Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: checht on January 30, 2025, 04:57:37 PM
-
In Dec. I recorded Branford Marsalis Quartet 2 nights at the Triple Door, a small supper club in Seattle.
I know the venue, so had the ideal seat for the 2 nights. Used caps in the hat technique, > active cables > IPA > a10.
Setlist had a couple repeats, making comparison easier, so I thought it'd be fun to learn what other folks think. I have a favorite, but it's quite subjective.
Here's a folder with Keith Jarret's Spiral Dance recorded with both capsules:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/muig7y02gz7tos3dar4ip/AJDxE6ZGv9ZwnSxH7hwB3LE?rlkey=vatljzuxmd367185y9egomo1f&dl=0
What are your impressions? Preference?
Cheers
-
I’m travelling so only have (decent) Bluetooth headphones but my initial impressions are that the mk22 sounds smoother and more natural. I also perceive more of a sense of space between the instruments. I prefer the mk22 of these two recordings for sure. That said, I could easily see how in a more challenging location, or with a chattier crowd, the mk41 could be the better tool.
Frankly both recordings sound excellent and it sounds like an amazing show.
Thanks for sharing!
-
Right off the bat I like the MK41's, I'm trying to listen to what the players are doing and the more focused, upfront sound is great for that. One day I will have MK41's.
But don't forget about the 22's so easily. I cranked up my monitors and sat further back in my listening room, and you can feel and hear the room so much more. Probably a more accurate representation of what it was like to be there. Very cool.
-
Thanks. Excellent sound. Very nice comparison.I agree with the OP, 41 sound very focussed and upfront.I wonder if 22 might be good up close or even on stage.
-
I think it really comes down to location. I can't afford both (saving for 1 set actually), but while a couple year's ago I was thinking the 22's would be my choice as an investment, I have come to realize that the 41's are where I will sink my money in my next purchase given where, and what, I usually record.
Here is a link to both (close), from the same mic bar I presume, in an amazing acoustic environment (the best in Colorado I would argue), I would say having been there, 80-100 ft away given the seat. Not my recording at all, but helpful. Especially when you are spending multiple thousands of dollars. That's nuts.
https://archive.org/details/mkb2025-01-24.mk22
https://archive.org/details/mkb2025-01-24.mk4
I tape at this venue often when I can afford the ticket, have never seen another taper, but I am really psyched that they got this. Realize mk4, not 41, so you are going from wide card to "super". The mk4 rests in the middle with it's own sound.
I'll be taping there in a week or so, DFC with a very nice seat I scored clamped to chair rail for John Craigie (super quiet show, everyone sitting, hear a pin drop). I know this room, my equipment, and I know I can pull a good one with what I have, which is not $2,800 to spend on even one set of mics, yet alone caps and preamps. Between the 2, that's 6 grand of mics, not including cables and recorder, battery, ticket, etc.
I would really love to have a beer with this taper. I would love to see the orientation of the mics (DinA, solved). I like the mk4 sound much better for musical clarity, but the 22's capture the room way better. Of course, a matrix would be ideal, but who has $6k to throw around? Well, I guess if you go to Beaver Creek, that is just your dinner bill.
In comparison, here is a recording from 3 rows more forward in the same room, different show, and full of people standing chomping and clapping. The clarity of the Scheops is light years away from this $400 setup. https://archive.org/details/isd2025-01-09.take5
I know the FOH peeps and usually can pull a board, but I've got a new strategy for my next outing. It's all about learning and putting the miles in with what you know, what you can afford, and where you usually record. The benefit of the Shoepes is that you can cheat a bit if you just show up with a bunch of prior setup knowledge and an ability to read a room with really good chit. So, for me, I think that I can get away with the 41's more often than not and fill in with my CM4's given the situation I'm in and my budget. Or so I will see once I save and plop down the moola on this silly habit of ours.
Let's get real, we are talking about things that fit in our hands that are worth more than my car, in an age where ticket prices are through the roof and we have to deal with so much "extra" bs to even do the band a favor.
To leave on a positive note, I figured out how to edit down a very small clip of audio and make it my phone's ringtone. Progress! That only took maybe 8 steps. Pull up raw file, edit it, mix it, compress it, e-mail it, open email on phone, download it, find the folder on the phone, select it, loop it. OK, maybe 10 actual steps.
