Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: Karma on April 02, 2011, 01:48:31 PM
-
HI,
I see that a number of you use capsules rather than complete mics. This is new to me. What is the point? And how do you mount them?
Sparky
-
One mic body....several different cap patterns that screw on to said mic body.....now your ready for situation you walk into.
some use what is called an active set up....minus the mic body......same principal much lower profile set up....
The goal is to make as little a profile in the air....especially FOB....so your not blocking any lines of sight...specially the person running the board...
OOK
-
right now I own 3 pairs of bodies and 6 pairs of capsules (4 different patterns)
that's like owning 15 pairs of mics ;)
-
HI,
I sort of understand the concept but not the details. Is the capsule just the diaphram? Does that mean that any electronics would be contained in the body?
But I have seen just the capsules with no body. How does that work? Is more needed before the preamp? In my case it would be a mixer.
And, I again ask how you mount the capsules? How do you feed phantom power?
And I think you are saying that this saves money. Right?
Thanks, Sparky
-
HI,
I sort of understand the concept but not the details. Is the capsule just the diaphram? Does that mean that any electronics would be contained in the body?
Depends on the manufactuer, but they all have something in the cap itself, it's just how much. Schoeps has special circuitry in the connecting cables between cap and body so they have the least of any setup that I can think of right off hand. Others, such as Neumann, Beyerdynamic, or MBHO put more circuitry in the capsule and use passive/normal cables between the two.
But I have seen just the capsules with no body. How does that work? Is more needed before the preamp? In my case it would be a mixer.
The bodies typically sit in your bag instead of in the air, what most setups do is just seperate them so that you have less stuff in the air is all. So your chain is still cap > cable > body > normal XLR cable > preamp et al. You would still feed the bodies P48 (or whatever voltage is appropriate), and they translate that into the necessary current and polarization voltage that is sent to the caps. Now, in some setups, such as a "lemosax" (sonosax sx-m2/ls model), an nbox, or other such special devices, the bodies can be completely removed as those will provide both gain, and the appropriate voltages to the capsules.
And, I again ask how you mount the capsules?
And I think you are saying that this saves money. Right?
I have some pictures of mine, but they typically can be done in what's called a kwonbar style setup with a single shockmount (there are other threads around here with pictures such as this one (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=29225.0)), and some companies provide special mounting equipment (beyerdynamic and milab are two that comes to mind).
As for saving money, unless you can buy caps and bodies separately (and can find a cheap option of replacing the bodies and preamp in one shot), it won't, it's mainly useful in terms of options, and size.
-
Here is a link to a few of my pics, which show JUST the mic capsule+Cable on my stand :)
http://www.mediafire.com/?2a7s9acfnzpj6
-
HI All,
Thanks for your replies. I think I understand more now. See what you get for being helpful.....more questions!! I followed the links and read the associated threads. You all definitely speak a new language. For example, the internet has no idea what MBHO means except for some health care definitions. I don't think that is what you are saying. So, what exactly does MBHO mean? And kwon bar (I think I know what this one is from the pictures)?
Page, thanks for your very specific answers. Now I can ask better questions and get to the heart of the matter.
Bean, your pictures are very helpful. It appears that you have a full featured erector set when you set up. I assume all those clamps are to handle different mounting situations. Now I can see how they are mounted. All this is totally new to me.
I think I must be missing something. Are you saying the only reason to go to capsules is to reduce the visual impact of a full bodied mic? Gaining more options are also mentioned. How does a capsule give those options. Some examples might help. How does reducing the visual impact help and why is it important especially in a studio environment? Mics aren't THAT big, are they? You must think these issues are important because you all are clearly jumping through hoops to use capsules.
What are the sonic consequences of using capsules? Are they offering improved sonics or are they mostly a logistical issue?
One last one. Are use of capsules rather than complete mics an exotic practice? Are they "bleeding edge" technology? I ask because I have never noticed their use before. Do I just need to be more observant? And I have also noticed that many mic manufacturers do not offer just a capsule. So, this must not be a universal practice, at least not yet. Obviously, a singer who likes to hand hold a mic needs a complete mic. So, are capsules used mostly for the individulal insruments or overall stage coverage? I have never seen a capsule on a stand in front of the singer.
Thanks a bunch for your patience and help.
Sparky
-
HI All,
Thanks for your replies. I think I understand more now. See what you get for being helpful.....more questions!! I followed the links and read the associated threads. You all definitely speak a new language. For example, the internet has no idea what MBHO means except for some health care definitions. I don't think that is what you are saying. So, what exactly does MBHO mean? And kwan bar (I think I know what this one is from the pictures)?
