Topic: COMP: Schoeps mk4 vs. Nakamichi Cm300/cp1

[Patrick]

Since I obviously have nothing better to do on a Saturday, I thought I'd try and tackle some of my transfers that have been backing up for a few months.     I also decided to really compare some of my 4-channel recordings and make a few different mixes, just to see how flexable I can be with 4 mics and an R4.  I dropped some files into Pro Tools and took a look at their frequency analysis, thanks to a really handy Soundfield plugin.

I used the following show:

Widspread Panic
Verizon Wireless Ampitheater - Charlotte, NC
07/27/2007

Source: Schoeps mk4 (ortf)> kc5> cmc6xt + Nakamichi Cm300 (active p48 mod)/cp1 (nos) > Edirol R4 (24/44.1)
Location: Section 2, Row U, Seats 20+21; FOB, RoC ±3', 7' high

I used the intro of "Junior" as an example; it's a pretty hard hitting song at the beginning with a pretty wide range of frequencies (high register lead guiar, B3 organ, huge kick and bass hits, etc.)  Remember that both of these pairs of mics are cardioid, they were on the same stand literally inches apart, and were running into a stock R4, each preamp/adc/word clock and powering scheme are identical accross all 4 channels.

When looking at the screenshots below, pay more attention to the orange line (max freqs.) rather than the yellow line, which is what the plugin heard the moment that I took the screenshot (obviously different timing for both sources).  The bottom window also shows the "relative" imaging of the signal; again pay attention to the yellow line instead of the blue area.  This basically shows how far/wide the stereo image was recorded.  It's very subjective but it will certainly work for this comp.

Here's the Schoeps source:



...and the Nakamichi source:



I find it interesting that even though the Nakamichi's were being run in a NOS pattern, that the schoeps still have a "wider" stereo image according to the software.  You can certainly hear it as well, the Nakamichi source sounds more "in your face" compared to the schoeps, which is more "airy" sounding and sounds more like a huge shed, in both a good and bad way.  At the same time, I feel like the schoeps source has somewhat of a "hole in the middle" sound, while the nak's sound a little more narrow.  This also could be attributed to our position, which was not DFC, but pretty damn close.

I also find it strange that the Schoeps source has a very steep shelf at about 17khz, despite the bodies being cmc6xt's (which are supposed to have "extended" frequency response compared to the cmc5/6 series).  The nakamichi source gradually rolls off in the high frequencies instead of having a rather harsh shelf. 

Honestly, I always am suprised when I do comparisons like this, the Cm300's (± $400 mics) definitely hold their own against the Schoeps ($3000 mics) if used correctly.  However, one obvious difference in the mics is the bass response.  A lot of people knock Schoeps for being "muddy," but they really do handle the bass frequencies really well.  If you've ever been to a WSP show, you know they always have that really fat, "feel it in your chest" bass hits.  This is where the Schoeps shine, and the Nak's fail.  The Nak's always have had a very dull sounding bas response; it sounds undefinied and somewhat flabby.  I'm not sure if it's worth the price difference for the two sets of mics, but IMO that is what separates the men from the boys. 

I think that both sources sound good independently, but sound fantastic when summed together.  You get the benefits of both sets of mics, stereo patterns, etc.  I upped both independent clips as well as the final "mix" of the two so you can geett a feel for what I am working with.  Click 'em below:

Nakamichi
Schoeps
Both Sources (Summed)

Anyone have any comments (except that I am a nerd?  )

[BC]

I also find it strange that the Schoeps source has a very steep shelf at about 17khz, despite the bodies being cmc6xt's (which are supposed to have "extended" frequency response compared to the cmc5/6 series).  The nakamichi source gradually rolls off in the high frequencies instead of having a rather harsh shelf. 

WRT this observation, there was probably very little >15kHz material coming out of the PA to for the mics to pick up. This is some interesting analysis, thanks for sharing.

[PH]

very nice comp. well done.

[stevetoney]

Granted I'm not probably gonna be your most expert listener.  The best sound system I have is through my computer using creative extigy sound card into a pair of sony MDR-V600 phones.  However, you asked for comments and since I did something similar last week and was pretty disappointed that only a few people gave me opinions, thought I'd give some thoughts. 

First...amazing how well the Naks hold up to the Schoeps.  I think that if you were to separate these two sources by a little bit of time, I would challenge anyone to be able to tell them apart.

The two mics definitely come from the same neighborhood in terms of output sound coloration and have very similar overall sounds to them.  This is definitely more a positive statement for the Naks than a knock on the Schoeps...that a pair of mics costing less than 20% the cost of the Schoeps can sound so good and so close.

However, of course the Schoeps source definitely sounds better and has a more mature overall feel and sound.  Less grit and edge, more cream and roundness.