To give you some context about why I am typing this so much is that I struggled with this for a long time, and after listening to many many recordings, watching what others' are using in places I've been to, and taking a very humble assessment of what I actually record, the 41's are the right fit for me I think.
-
In Dec. I recorded Branford Marsalis Quartet 2 nights at the Triple Door, a small supper club in Seattle.
I know the venue, so had the ideal seat for the 2 nights. Used caps in the hat technique, > active cables > IPA > a10.
Setlist had a couple repeats, making comparison easier, so I thought it'd be fun to learn what other folks think. I have a favorite, but it's quite subjective.
Here's a folder with Keith Jarret's Spiral Dance recorded with both capsules:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/muig7y02gz7tos3dar4ip/AJDxE6ZGv9ZwnSxH7hwB3LE?rlkey=vatljzuxmd367185y9egomo1f&dl=0
What are your impressions? Preference?
Cheers
Just listened to them both. Wow, what a difference. 22 for the win. A little eq and man they are night and day better for this application. IMHO. It's so subjective.
Damn fine band BTW. I so miss living in Boston and riding my bike and just dropping in on Redman or Mehldau sets, or some Berkeley kids, for $10 and hanging with them. Now all I get is bluegrass and it does not feed my intellect. No offense. I'm actually at the point where I want to record the most stupid stuff possible. Like an EDM crowd in a bar. Just for the sounds in my headphones.
Unfortunately, fortunately, the last time I saw Branford was with the Dead in Nassau. I've seen his brother W a bunch since, but not the same. I love me Branford so so much. I'm so limited with what I can hear. Thank dog for the archive, but nothing beats a live show in person, recording or not. I also have been trying to collect show posters (not the $$$ paid one's) for many years. I think I have easily over 3-400. I kinda want to hire someone to just put them in a binder for me for posterity sake. I'm positive I don't remember half of them.
And if anyone knows this person from NYC and how they get their on stage + FOB + SBD recordings, this is the level I aspire to. Really really great recordings: https://archive.org/search?query=%40mcroberts&sort=-date Yoda level chit. Also another great Schoeps mic test. Wow. Just always blown away by these recordings of his.
-
Mmmmm. thanks will listen..
-
Such great input! Thanks everyone!
If anyone would like the full show, the mk41 night is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jigtaj2zpd6lka8oefwbm/ACihQq61bdm4fIWDGiZKx-8?rlkey=0488kzchh4dxp30h586le20jh&st=cc09rv5n&dl=0
Also posted to Lossless Legs...
I like this comparison because both versions, in my perspective, have virtues that recommend them. The comments are really right on: the 41s sound more direct and bin your face. The 22 version sounds more distant at low volume and when turned up reveals a solid, very musical sound stage. I put on Senn headphones, close my eyes and the 22s bring me back to the room. I listen in my car or with ears pods pro and the mk41s sound right.
Regarding expense: I got each pair of caps for about $1250, so a total of $2500. Not nothing, but over a long period of gear acquistition, doable. Active cables around $500-$600 in addition. Been assembling kit since '82, so my perspective may be nonstandard.
Beer: I like it, and will be in Morrision for TTB this summer...
Vinration: some of my favorite moments of all at Nasseau, glad you got to be there. Branford was awesome, and what he brought out of Jerry unforgettable.
Thanks all!
-
Thank you Checht for the very nice recordings. I like this comparsion. To be able to compare it well, I made a small adjustment. I set the levels to the same volume (41 is louder). I also did little eq to 22. After these modifications, both recordings sounded similar to me. 41 has little less room. I don't have a trained ear for listening and EQ. Maybe someone will match the recordings better and point us to interesting differences. But I think if someone has only 22 and can't afford 41, they don't have to regret it.
-
I listened a few times and fully agree with kuba e. Although I didn't actually make the tweaks to both files to best adapt each for my playback system, my ear, and to be as similar as possible to each other - which are all goals that converge into one in the end - I have done it enough to know that once it has been done, the differences that were initially apparent between the two become much smaller, and boil down mostly to differences in direct/reverberant pickup ratio determined by the two different stereo mic'ding configurations, of which the difference in pickup pattern is significant but only one variable among several. And I wouldn't say its even the most significant variable. How the two pairs are arranged is more significant.