You'll find some info about MBHO's mics here, the company site will have the cap model numbers (e.g. kn200) that you can use when searching. First two results for "mbho" on google are for the company site.
Robert Kwon crafted the original bars. They are made of either PVC or delrin (depending on who made them, the originals are delrin IIRC) and they are cut on the ends in two ways; one is across the end at an angle, the other is a slit down the shaft of the bar. The first cut creates the angle of the caps (and spacing by how much is cut off) and the slit is for the cable exists behind the capsule. Models are almost always specific to a mic brand as the cap distance is different (so bar lengths will be different, e.g. for a true ORTF setup)
I think I must be missing something. Are you saying the only reason to go to capsules is to reduce the visual impact of a full bodied mic? Gaining more options are also mentioned. How does a capsule give those options. Some examples might help. How does reducing the visual impact help and why is it important? Mics aren't THAT big, are they? You must think these issues are important because you all are clearly jumping through hoops to use capsules.
Really it basically is visual impact and options;
- Often times people here will want to setup their recording gear in densely packed places or between the sound crew and the stage (hence forth known as FOB, Impact Zone, Up Front, etc). To run a full set of bodies in these circumstances is more likely to incur a request to move out of the way by venue staff due to the visual impediment compared to someone who has a very low visual foot print.
- Some folks like to use their gear in situations where they are not supposed to (either completely, or it is frowned upon by bands/venues/etc). So being visually transparent is considered a real benefit in these situations. For example, one would have much more trouble recording in front of the soundboard at a Phish show with LD mics compared to SD mics that employ a remote-style setup. (other precautions are advised in addition to, but a smaller footprint still holds true
Second, as for options. With the Schoeps line, if you buy the CCMs, you pay for the cap and body circuitry each time you purchase a new pattern. With a single set of CMC bodies, you can then buy a set of MK4V caps, MK41 caps, MK21 caps, etc. That selection of caps (and polar patterns) is the noted "options", instead of having to purchase the body circuitry over and over again, you have a modular setup that can be purchased in pieces. Not every manufacturer will do this, but the majority seem to be open to that.
What are the sonic consequences of using capsules? Are they offering improved sonics or are they mostly a logistical issue?
Just logistical. In the case of Schoeps, the MK series of caps that are used in the remote line are the same caps that are used in either the CCM or full body line. Most of the time if there is a remote edition, it's the same capsule in a different setup rather then a different sounding product all together.
One last one. Are use of capsules rather than complete mics an exotic practice? So, are capsules used mostly for the individulal insruments or overall stage coverage? I have never seen a capsule on a stand in front of the singer.
(note, I rearranged your post so I'd only have to quote/reply once, this was intentional)
It's uncommon as a whole, and generally centered on a few applications/genres (Theater and Orchestral music come to mind where a small visual foot print is valued). The places I've seen them used professionally (again, going back to the theater and orchestra examples), they are used as fill/room mics and not as spot mics.
Are they "bleeding edge" technology? I ask because I have never noticed their use before. Do I just need to be more observant? And I have also noticed that many mic manufacturers do not offer just a capsule. So, this must not be a universal practice, at least not yet. Obviously, a singer who likes to hand hold a mic needs a complete mic.
Schoeps and Neumann have done remote setups since at least the 80s. DPA has traditionally made very small setup which many here have considered comparable to a "cap system" because of it's size and remote-ness although it is only recently that DPA has introduced a true cap changeable system. Otherwise, you wouldn't necessarily see them in a studio (being unobtrusive isn't a value there), or on stage (cost), or at the mixing desk at a concert for a band's fill channels (again, they don't care, no incentive).
Off the top of my head, Schoeps has the largest selection of remote cap options, while Neumann, MBHO, beyerdynamic, milab, (now) DPA, and (only very special vintage setups) AKG all have selections that folks here will use to some degree or another. There are probably some others, it's early in the morning where I am.
-
Page takes it for the best early morning info packed post.
Props.
-
right now I own 3 pairs of bodies and 6 pairs of capsules (4 different patterns)
that's like owning 15 pairs of mics ;)
It's like owning 15 pairs of mics, unless you want to use them all at the same time, in which case it's more like owing 6 mics. Just sayin'..
-
right now I own 3 pairs of bodies and 6 pairs of capsules (4 different patterns)
that's like owning 15 pairs of mics ;)
It's like owning 15 pairs of mics, unless you want to use them all at the same time, in which case it's more like owing 6 mics. Just sayin'..
valid point if I were recording multitrack
but for stereo audience recording it's nice to have so many options without having to carry that many different mics
-
> I have never seen a capsule on a stand in front of the singer.
