Topic: Using Schoeps 4V and 41V with B5D

[bombdiggity]

I had not noted they'd changed the wording and wonder if there may have been another interim phrasing in between those cited above? 

I got the B5D's before an outdoor festival (where I did wind up needing windscreens) since those were really the only ones I found that specifically indicated they could be used with the 4V's.  I was really happy with the results and got very clear recordings.  In that setting (mostly loud rock sets) perhaps reducing the bump made for a better fit with the mix.  Not having 2 pair I've never done an A - B but I have no reservations about using them whenever warranted and sometimes when they may not be required by circumstances. 

On the other point I remain surprised people call Schoepes muddy.  I bought them specifically because they sounded clearest and most accurate to me of what I'd listened to enough to get a rounded opinion.  IMO if the result is muddy that's what it sounded like where they were placed! 

[DSatz]

Some short notes, especially since this isn't a topic that I know much about.

• My initial take is like tonedeaf's--they probably felt that their older statement was too categorical, given that B 5 D physically can be used with the so-called vertical capsules.
• Any windscreen will affect not only the frequency response but also the polar pattern of a microphone to some degree—and those effects vary not only according to the size and construction of the windscreen, but also according to the capsule type (pressure vs. pressure gradient and/or the ratio between the two).
• Schoeps has a variable "wind machine" in house which they've used for researching and measuring these parameters; some years ago their former chief engineer, Jörg Wuttke, wrote an AES paper based on their findings, which I translated. But that doesn't make me any kind of expert on this topic; actually I have only a dim understanding of it. So I'll actually take some of the blame for the older statement about the B 5 D, since I wasn't knowledgeable enough to suggest something better, back when it was put into the catalog.

The perception some people have of Schoeps microphones as "muddy" is a side issue here, but I think the main reason is acoustics: In any given space there is a distance beyond which the majority of the sound that you can pick up with a microphone will be indirect. When you often record from beyond that distance, depending on the characteristics of the space, you might reasonably prefer the false clarity that can be caused by distortion and peaky treble response. A microphone that is objectively "better" may not be what you prefer for that situation, even if you would choose the better microphone under better acoustical conditions.

Plus, commercially more microphones are designed for speech than for music, and also for casual placement; meanwhile most naïve users tend to think that a microphone with elevated high frequency response has higher "fidelity" (sounds clearer, more detailed). So over the decades there has been an overwhelming market pressure to produce microphones with that type of response. It is actually rather difficult to find microphones that don't have it.

The business of so-called fast transients is also a side issue here; I'll just say that the widespread audiophile view of this issue is, so far as I know, entirely unfounded in physics. Two linear transducers cannot have the same frequency response while one has "faster" or "slower" transients than the other one. When people say that they hear differences of this kind (as with people who claim to hear phase response at high frequencies), I suspect they are hearing real differences in frequency response and/or distortion, but putting a fancier theoretical construction on their perceptions of things that are more basic.

--best regards

[bombdiggity]

Thanks. 

Any windscreen will affect not only the frequency response but also the polar pattern of a microphone to some degree—and those effects vary not only according to the size and construction of the windscreen, but also according to the capsule type (pressure vs. pressure gradient and/or the ratio between the two).

That was the main thing that inclined me to using the one that Schoeps recommended.  I originally was a bit too categorical in my statement but really I've not noticed any unpleasant effects with the B5D on the 4V.  Some of the best recordings I've gotten in a certain setting were that combo (and the setting was not entirely favorable to really good recordings).  In that situation I actually ran 3 pairs of mics on some shows and the 4V's won on all but one set where the mix really didn't translate well to that pair.  Of course there were windscreens on the other mics too ;-P 

The perception some people have of Schoeps microphones as "muddy" is a side issue here, but I think the main reason is acoustics: In any given space there is a distance beyond which the majority of the sound that you can pick up with a microphone will be indirect. When you often record from beyond that distance, depending on the characteristics of the space, you might reasonably prefer the false clarity that can be caused by distortion and peaky treble response. A microphone that is objectively "better" may not be what you prefer for that situation, even if you would choose the better microphone under better acoustical conditions.

Plus, commercially more microphones are designed for speech than for music, and also for casual placement; meanwhile most naïve users tend to think that a microphone with elevated high frequency response has higher "fidelity" (sounds clearer, more detailed). So over the decades there has been an overwhelming market pressure to produce microphones with that type of response. It is actually rather difficult to find microphones that don't have it.

A very useful set of points.  An audio text encapsulated a lot of this for me by carefully running through the concept and factors involved in "critical distance".  "Critical distance" being a term for a physical point (which is best thought of along an arc or line) in any given setting at which the proportion of indirect/reverberant sound captured is greater than the proportion of direct sound.  I always knew where it sounded best and as tapers we tend to learn to find this innately but that discussion put the physics and factors in a systematic construct that was useful (or at least confirmational). 

Thus the other discussions about mic selection/coloration/characteristics to compensate for aspects of the dilemma when we can't get a sweet spot or when there is no sweet spot.  Of course some like a little mud in their coffee instead   

[johnw]

Thank you DSatz. So the design of the B5D hasnt been changed, just the description.