule* (and why)?

[ts]

I look at things purely from price. My ears like Schoeps but my wallet doesn't. I owned a 641 set and Mk21's for about 2 years. Really liked them but based on the amount of taping I do and the fact that those mics only got used on this hobby I could no longer justify the cost. If the mics made me some money I would have kept them.

[Gutbucket]

There's no EQing that takes out that barn sound better than using more directional mics in those venues. So, for me they are problem solvers.

It's a mic capsule that you buy for it's polar pattern which you need in a certain environment more.

I'd like to retract and suggest that the best hyper is the one that you create with the schoeps mk2, mk8 and the polarflex plugin: http://www.schoeps.de/en/products/categories/polarflex

Price aside, that personally seems like too much work in post but, like the soundfield, looks like a really cool idea.

FWIW, with any and all first order patterns (omni through figure-8) available using a fully variable ambisonic mic, the pattern I usually end up with on recordings made with the Tetramic is crossed hypercardioids.  It has the sweetness of Blumlein crossed 8s but with more forward focus and slightly less rear room ambience. That choice has nothing to do with problematic environments and everything to do with simply finding the best sounding coincident microphone pair arrangement, made while trying various combinations of pattern and angle listening back in a good playback environment. 

The primary constraint in that case is the restriction to a coincident pair arrangement with no space between microphones.  Accommodating poor acoustics, audience noise or other problems is obviously critically important to a good recording, yet is secondary to that basic configuration issue, and in the examples I’m thinking of, were not problems which needed addressing by choosing the directionally of the hypercardioid pattern over what would be a more preferably pattern if those problem didn’t exist.

Ignoring subjective preferences for sound, technically the Tetramic may have the most accurate polar pattern of any hypercardioid, including other ambisonic mics and ambisonic-like native arrays (polarflex, etc) due to the fact that the capsules are physically closer together and individually measured and compensated for individually and as a group for accurate response in all directions.

It does make for more work afterwards in dialing that in and decoding the virtual pair output though!

[page]

In think schoeps are just about perfect in classical settings. They are clear enough with just a touch of euphoric noise to give stuff a pizzazz without it becoming overbearing, and especially well suited since (tonally) you don't want to cheap out on bass response in that setting. For taping rock music in a bar though, I'm rather McKayla on them in terms of both response and coloration. It's a right tool for the right job to me, but certainly personal preference is involved.

Wasn't it DSatz or someone else over on GS that was mildly puzzled why so many far-field tapers use schoeps when there were "better alternatives" for the task? It's a personal preference, but every now and then comments like that make me wonder if a sort of group think doesn't play a role in the decision making process for some. We are but human after all...

[acidjack]

My point is this: it is all well and good for you to claim that you don't like way schoeps sound, Good for you! Don't buy them. Know that many, many people disagree (look at the poll results above!) Good for them! This is all subjective.

But to suggest that whereas *you* are using your superior ears to determine things, whereas all the rest of us (by implication with inferior hearing or discerning ability) are somehow seduced by a popularity contest to like Schoeps, well that is offensive to many folks on this board who have run all kinds of gear before settling on what they like best.

Lots of good points in this post.  I'd add only that all of the industry standards you cited are pretty much not the situation most people here record in (recording PA systems at a distance).  I agree that it stretches the limits of credulity for someone to claim Schoeps are other than an industry standard and among the very finest microphones in the world.  However, I think someone can make an argument that they like something else better for recording boomy PA systems.  After all, that is not what Schoeps are designed for, and they are very accurate mics.  Someone who hates EQing things may prefer a more hyped mic that does that work for them.  It doesn't make that mic "better", but maybe they prefer it.  EDIT TO ADD: I see page just made a similar point.

I think about this in the context of DPAs. I really love the sound of DPAs when they're at their best, but having run them I would concur that they are among the least forgiving of all mics. They are very accurate - almost too accurate for taping.  If I did what page does with his DPAs - a lot of onstage jazz and similar stuff - I'd probably own DPAs like he does.  Unfortunately, that's not what I do as often as I'd like.  So while I think DPAs are an industry-standard, and one of the finest brands of mics, I prefer something else (in my case, the somewhat hyped Schoeps MK5).