Please see attached photo (these are Schoeps).
-
> I have never seen a capsule on a stand in front of the singer.
Please see attached photo (these are Schoeps).
HI DSatz,
I stand corrected. That's pretty neat. They really are small and it appears there are two capsules per singer. Who makes those mic stands?
Page, thanks for your great answers. So MBHO is actually a manufacturer. That's why my Google search failed. I thought it was an acronym so I asked Google to "define" MBHO. Google tried but did not show the company. See, it really is a new language to me.
Everybody, thanks for your replies. This has been a very good thread. Maybe some day I will learn enough to be able to say I know something.
Sparky
-
Page, thanks for your great answers. So MBHO is actually a manufacturer. That's why my Google search failed. I thought it was an acronym so I asked Google to "define" MBHO. Google tried but did not show the company. See, it really is a new language to me.
no worries, it's a learning process.
-
Karma, the capsule of a condenser microphone is basically a small-value air capacitor, so at audio frequencies it has an extremely high output impedance. This creates special problems for connecting the capsule to the microphone's amplifier (circuitry) and from there to rest of your recording equipment. You can't, for example, simply connect an extension cable of arbitrary length to the capsule's output and then place the microphone's amplifier wherever it would be convenient, or else much of the signal would be lost in the cable, the noise would increase and the frequency response would likely come out wrong.
However, for many years, passive capsule extensions were sometimes used despite these disadvantages--the best of them were carefully designed and constructed, and were only a few inches to maybe two feet long at most. The modern, effective way to operate the capsule apart from its amplifier (favored since this approach was introduced the early 1970s) is to put the first stage of the amplifier circuitry directly behind the capsule--either by integrating it into the capsule housing, or by integrating it into the extension cable at the point where that cable attaches to the capsule.
There is no industry standard whatsoever for the connectors or contacts between a capsule and its electronics. Just as the various manufacturers don't make it easy to use other manufacturers' capsules on their amplifiers or vice versa, each manufacturer offers its own selection of devices for use between the amplifier and capsule--and in general, those are the only ones that can physically be used with that brand or type of microphone.
The broad general extension types are cables, tubes (as in the photo I posted), pivots, and "goosenecks." Some manufacturers also offer accessories that can be placed between the capsules and amplifiers of their microphones for special purposes, e.g. filters or attenuators.
--best regards
-
So, what exactly does MBHO mean?
MBHO is a German manufacturer of very high quality mics. Close to Schoeps in quality, but much cheaper (they also make OEM capsules for such top mic. manufacturers as Brauner and Soundfield).
Their website is HERE (http://www.mbho.de/t1.htm) and there are some specs also here (http://www.amptec.de/test/Alle%20Seiten/MBHO/MBHO%20capsules.html).
I hope this helps.
-
HI All,
John, thanks for the links. I'm starting to understand the context of the world of capsules. I saw MBHO mentioned in posts with respect to accessories very often. It's no wonder that I thought MBHO was an obscure acronym since "MBHO" was never defined. MBHO offers no accessories for mounting or anything else. So, they are depending on the user to solve that problem with duct tape or whatever kludge folks might come up with. It is now obvious to me why people were excited to have new mounting accessories for MBHO mics from third parties. Without doing a comprehensive research, the world of MBHO accessories seems like a relative desert.
Schoeps, OTH, is a one stop shop for anything a person might need to implement their mics. I'm very impressed with the range of accessories they offer. I think they must be a very smart company. And this is not to mention the quality of their products that so many seem to admire. Personally, I can't confirm this but the pictures certainly look good and their reputation seems solid.
Too bad Schoeps mics cost a fortune but they are probably worth it. The best always is. Cosmic Law #2: You Get What You Pay For.
Sparky
-
HI All,
John, thanks for the links. I'm starting to understand the context of the world of capsules. I saw MBHO mentioned in posts with respect to accessories very often. It's no wonder that I thought MBHO was an obscure acronym since "MBHO" was never defined. MBHO offers no accessories for mounting or anything else. So, they are depending on the user to solve that problem with duct tape or whatever kludge folks might come up with. It is now obvious to me why people were excited to have new mounting accessories for MBHO mics from third parties. Without doing a comprehensive research, the world of MBHO accessories seems like a relative desert.
Schoeps, OTH, is a one stop shop for anything a person might need to implement their mics. I'm very impressed with the range of accessories they offer. I think they must be a very smart company. And this is not to mention the quality of their products that so many seem to admire. Personally, I can't confirm this but the pictures certainly look good and their reputation seems solid.
