Topic: Looking for Opinions: mk41 vs. mk4 with roll-off

[T.J.]

Recently, I've started using the Low Cut feature on the 722. I prefer to "get it right" the first time instead of doing a lot of post work. To be honest, I think the roll-off sounds a little better when applied via the 722 vs. when I perform in post...although that could all be in my head.


Anyway, this got me thinking about the difference b/w runnning the mk41's without any low cut vs. the mk4's with low cut applied via the 722. I'm going to see Mike Gordon on Friday and want to run with one of the two options. Typically if I have a real bassy show to record I'll just use the mk41's. Would there be any advantage to running the mk4's with low cut (probably 80Hz/-12dB) instead of the mk41's? I'm thinking it may provide a fuller low end than the mk41's and the low cut would eliminate the unwanted "muddy" frequencies.

Thoughts?

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Anyway, this got me thinking about the difference b/w runnning the mk41's without any low cut vs. the mk4's with low cut applied via the 722.

Jeez, if you don't want bass, why don't you just run AKGs?

Having run 21's, 4's and 41's a lot, and without hpf, I have to wonder why you need to do it at all.  Also, the minimum low-cut on the 7xx is pretty aggressive - more than the v3.  I think a lot of software post-processing does introduce artifacts, so I can understand why you prefer to do it during the recording.  Though I think the 7xx filter may include hardware and software components.

I am curious why you feel the need to run low cut?   I can think of three general reasons - personal preference, playback, and source/room issues.

There is no doubt some playback systems cannot play recordings that otherwise sound great on great playback systems.  If I want versions of recordings for the car, I often need to EQ out the bottom end.  But I would not want to compromise my original source to cater to mid-fi (or worse) playback.

Another thought... What about re-recording the source after running it through a low cut, or other gear (like a tube stage, etc)?  Meaning, what if you take one of your too-bassy sources and re-record it with the 722 with low cut?   That is something I have experimented with a little bit but not enough.  Like re-recording a show through the psp2, etc.

[T.J.]

thanks for the reply...oddly enough i used to run AKGs 

good points all around. having recorded gordon in the same room (TLA in Philly) two years ago with the mk4's (no low cut) i'm pretty sure what the result will be: full bass with a little room reverb (i.e. mud  )

Reason's for the Low-cut: a little bit of playback and source/rooms issues (as discussed above). my playback ranges from an ipod to CPU stock speakers to a nice set of shure cans. I think most people who d/l my recordings are doing their listening in a similar manner. I guess I'm considering my own playback and those who would d/l it.

I think one last reason I've experimented with the low cut is b/c i use an NBox. IMO it's got more punch in the low end than a sax, schoeps bodies, v3, etc... In most cases this can be very desireable, but sometimes i think it can be overpowering (like this weekend). hence the reason i'm thinking about a little experimentation. i may just end up running the hypers with no filter...

[F0CKER]

The TLA will always sound like crap, no matter what you do to it.  The best results I've had out of that room were with 41's DIN and the recording still wasn't great.  TJ, you might try narrowing the spread on the 4's to PAS or 70 degrees or so.  That would probably be best to cut down the low end. Better that, than to put a HPF on, IMO.

[page]

Also, the minimum low-cut on the 7xx is pretty aggressive - more than the v3.  I think a lot of software post-processing does introduce artifacts, so I can understand why you prefer to do it during the recording.  Though I think the 7xx filter may include hardware and software components.

It does both hardware and software. First -6db are at 40hz and anything after that is software. The lowest I could find on the V3 was a cut at 50, while the 722 will start at 40. I'd have to check the slope on the V3 (it may just be 6db, I can't remember). Second, I found I don't like my results with software nearly as much.

Personally, I've used the 40/12db with success before to try and clean up the sub woof as even at 60hz, I'm only down -1.5db (-3 at 40 and then it falls off the cliff). It doesn't do squat for resonances, but if your getting trash coming through the PA or bass reflection, then it's great. One test I did on some recordings was to LPF at around 50hz to see what was down there and listened to some stuff in various rooms. Outdoors I found it wasn't bad, but indoors in a few rooms, I found I got some serious woof on.

I pulled the graphs, and the mk4 looks like it's down about -3db at 50, while the mk41 is down -4db at 50. So If you think the 41s are heavy, one safe option would be the mk4s with the hpf at 40 so they would be down -5.5db (or there abouts) at 50. It doesn't do anything pattern wise to reduce reflection, but it would get a better frequency response to what you're looking for.

[DSatz]

page, a 12 dB/octave filter isn't a tone control, and frequencies such as 50 - 60 - 75 Hz are too low to cause "boominess" unless they've been boosted to an absurd extreme. Boominess is usually caused by frequencies an octave higher than that or thereabouts. Beware of the temptation that when the tool you happen to have in your hand is a hammer, that the whole world can start to look remarkably like a nail. A modest shelving reduction (3 to 4 dB) at, say, 150 Hz and below might do more for you, while retaining the deepest bass notes and room tone that contribute to atmosphere and the sense of spaciousness in a recording.

Also, Schoeps' frequency response graphs are derived from free-field (on-axis, anechoic, plane wave) measurements. But when music is performed in rooms with rigid boundaries (walls, floor, ceiling), especially if any of those boundaries are parallel or nearly so, standing waves develop at relatively low frequencies, depending on the dimensions of the space (the frequencies at which the standing waves occur are related by their wavelengths to the room's dimensions). We're so used to hearing their effects that we may not be specifically conscious of them, but they give us a lot of our sense of the acoustical character of whatever space we are in, especially as we move around the room. And the thing is, the more directivity a microphone has, the less it will tend to register the effects of standing waves in a room. So a stereo recording that's made with supercardioids (MK 41) will convey less of that one aspect of how we subjectively experience a closed space, for better or worse, than a recording made with cardioids (MK 4) will do, all other things being equal.

It all depends on the room and what you want. I'm just saying that comparing the on-axis frequency response curves will show very little difference between the MK 4 and the MK 41 at the lowest frequencies but the resulting stereo recordings will show more of a difference in character than in amount.

--best regards

P.S.: The Lunatec V3 can be set via internal jumpers so that its low-cut filters are either 6 dB/octave or 12 dB/octave.

[lastubbe]

Mike kicked my A last fall in Buffalo.  Not the best sounding room, and he is just waaaay up front in the mix.  He even mentioned during the show he was worried about the sound during soundcheck. 

I walked a way with a ton of mud, and should have rolled off to better my situation.  Still hoping to save the recording (thanks Jason), especially now that Mike is making it an official release.   

[schoepsnbox]

My vote is the mk41s from the balcony rail with no roll off..my opinion of course.

[T.J.]

My vote is the mk41s from the balcony rail with no roll off..my opinion of course.

thanks for the advise everyone. i ended up running the mk41's with NO low cut. I'm very happy with the results:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=533505

[lastubbe]

My vote is the mk41s from the balcony rail with no roll off..my opinion of course.

thanks for the advise everyone. i ended up running the mk41's with NO low cut. I'm very happy with the results:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=533505

Thanks for the follow up.

I have yet to roll off once with the 722, and have been very happy with my results except for once with Mike in a bad room.  So this is great to hear.

[page]

My vote is the mk41s from the balcony rail with no roll off..my opinion of course.

thanks for the advise everyone. i ended up running the mk41's with NO low cut. I'm very happy with the results:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=533505

Thanks for the follow up.

I have yet to roll off once with the 722, and have been very happy with my results except for once with Mike in a bad room.  So this is great to hear.

I've tried 5 times now, and I'm shooting 60/40.  Interesting experiment (and an educational one at any rate).