Huh? Why do I say that? If you were to take both of these different mic pairs, arrange them in the same stereo configuration, place them in the same location, and point both toward the stage, they will sound somewhat different (as they do here). But it will sound far more different if you were to instead use two identical mic pairs in the same configuration and turn one of them around so that it faces away from the stage. Ridiculous comparison perhaps. But it serves to make the point that the range of possible stereo pair configuration differences has the potential to be considerably more impactful than the range of polar pattern differences. Pattern is important, yet stereo pair configuration rules. I think tapers can make great recordings with either pair.. and can substitute one for the other more easily than is generally recognized around here, that is, if-and-when the taper is willing to make these kinds of adjustments afterward which level the playing field AND if-and-when the taper has both the time and inclination to do that. That's a tall ask! Not being willing or having the time to do it is totally fine and one of the best reasons for choosing one over the other!
Even if one is ready and willing to do make those tweaks and have the skills to pull it off, there are still good reasons to choose one pattern over the other of course. It's just that those differences needn't be quite as compelling as they otherwise might seem, since a lot of those differences can be compensated for.
How we use the tools we have is as influential as which tools we choose to use.
Call this overly philosophical bs if you like, but I find that understanding the nature of these differences along with what can and can't be compensated for super informative, even if you're never going to regularly do so in practice.
-
This sort of discussion is why TS is valuable to me.
I have learded with time how similar these 2 caps sound. Depeending upon the goal, a bit of mic config adjustment will allow either/both to sound great; I am biased towards the Schoeps sound though.
Between config adjustments and post production, I find it posssible to maximize recording quality. The improvement to ai-supported tools has drastically advanced the scope of what we can do in post, allowing even pretty poot decades old recordings to be listenable for the first time.
-
Thank you, I also love the TS discussions .
-
I've had a lot of experience with both of these capsules, and both can make great tapes. If I could only own one pair of schoeps capsules, however, it would be the mk22.
-
I've had a lot of experience with both of these capsules, and both can make great tapes. If I could only own one pair of schoeps capsules, however, it would be the mk22.
This! ^^^^^
-
I remember 20 years ago on taperssection, the prevailing sentiment was that you should just take your recordings off of your machine, adjust levels and then upload them because 'that's what it sounded like in the room.' I guess I understand when someone wants their output to reflect the gear you're using, but at the same time, I've never felt that my gear captured a show as well as my ears heard it, so the idea that my gear captured what it sounded like live never made much sense to me. I've always futzed with my recordings in an effort to improve the recorded sound...and rarely have I found that I can't improve the recording one way or another. Glad that, with the advancing tools that we have available to us, that it seems like most tapers have adopted this philosophy.
-
Achieving a quick post workflow and/or not altering "what the rig sounds like" are both entirely valid reasons for not doing anything more than adjusting levels, but I don't buy the "that's what it sounded like in the room" argument now and never did. Two different rigs using different mics in different configs run by two different tapers with only levels adjusted afterward are pretty much guaranteed to sound different from each other.. and there is no guarantee that either one "sounds like the room".
I enjoy doing what I can to make my recordings better afterward and have learned a lot from doing that, but rarely find the time to do it to the extent that I would like, am capable of, and in such a way that I know will make them better for other listeners in addition to than myself. Do no harm.
-
But you never post-process your recordings and share them. So how would we even know? I know physics and sound, but I have had a hard time believing a thing you post without hearing any of your recordings. I respect your contributions, but I hold you in the do as I say, not as I do camp.
You do you, and I experiment in the field a lot, but I have the audio to back it up, and the pseudo science.
-
But you never post-process your recordings and share them. So how would we even know? I know physics and sound, but I have had a hard time believing a thing you post without hearing any of your recordings. I respect your contributions, but I hold you in the do as I say, not as I do camp.
You do you, and I experiment in the field a lot, but I have the audio to back it up, and the pseudo science.
