Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: cashandkerouac on January 22, 2011, 04:30:58 PM
-
hello: i haven't been able to find too much info/discussion of the Beyerdynamic ck930 mics. however, what i have found in the way of comments has been positive. i've also been able to access some sound samples, which to me sound very nice. i'd appreciate any comments/opinions on these mics, and am also curious how folks feel they stack up against the km140 mics. thanks.
-
Lots of info and samples of various Beyer models in the team boards, for v4 try http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=115606.0 - also the first three versions have even more info, to access them scroll back through the team board index
-
thanks for the info. i'm reading through the thread now. good stuff.
-
i'd appreciate any comments/opinions on these mics, and am also curious how folks feel they stack up against the km140 mics.
I'm sure he'll find his way to this thread, but user 'page' uses the ck930 and I believe also has past/current experiences with the 140s as well, so he would be a good person to hit up for info/thoughts/opinions.
-
I've been using the beyerdynamic CK930 mics for almost two years now. before these mics, I owned a pair of Microtech Gefell m200's, and before that, a pair of Neumann km184's. while I've never really used the km140's, I'm very familiar with their sound.
In general, my thoughts on the CK930's are that they have a very flat frequency response. Because many mics that "tapers" use have a bump in the mids/mids-highs, the CK930's don't have that "sparkle" in the high end. you're not going to get that with the CK930's, but I think the recordings made with the CK930's are very accurate as a result. I think the CK930's are best paired with a transparent pre-amp, such as the Grace V3 or a Sonosax SX-M2.
Personally, I like these mics more than the Neumann km140's, but it's close. the overall tone of the mics is similar to the Neumann's, so if you like one, you'll probably like the other. but I like the way the CK930's handle the bass better than the km140's.
-
In general, my thoughts on the CK930's are that they have a very flat frequency response. Because many mics that "tapers" use have a bump in the mids/mids-highs, the CK930's don't have that "sparkle" in the high end. you're not going to get that with the CK930's, but I think the recordings made with the CK930's are very accurate as a result. I think the CK930's are best paired with a transparent pre-amp, such as the Grace V3 or a Sonosax SX-M2.
Personally, I like these mics more than the Neumann km140's, but it's close. the overall tone of the mics is similar to the Neumann's, so if you like one, you'll probably like the other. but I like the way the CK930's handle the bass better than the km140's.
I agree with a number of points here:
They don't sparkle the same way that the km140/km184s do because their peak is around 12khz, not 8khz or so. That means that they rely upon more "air" to brighten the soundstage and less meat of the cymbal crash to brighten it. As a result of that, they seems much more natural to me and less grating. Second, their bass roll off is less, however they are able to control the 80hz-60hz region much better and you don't get this out of control or flatulence type bass. Last, the bass has an almost a saturated texture when I compare it to the neumanns. I personally like it and in my experience, find that the sound sig is a nice balance between what I personally like, and what represent the room I'm recording in.
I'll also agree with Jason, feed the signal through a rather transparent signal chain. The caps naturally exhibit a sonic warmth in the sub 500hz region. The ck9xx line and the mc9xx line use the same caps and sonic signature, so that may be of help in research. As for specific questions about the CK line, Jason and I both run them. I have custom cables made for mine (nothing real special like the schoeps line), but given a pinch, I am rather sure I could use a lemosax or tinybox (cap version) to power them without the bodies.
-
I've been a fan of the Beyerdynamic MC930 for a long time. A stereo matched pair at around $800 is hard to beat. The CK (active) version are quite a bit more, and unfortunately, don't come in matched pairs.
As for the sound, I find them very neutral, not as much high end as the Neumanns. They are not quite as detailed as some others (like AKG 46x/48x), but I find the sound much more pleasant. Just a really smooth and controlled sound. Let's put it this way, I've never said, "I wish I recorded with x", some other mic x.
Richard
-
I've been a fan of the Beyerdynamic MC930 for a long time. A stereo matched pair at around $800 is hard to beat. The CK (active) version are quite a bit more, and unfortunately, don't come in matched pairs.
possible, but only by special request and real effort/delay. I had a lot of negotiation with Pro-Sound who went to bat for me with beyerdynamic for both my sets. Also, when they did my 930 set, it was "this cap + body combo are matched to this cap + body." I'm assuming that the bodies are not different, but that's how it was tested and written. The upside is it didn't cost extra, just delayed shipment.
-
I am confused. The MC930 frequency chart shows a non-linear response, similar to the KM184. Then, take a look at the CK61, which is almost ruler flat from 20-20K. The descriptions of these mics responses does not follow with the specifications, or what I hear listening to recordings made with these mics.
-
I am confused. The MC930 frequency chart shows a non-linear response, similar to the KM184. Then, take a look at the CK61, which is almost ruler flat from 20-20K. The descriptions of these mics responses does not follow with the specifications, or what I hear listening to recordings made with these mics.
I somewhat agree that they are not linear above about 4khz, but that they are (as Richard mentioned) natural to me. I think beyer did some real smoothing on the example plots as my 930s gain around 5db at 12khz, but the (example) plots don't really reflect that. To me that (on my playback gear) sounds more natural for what I heard at the show than this sound texture at a straight flat response (although I keep wanting to say there is a slight hole at 1k, but I think that's either my hearing or my playback equipment).
-
Although graphs tell a story they don't tell the whole story. Remember the graph generally published are those measured at 0 degrees from the sound source. pointing dead on.. While the frequency response may be way different at 45 degrees and 90 degrees from the sound source and at a further distance from the source.... Also most measurements are with 6 inches of the source while we record several feet to several yards away from the source.