All that said, I went with Schoeps as my own choice after listening to (and in many cases using) just about everything else.  I was biased against Schoeps because of all the nonsense about how Schoeps guys just like to talk shit about their big money mics.  I thought that until I compared my recordings with other very good mics side by side with Schoeps.  For what I do, I think they are the best.  If I didn't think so, I could (and would) own one of the other brands. 

[cashandkerouac]

as the vast majority of us are using our mics in ways that were not intended i find it interesting that the debate/discussion is so heated.  i think the biggest variable that impacts the quality of concert recordings made from the audience is location.  Schoeps, DPA, Sennheiser, AKG, etc. are all great mics.  Put me in the sweet spot of a venue with any of those mics and i'll make a great recording.  to posit over which mic is "best" (regardless of polar pattern) is a fun discussion, but that's about the extent of it.       

[Todd R]

Wasn't it DSatz or someone else over on GS that was mildly puzzled why so many far-field tapers use schoeps when there were "better alternatives" for the task?

I guess it's an aside to this thread, but do you happen to remember what those better alternatives were?  Just kind of curious.  Was it better alternatives in terms of capsule patterns or arrangement (XY, DIN, etc), or was it better alternatives in terms of actual brands and models of mics?

[cashandkerouac]

Wasn't it DSatz or someone else over on GS that was mildly puzzled why so many far-field tapers use schoeps when there were "better alternatives" for the task?

I guess it's an aside to this thread, but do you happen to remember what those better alternatives were?  Just kind of curious.  Was it better alternatives in terms of capsule patterns or arrangement (XY, DIN, etc), or was it better alternatives in terms of actual brands and models of mics?

i have a vague recollection of DSatz' comments on this topic.  i think he was essentially saying that since most of us don't use the mics in the manner they were intended then Schoeps may not be best tool for the job.  i don't think he was making a general comment about the quality of Schoeps mics in relation to the competition.

[acidjack]

Wasn't it DSatz or someone else over on GS that was mildly puzzled why so many far-field tapers use schoeps when there were "better alternatives" for the task?

I guess it's an aside to this thread, but do you happen to remember what those better alternatives were?  Just kind of curious.  Was it better alternatives in terms of capsule patterns or arrangement (XY, DIN, etc), or was it better alternatives in terms of actual brands and models of mics?

i have a vague recollection of DSatz' comments on this topic.  i think he was essentially saying that since most of us don't use the mics in the manner they were intended then Schoeps may not be best tool for the job.  i don't think he was making a general comment about the quality of Schoeps mics in relation to the competition.

Certainly, if someone wants a microphone that cuts out a lot of bass, Schoeps, DPA, and Sennheiser are not your way to go.  I'd look to mics like the MBHO KA200 cardiods, Neumann KM 150s and other mics with a very rolled-off bass response.  I don't know if that's what he was talking about, but it's certainly true.

[cashandkerouac]

i'm sure DSatz will chime in at some point, but i don't think his comments were geared towards the sonic character of the mics (more or less bass, more or less high end, etc.).  i think he was basically trying to say that if you are going to record a concert at a significant distance from the source (which is not the intended purpose of most of the mics we tend to use) then there might be better solutions to consider for that specific use.  i could be wrong, but that's how i interpreted the comment.

[page]

i'm sure DSatz will chime in at some point, but i don't think his comments were geared towards the sonic character of the mics (more or less bass, more or less high end, etc.).  i think he was basically trying to say that if you are going to record a concert at a significant distance from the source (which is not the intended purpose of most of the mics we tend to use) then there might be better solutions to consider for that specific use.  i could be wrong, but that's how i interpreted the comment.

yeah, I've traversed a lot of the internet in my life and honestly don't recall if it was his comments or someone on GS (who are admittedly focused on professional releases and that whole mentality) so my apologies if I'm misattributing it to him. But yeah, that's akin to the argument; right tool for the goal. If you're interested in creating a clear and clutter free recording, then open patterns, bass heavy mics (unless you're into that sort of thing), and standard television/radio recording configs while standing in a cavernous room full of dingbats isn't helping. I get that, and a lot of it is the nature of the beast, but some of it can be improved on.