What in his post is controversial? Recordings are never "what it sounds like in the room", but rather are what was captured by the selected gear in the room, all of which imparts character. He's just suggesting the conservative approach is to avoid doing anything destructive in your processing, or at the very least, make sure to save copies of the "before", so that if your gear or ears get better, or someone else has the time and inclination, they can take a stab at it.
-
What he just said.
-
Up close in a good sounding room, the mk22's shine.
This is from a couple of days ago. 5 meters from the stage in the middle of the floor.
https://youtu.be/OdmQLnivP7A?is=DLxILPU8m9eANj89
-
That sounds great!
Here is a link to a recent recording on the stage (mic position clear in the video). I feel like if I can get the mics onto the stage, such that the sound sources are within the stereo recording angle, the mk22s never disappoint…
https://youtu.be/YBHngFu2zl8?si=zdoMphpIf9FwbqQ4
-
The 22's are the one set of caps that I miss the most. Used them more often than not and have some phenomenal sounding shows with them. If only money was no object.
-
Agreed, mk22s were the best sounding caps I owned. However, due to the environments I record in, nearly 100% of the time I went with the mk41/v source due to “crowd interference” and the like. In a perfect environment, mk22 would be my only pair.
-
When the situation allows for it, the microphone sensitivity pattern I most prefer in a 2 channel near-spaced stereo pair leans toward the more open, omni side of cardioid, of which Schoeps MK21 and MK22 are excellent examples. There are a number of reasons for that, several which are generally recognized around TS and have to do with the attributes of the individual microphones as well as the room and audience situation where the recording is being made. Specifically regarding pickup pattern behavior, I cant remember where, but recall reading that the MK22 was specifically designed to very carefully manage the transition from primary control of pattern via differential-pressure over to control via acoustic pressure boost on-axis at high-frequencies (a result of the geometry of the diaphragm face and capsule housing) in such a way that a narrowing of the pattern at the highest frequencies typical of other microphones is minimized, resulting in a pattern which remains more consistent than it would otherwise. DSatz, Is that accurate?
A few of the following statements may ruffle some feathers, but I stand by them. Feel free to disregard.
Another reason, which I think significant even though it isn't discussed as much around here is the combined sensitivity pattern of both microphones together in a stereo pair. I've found I like a collective sensitivity bias that's generally subcardioid shaped, and oriented toward the performers of course. How open depends on the situation, and good pattern behavior in the individual microphones generally makes for better collective pattern behavior. Perhaps the only thing in that statement that may seem odd is the talk of the collective sensitivity pattern of both microphones working together.
Here's the part that may spark some controversy- For the most part I achieve an overall sensitivity pattern that trends somewhere between open-cardioid/sub-cardioid-like by combining a number of supercardioid microphone channels that are oriented in different directions. In addition to a pair oriented +/-45, there is a third facing directly forward, and an additional pair facing rearward. When mixed they collectively produce an overall sensitivity pattern grossly similar to that of a pair of subcardioids in a typical near-spaced pair arrangement. I think that is significant and I hear a lot of similarities between the two, and that's really the point of this post.
Of course doing it that way is more complex, and of course there are pitfalls. It's not that I'm proposing my method for use here so much as trying to convey an interesting observation about a fundamental aspect of live performance recording using a microphone configuration placed on stage or out in the room. I went the more complicated route for a number of reasons, one of which is that it enables alteration of that collective stereo sensitivity pattern afterward, and generally provides other forms of flexibility which help me to more consistently achieve the kind of sound I'm happy with.
The more typical way of exercising some of that flexibility is by substituting microphone capsules of differing directivities. Swap MK22 for MK4 or MK41.. or run multiple setups simultaneously. I achieve overall sensitivity pattern through the manipulation of multiple microphone channels. I'm unable to afford four or five MK41 in substitute for a pair of MK22, and of course in many other ways that substitution is not equivalent, but that is the general idea behind the observation.
-
That sounds great!
Here is a link to a recent recording on the stage (mic position clear in the video). I feel like if I can get the mics onto the stage, such that the sound sources are within the stereo recording angle, the mk22s never disappoint…
https://youtu.be/YBHngFu2zl8?si=zdoMphpIf9FwbqQ4
Nice!