OOK
-
Although graphs tell a story they don't tell the whole story. Remember the graph generally published are those measured at 0 degrees from the sound source. pointing dead on.. While the frequency response may be way different at 45 degrees and 90 degrees from the sound source and at a further distance from the source.... Also most measurements are with 6 inches of the source while we record several feet to several yards away from the source.
OOK
Good point
-
Although graphs tell a story they don't tell the whole story. Remember the graph generally published are those measured at 0 degrees from the sound source. pointing dead on.. While the frequency response may be way different at 45 degrees and 90 degrees from the sound source and at a further distance from the source.... Also most measurements are with 6 inches of the source while we record several feet to several yards away from the source.
OOK
You are correct in your observation, but your conclusion is off. The reason that these measurements are made on-axis is because that is the only point with a cardioid, or any other capsule for that matter, where sensitivity is constant and all the frequencies are lined up on the polar pattern as a single line. At 45 and 90 degrees to the sound source, no capsule is linear, except an omni. So really, these measurements are quite accurate to the overall response curve from one mic to another.
-
Although graphs tell a story they don't tell the whole story. Remember the graph generally published are those measured at 0 degrees from the sound source. pointing dead on.. While the frequency response may be way different at 45 degrees and 90 degrees from the sound source and at a further distance from the source.... Also most measurements are with 6 inches of the source while we record several feet to several yards away from the source.
OOK
You are correct in your observation, but your conclusion is off. The reason that these measurements are made on-axis is because that is the only point with a cardioid, or any other capsule for that matter, where sensitivity is constant and all the frequencies are lined up on the polar pattern as a single line. At 45 and 90 degrees to the sound source, no capsule is linear, except an omni. So really, these measurements are quite accurate to the overall response curve from one mic to another.
Actually I am not. You make my point better than I did. They are not linear. They have different peaks and valleys off axis which give the impression a mic is bright or muddy...
-
Beyond the on-axis vs off-axis issue regarding testing, I'm also curious about tested free field response vs actual diffuse field response when used at distance. Most tests are done at 1m I believe. IIRC, the frequency response changes as you move from the free field to the diffuse field (thus something that has a high-freq boost in the free field will have a flat freq response in the diffuse field). I think that is all correct. ???
Anyway, if so, it then makes me wonder if the change in frequency response with distance (as you move to a diffuse field response) is the same for all mics (matter of physics or something), or if the free field to diffuse field frequency response varies from mic to mic. If the latter, then used at a distance in the diffuse field, some of these mics discussed might indeed have a flat freq response even though they do not show a flat free field response in their literature. Conversely, the AKGs might not have a flat diffuse field response even though they are flat in the free field.
In short, I'm wondering if the published free field frequency plots mean definitively that the mic has a flat frequency response at a distance in the diffuse field (and vice versa for mics showing peaks in the high end of their free field freq response).
-
Although graphs tell a story they don't tell the whole story. Remember the graph generally published are those measured at 0 degrees from the sound source. pointing dead on.. While the frequency response may be way different at 45 degrees and 90 degrees from the sound source and at a further distance from the source.... Also most measurements are with 6 inches of the source while we record several feet to several yards away from the source.
OOK
You are correct in your observation, but your conclusion is off. The reason that these measurements are made on-axis is because that is the only point with a cardioid, or any other capsule for that matter, where sensitivity is constant and all the frequencies are lined up on the polar pattern as a single line. At 45 and 90 degrees to the sound source, no capsule is linear, except an omni. So really, these measurements are quite accurate to the overall response curve from one mic to another.
Actually I am not. You make my point better than I did. They are not linear. They have different peaks and valleys off axis which give the impression a mic is bright or muddy...
I agree with you. The polar chart for the CK61s show the peaks and valleys by frequency from 60 degrees to 90 degrees off axis clearly. Since the mics' polar patterns vary in sensitivity by frequency off axis, and don't vary directly on axis, using this for an industry standard way to measure is really the only fair way to do it. It's similar to the way audio amplifier manufacturers use dummy loads to test and establish the amp's power output specs to simulate the resistance of a loudspeaker's voice coil, rather than using actual loudspeakers so consumers have some kind of apples to apples measurement to compare with.
I will say that I always liked the M160 ribbons and the M88s I used on occasion back in the '80s taping the Dead, and think the 930s are a great value for the price, no question.
-
The polar chart for the CK61s show the peaks and valleys by frequency from 60 degrees to 90 degrees off axis clearly. Since the mics' polar patterns vary in sensitivity by frequency off axis, and don't vary directly on axis, using this for an industry standard way to measure is really the only fair way to do it. It's similar to the way audio amplifier manufacturers use dummy loads to test and establish the amp's power output specs to simulate the resistance of a loudspeaker's voice coil, rather than using actual loudspeakers so consumers have some kind of apples to apples measurement to compare with.
It doesn't help that the distance using in measurement sometimes differs. I swear between neumann and schoeps (or someone else) they use a different distance. Might be beyer, I can't remember, but I distinctly trying to reconcile the difference in distance in comparing plots which aggravated me.
I will say that I always liked the M160 ribbons and the M88s I used on occasion back in the '80s taping the Dead, and think the 930s are a great value for the price, no question.
Thats how I look at it. I could get closer to the sound I want, but I'd have to spend a shit ton more money to do it and it's not that big of a difference for me to care at this point in my life.