[DSatz]

Uh, hi--I'm here. I don't recall posting any such remark on GearSlutz, where I only visit about once a year, and I don't identify at all with the quote. It sounds a little more like something I might say about using shotgun microphones for stereo music recording--could that be it?

Here's my two cents on this topic. I think most people would be amazed to learn just how much reflected sound there is in any normal, clear-sounding recording, and how much sound in general reaches our microphones from angles that are quite far off axis. I'm convinced that a microphone's off-axis response is every bit as important as its on-axis response. To hear what I mean, if you ever get a chance to spend a minute or two in an anechoic chamber, by all means please try it. It is so totally different from anyplace where we normally hear music--and the experience underscores the huge degree to which reflected sound is necessary for recorded music to feel as if it's happening in our normal, living world and not in some abstracted laboratory space somewhere.

So I think that the off-axis response of a microphone really needs to be smooth and as neutral as possible, and particularly as free as possible of high-frequency and upper-midrange response peaks. This leads me to prefer small, high-quality, single-diaphragm condenser microphones. Condenser microphones have something of a reputation for sounding "bright," but I'm not talking about condensers that are artificially bright; there are certainly plenty of those, but there's nothing inherent in a capacitive transducer that means it has to be that way, and I avoid the ones that are.

I use Schoeps microphones more than any others, mainly because I find their midrange and upper midrange unhyped and natural sounding. Where super-to-hypercardioids are concerned, the Schoeps also has very good low-frequency response, and doesn't sound muffled or pinched when sound reaches it from off-axis.

The Neumann KM 150 or KM 185 is an alternative that I know well. I own a pair of KM 150s and I find definite uses for them, but rarely as the main stereo pair for music recording. In addition to their distinctly light low-frequency response (which I appreciate when I'm using them as spot mikes and in speech applications), they have a certain character in their upper midrange which, to my ears, makes them either exactly the right thing to use, or else very much the wrong thing.

Sometimes a company's reputation for having a certain "sound" isn't a pure blessing when they want to maintain their brand's identity--it can mean that they have to impose a certain sound quality on everything they make in order for it to seem like it's theirs. Personally, I find such imposed sound quality tiring to hear at any length.

[John Willett]

And as someone who ran mbho hypers for 4 years, I must say, there are many pairs of schoeps at some shows for a reason, it's because the simply sound the best. You def get what you pay for!!!

Very much disagree. I have not had the opportunity to play with that many pairs of mics, but I did sell audio equipment for about 15 years. I was considered to have a very good ear and there is something that grates against me with schoeps. They are mostly used out of reputation from what I have observed.

I'm fully aware that reasonable people can disagree, that opinions are like assholes, and that personal taste matters a great deal when comparing well-made transducers.

However, your "very good ear" notwithstanding, there is a good reason why many of the best professionals working in everything from classical symphonies to film dialog use schoeps gear. Reputations are earned. Many, many people tape with Schoeps because of their flat frequency response (both on and off-axis) and uniform patterns.

I'm happy that you like what you like, but I just can't believe that you know (or can hear) something that noone else does.

Why do you think "no one else does"?

I have always listed the "best" (alphabetically) as: DPA, Gefell, Neumann, Schoeps and Sennheiser.

I would say these are all pretty equal and that none is really much better than the others.

BUT - the designers all have different ideas and come from different directions and they all sound different.  Not "better" or "worse", just different.

Some will do things better than others in a situation and it may be the other way round in a different situation.

That's why professionals will have a mix of several of the above brands and will choose the best one for the situation they find themselves in at the time.