Too bad Schoeps mics cost a fortune but they are probably worth it. The best always is. Cosmic Law #2: You Get What You Pay For.
Sparky
MBHO accessories are HERE (http://www.mbho.de/pdf/accessories.pdf).
Though for mic. mounting I would use Rycote InVision mounts (http://www.rycote.com/products/invision_broadcast/).
-
Though for mic. mounting I would use Rycote InVision mounts (http://www.rycote.com/products/invision_broadcast/).
I second this. I Went thru a lot of elastic suspensions over the years and I like the Rycote Invision stuff very much.
Just bought one for the RSM 191. For quick mounting and no heavy use I like the inexpensive Rode SM4 mounted on a Rycote handle.
-
^^ Third on this. If you don't want to spend the coin on Schoeps (consider that they do pop up used from time to time, and so long as they're treated properly, a used set is as good as a new set and will cost a ton less), I wouldn't shy from the MBHOs for a second because of some issue like mounting options. Those Rycote mounts are cheaper than many of the mounts offered by the manufacturers themselves (DPA and Schoeps and Neumann's exorbitantly priced mounts all come to mind) and they work beautifully.
-
^^ Third on this. If you don't want to spend the coin on Schoeps (consider that they do pop up used from time to time, and so long as they're treated properly, a used set is as good as a new set and will cost a ton less), I wouldn't shy from the MBHOs for a second because of some issue like mounting options. Those Rycote mounts are cheaper than many of the mounts offered by the manufacturers themselves (DPA and Schoeps and Neumann's exorbitantly priced mounts all come to mind) and they work beautifully.
+4
I use one in a kwonbar-style setup and I've been rather happy with it.
On the note about setups; often I find that because what we do is a niche activity compared to others (whether stage crews, studio engineers, or theater setups), we seem to be more inclined to create a solution that meets our needs (and employ a bit of creativity) instead of buying a pre-done/COTS setup. Yeah, I need a touch of gaffer tape to help construct the kwonbar-like object I use, but it works rather well and meets my needs.
-
You can check out MBHO recordings at the bottom of everyone of my posts, under my LMA recordings
-
^^ Third on this. If you don't want to spend the coin on Schoeps (consider that they do pop up used from time to time, and so long as they're treated properly, a used set is as good as a new set and will cost a ton less), I wouldn't shy from the MBHOs for a second because of some issue like mounting options. Those Rycote mounts are cheaper than many of the mounts offered by the manufacturers themselves (DPA and Schoeps and Neumann's exorbitantly priced mounts all come to mind) and they work beautifully.
I have actually swapped over all my manufacturer suspensions and now use the Rycote ones for everything - not because they are cheaper (which they are) - but because they are better.
Rycote are now making OEM for a large number of manufacturers who now find this the better option.
-
I believe MBHO is an acronym for Mikrofonbau Haun (Obrigheim). I wouldn't go as far as John Willett--the microphones are very respectable, better than 75 or 80% of what else is out there. I'd put them in the same tier as, say, Beyer but not so close to Schoeps despite the obvious visual similarity of their exterior designs and the statement on their Web site that their chief engineer used to work for Schoeps (without saying how many decades ago, for how long or what his job was). Their microphones are good enough to stand on their own without such marketing crutches.
--best regards
-
right now I own 3 pairs of bodies and 6 pairs of capsules (4 different patterns)
that's like owning 15 pairs of mics ;)
It's like owning 15 pairs of mics, unless you want to use them all at the same time, in which case it's more like owing 6 mics. Just sayin'..
valid point if I were recording multitrack
but for stereo audience recording it's nice to have so many options without having to carry that many different mics
I suppose that is true about not having to carry so many different mics.
OP...you may want to have a hard look at the AKG 460 line. Either the ck61 or ck63 capsules sound fantastic on the 460 bodies for audience recordings.
-
I have actually swapped over all my manufacturer suspensions and now use the Rycote ones for everything - not because they are cheaper (which they are) - but because they are better.
Rycote are now making OEM for a large number of manufacturers who now find this the better option.
So true. Another member here turned me on to them and I have been thrilled. They are easy to use, reliable, and effective. I have watched them vibrate quite a bit while suspended from an extension arm off of a balcony, and my recordings remained free of noise.
I don't own any Schoeps mounts, but I do have some of the DPA products - which basically cost as much for a single mount as a pair of the Rycotes - and they are nowhere near the flexibility or build quality.