I felt that the summed source took on alot of the feel and color of the Nak sample.  In fact, to my ears, the summed didn't really sound much of a summed sample as a slightly louder version of the Nak sample.  Frankly, I preferred the overall sound of the Schoeps by itself to the summed sample or the Nak sample. 

To me, the grit and edge was what caused the Nak sample to sound worse than the Schoeps, so pulling that grit into the summed source was, for me, a detraction from the overall sound rather than a compliment to the schoeps sample.

One thing to note is that there is a definite level boost on the summed source so that alone made the summed source feel a bit more 'in your face'.  As a result, it's possible that might have biased my listening conclusions a little bit but I don't know. 

(FWIW, I listened to each sample three times and didn't really listen with what I'd call a detailed critical ear, anayzing all freq ranges for what they sound like...it was more of a general listen to the big picture and consider the general feel of each sample.)

+T for the comp though.  Cool to hear these things because frankly, there's too much talk and not enough data on this board.  That's not a criticism so much as it is an observation of the reality of our list.  Wish more people would post comps and samples to provide examples of what their gear sounds like and what they are often attempting to convey in words.

[jerryfreak]

the 'airy' sound of the schoeps at ortf is why i never run them this way, esp indoors. I always run 75-90 deg, ive found the mk4s work best when pointed at about the stacks. I prefer a good clear sound the the (debateable) 'better' imaging that ortf gives.

you tend to pick up a lot more room noise/reflections with the ortf, as opposed to predominantly direct pa sound

[SmokinJoe]

Excellent comp!  +T  Since I'm the family guy with wife/kids/house/mortgage, the Naks are in my budget.  Realistically, I think that most people who can afford the Schoeps are also the same people with a really nice playback system, so they really can hear the difference.  Since I don't have a great playback system I don't hear the difference so much, making the apparent mic difference even less.

[brianp]

the 'airy' sound of the schoeps at ortf is why i never run them this way, esp indoors. I always run 75-90 deg, ive found the mk4s work best when pointed at about the stacks. I prefer a good clear sound the the (debateable) 'better' imaging that ortf gives.

you tend to pick up a lot more room noise/reflections with the ortf, as opposed to predominantly direct pa sound

crazy talk. If you are hearing too much room or too many reflections than youre too far from the source, and probably shouldnt be using the ortf pattern to begin with. In my experience from the sweet spot, even in crappy rooms nothing beats a set of mk4s run ortf.

[jerryfreak]

unfortunately the 'sweet spot' is almost always in the middle of the crowd, and ortf is great if you want to hear the conversations of the people behind/beside you instead of the music. But i usually run fob at head-height, ymmv in the rare place you can put up a tall stand in the sweet spot (high sierra comes to mind)

crazy talk. If you are hearing too much room or too many reflections than youre too far from the source, and probably shouldnt be using the ortf pattern to begin with. In my experience from the sweet spot, even in crappy rooms nothing beats a set of mk4s run ortf.

[Stagger]

A lot of people knock Schoeps for being "muddy," but they really do handle the bass frequencies really well.  If you've ever been to a WSP show, you know they always have that really fat, "feel it in your chest" bass hits. 

Cool comp! This reason is exactly why I have pretty much exclusivly been running M/S post production for Panic these days. The ability to control that bottom end that not many home systems can do justice to (including mine to be truthfull..) and measure it against the stereo image is so valuable IMHO. If Charles reads this he will try to give me shit (again) but I don't see much value in running M/S on the fly. With post production you can get the smoth and tight low end, as much air as you want and tue your recording to your system. I haven't heard on person say my m/s recordings were muddy (at least not when I'm listening) at all.

[Patrick]

A lot of people knock Schoeps for being "muddy," but they really do handle the bass frequencies really well.  If you've ever been to a WSP show, you know they always have that really fat, "feel it in your chest" bass hits. 

Cool comp! This reason is exactly why I have pretty much exclusivly been running M/S post production for Panic these days. The ability to control that bottom end that not many home systems can do justice to (including mine to be truthfull..) and measure it against the stereo image is so valuable IMHO. If Charles reads this he will try to give me shit (again) but I don't see much value in running M/S on the fly. With post production you can get the smoth and tight low end, as much air as you want and tue your recording to your system. I haven't heard on person say my m/s recordings were muddy (at least not when I'm listening) at all.

Funny you mention this, beacuse I ran true mk8/mk4 m/s for the first time this weekend, and am very pleased with the results.  Very clean finished product that blends nicely with the sbd feed I also pulled.  I really liked the control that I had in post-production and agree that running m/s on the fly kind of defeats the purpose of the configuration, although I'm sure over time you get a better idea of what ratios to run in certain situations.  Anyways, it's a config that I will certainly be using in the future