Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: johnw on July 12, 2013, 11:30:48 PM
-
I just became aware that Schoeps has revised its position on using these capsules with the B5D windscreen.
The new description reads "Although it has not been designed for that purpose, it is possible to use it on the MK 4V, MK 41V or MK 4VXS microphone capsules and the corresponding CCM Compact Condenser Microphones. The microphone’s slight inherent high-frequency emphasis is then compensated for."
http://www.schoeps.de/en/products/b5d
The old description (now gone from Schoeps website) read "The B 5 D cannot be used with side-address transducers such as MK 4 V, MK 41 V, MK 6, or MK 8 capsules, or with CCM 4 V, or CCM 41 V, or CCM 8."
http://www.posthorn.com/S_pops.html#b5d
So what gives? Did Schoeps change the design of something or are they just saying that the B5D will turn the 4V and 41V into a sideways 4 and 41 (no high freq bump)?
I know that people use to modify the B5D by cutting out a bar on the plastic surrounding the capsule to use these with the 4Vs. I always assumed the old warning was because the bar would block the capsule.
DSatz any comments would be welcome...
-
John I cut my basket out, i cant tell a difference if it knocks anything off on my 41V or 4V, what plastic is left is only at the bottom of the windscreen.Ive ran both caps with dpa windscreens and i can tell the dpa do knock some high end off sometimes.
-
John I cut my basket out, i cant tell a difference if it knocks anything off on my 41V or 4V, what plastic is left is only at the bottom of the windscreen.Ive ran both caps with dpa windscreens and i can tell the dpa do knock some high end off sometimes.
Ive been using large DPA and bigass shures screens since 1999, and I have never noticed any highend rolloff on my recordings.
CK, maybe it was just because your mics are muddy sounding :P ;D 8)
-
I have no idea if this is the right answer, but I suspect the 'what gives' was simply Schoeps taking a hard line on specs with and without the screens but at some point they realized that saying you 'cannot' use these screens was giving out incorrect information, since the screens obviously can be used for the more important purpose of cutting down on wind noise. The new words more accurately reflect that the screens can be used, but there's apparently some compromise on the original capsule specs (although whether that's a bad thing is purely subjective).
Bean, I think the reason we don't notice a difference with the screens on is because we don't do an a vs. b comp. I'm pretty sure if we comped our recordings with and without the Big Ass Shure's we'd hear some hf differences between on vs. off. I don't think those differences ever mean the difference between a good sounding vs. bad or muffled sounding recording though, even though all Schoeps recordings are of course muddy sounding.
-
even though all Schoeps recordings are of course muddy sounding.
I've heard this for a while - what exactly do you mean by this?
/Jonas
-
^ I should have included the smiley face....it's a joke.
There are lots of guys that say they think Schoeps sound muddy. I'm not sure if they're serious or not because it's gotten to the point where it's hard to tell if someone is serious or not when they say this. I know I have heard recordings made with Schoeps that really are muddy sounding...but there's no telling if those were due to the mics or the other gear in the chain (noting of course that even Schoeps can overload in the right conditions).
So the Schoeps owners, rather than arguing, just say how much we like muddy sounding tapes. :)
EDIT TO ADD: Page explains why in his post below. Well said Page.
-
even though all Schoeps recordings are of course muddy sounding.
I've heard this for a while - what exactly do you mean by this?
/Jonas
lack of a presence peak on the mk41 and mk4 caps and a slower bass roll off than some other caps. Combine that with a bass heavy PA mix and you can end up with "muddy" tapes unless you EQ them or use brighter gear down the chain.
-
Page...was ^this^ the reason Schoeps put the presence 'bump' in the MK5 and MK4V capsule (not sure if the MK41V also has it, or I'd have included that in the question too)?
-
Page...was ^this^ the reason Schoeps put the presence 'bump' in the MK5 and MK4V capsule (not sure if the MK41V also has it, or I'd have included that in the question too)?
the mk5 I dunno, but I thought the 4V is intended to improve speech recognition. (Ssss sounds are accentuated by bumping the 8-10khz range). I think the mk5 bump is a byproduct of the design, not necessarily an intended effect. Paging DSatz, cleanup on aisle 3....
-
^ I should have included the smiley face....it's a joke.
There are lots of guys that say they think Schoeps sound muddy. I'm not sure if they're serious or not because it's gotten to the point where it's hard to tell if someone is serious or not when they say this. I know I have heard recordings made with Schoeps that really are muddy sounding...but there's no telling if those were due to the mics or the other gear in the chain (noting of course that even Schoeps can overload in the right conditions).
So the Schoeps owners, rather than arguing, just say how much we like muddy sounding tapes. :)
EDIT TO ADD: Page explains why in his post below. Well said Page.
Well said. Personally, I think schoeps are the most natural sounding with TONS of detail and imaging. They do have a big low end, but that's what us schoeps users love ;) they also have very fast transients IMO. Just an all around exceptional mic IMO
-
they also have very fast transients IMO
Could you explain what "fast transients" mean, for me who have english as a second language? :-*
/Jonas
-
they also have very fast transients IMO
Could you explain what "fast transients" mean, for me who have english as a second language? :-*
/Jonas
Meaning they pick up the speed of the sound. Large diaphragm mics have slower transients and sound warm overall. Schoeps have a pretty fast transient pickup meaning the drums and instruments sound faster and picking up more detail instead of being slower and warmer. Did that make sense? It's hard to put into words if you don't know what I mean :(
-
they also have very fast transients IMO
Could you explain what "fast transients" mean, for me who have english as a second language? :-*
/Jonas
Meaning they pick up the speed of the sound. Large diaphragm mics have slower transients and sound warm overall. Schoeps have a pretty fast transient pickup meaning the drums and instruments sound faster and picking up more detail instead of being slower and warmer. Did that make sense? It's hard to put into words if you don't know what I mean :(
No I get it - just got hung up on the word transients really ;)
And you're right - just those details can be heard when comparing, let's say CA14 and Schoeps. The muddy sounds comes with the buy ;D
/Jonas
-
Getting a little off topic here. The 4V & 41v have a high freqency bias tha the 4 & 41 don't have. The B5D apprently takes that away from V caps but doesnt affect the non V caps. That windscreen used to have a 1/8" piece of plastic "rib" that supported the foam and created an airspace. The rib didnt block end address capsules but blocked part of the side address capsules. I assumed this is why schoeps reccomended against using my B5D with my 4V. This is why CK cut that "rib" out. It would be an easy design change for schoeps to make. My question is if anyone knows if a design change was made or if blocking part of a capsule causes a high frequency rolloff?
-
Getting a little off topic here. The 4V & 41v have a high freqency bias tha the 4 & 41 don't have. The B5D apprently takes that away from V caps but doesnt affect the non V caps.
True of the 4v, but not of the 41v
Hypers:
http://schoeps.de/en/products/mk41v/graphics
http://schoeps.de/en/products/mk41/graphics
Cards:
http://schoeps.de/en/products/mk4v/graphics
http://schoeps.de/en/products/mk4/graphics
No significant hf bump on the vertical hyper, but a significant hf bump on the vertical card.
-
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!
-
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
-
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 ::)
-
Thank you DSatz. So the design of the B5D hasnt been changed, just the description.