[cashandkerouac]

Uh, hi--I'm here. I don't recall posting any such remark on GearSlutz, where I only visit about once a year, and I don't identify at all with the quote. It sounds a little more like something I might say about using shotgun microphones for stereo music recording--could that be it?
Here's my two cents on this topic. I think most people would be amazed to learn just how much reflected sound there is in any normal, clear-sounding recording, and how much sound in general reaches our microphones from angles that are quite far off axis. I'm convinced that a microphone's off-axis response is every bit as important as its on-axis response. To hear what I mean, if you ever get a chance to spend a minute or two in an anechoic chamber, by all means please try it. It is so totally different from anyplace where we normally hear music--and the experience underscores the huge degree to which reflected sound is necessary for recorded music to feel as if it's happening in our normal, living world and not in some abstracted laboratory space somewhere.

So I think that the off-axis response of a microphone really needs to be smooth and as neutral as possible, and particularly as free as possible of high-frequency and upper-midrange response peaks. This leads me to prefer small, high-quality, single-diaphragm condenser microphones. Condenser microphones have something of a reputation for sounding "bright," but I'm not talking about condensers that are artificially bright; there are certainly plenty of those, but there's nothing inherent in a capacitive transducer that means it has to be that way, and I avoid the ones that are.

I use Schoeps microphones more than any others, mainly because I find their midrange and upper midrange unhyped and natural sounding. Where super-to-hypercardioids are concerned, the Schoeps also has very good low-frequency response, and doesn't sound muffled or pinched when sound reaches it from off-axis. You could even say that the narrower a microphone's pattern is, the more its off-axis response matters--certainly for two-microphone stereo music recording.

The Neumann KM 150 or KM 185 is an alternative that I know well. I own a pair of KM 150s and I find definite uses for them, but rarely as the main stereo pair for music recording. In addition to their distinctly light low-frequency response (which I appreciate when I'm using them as spot mikes and in speech applications), they have a certain character in their upper midrange which, to my ears, makes them either exactly the right thing to use, or else very much the wrong thing.

Of course if every manufacturer made microphones with perfectly neutral sonic characteristics, then no one manufacturer could claim to offer a unique sound quality. Sometimes a company's reputation for having a certain "sound" isn't a pure blessing when they want to maintain their brand's identity--it can mean that they have to impose a certain sound quality on everything they make in order for it to seem like it's theirs. Personally, I find such imposed sound quality tiring to hear at any length.

yes, it probably was a comment in the thread about shotgun mics.  that makes sense.

many thanks for the feedback.  very helpful as always.

[Fried Chicken Boy]

I want to know who voted for the milabs. what samples have they heard that I haven't? (I haven't heard any....)

This.  I've never heard a Milab supercard sample, either, and am very much all ears if anyone can point us in the direction of at least one.

That aside, I've never owned any of the capsules listed but have listened to all of them.  I view the hyper/super pattern as a tool to do a certain job rather than using it for its sonic characteristics.  Most of them sound a little crispy on the high-end and lack low-end to me.  With that in mind, I voted for the Schoeps 41 since, to my ears, it's the most "un-hyper/super" sounding of the bunch. 

[hi and lo]

I want to know who voted for the milabs. what samples have they heard that I haven't? (I haven't heard any....)

This.  I've never heard a Milab supercard sample, either, and am very much all ears if anyone can point us in the direction of at least one.

That aside, I've never owned any of the capsules listed but have listened to all of them.  I view the hyper/super pattern as a tool to do a certain job rather than using it for its sonic characteristics.  Most of them sound a little crispy on the high-end and lack low-end to me.  With that in mind, I voted for the Schoeps 41 since, to my ears, it's the most "un-hyper/super" sounding of the bunch.

I guess I should vote on this. +t to the above comment; I voted and feel exactly the same.

I would be curious to hear more 41v tapes, but from my understanding the relationship between 41vs and 41s is not at all the same as 4vs vs 4s (with the extended HF bump) and differences are primarily functional (being side-addressed) rather than sonic. I'm sure there are some off-axis response differences (and maybe I'm not giving those enough credit), but generally speaking, I don't think they're all that applicable to our hobby, at least no in the same way as the 4v.

I would also like to hear the mi-labs hypers.