Topic: MK4's or MK4V?

[Napo]

I have my CMR set up and I'd like to buy a second set of capsules, this time cardioids (I have the MK-21).

Which one would you choose MK4's or MK4V's?

Of the latter I like the fact that they can be used in a close configuartion (I will use it in semi-stealthing situation) as they will not interfere among themselves.
Yet, I am concerned that I can lose the bottom end (which I love so much from my MK-21).
On the other side, though, the MK4V's are said to be brighter whichin principle could be an advantage given the general 'dark sound' of Schopes mics.

Any experience/suggestion to share?

Best,
Mauro

[H₂O]

I've owned both and personally prefer the mk4s and not the mk4vs.  I got more consistent results with the 4's.

I would think it would be easier to run the 4v's in a semi stealth environ though.

[OOK]

What about the MK5.  Why the MK5?  Well.  The card is between the mk4 and the mk4v in terms of the high frequency bump and you also get an omni as a bonus......three patterns are certainly better than 2...

[ero3030]

this has been beatin to death.  should easily find something in the " search "   ed

[Tim]

mk41's

I've never really loved the sound of Schoeps cards, too often smeared and muddy in the mids and low end

[Napo]

thanks for the replies, which came so fast!

sorry ed, I will go thru the search

[Matt Quinn]

mk41's

I love all Schoeps caps, but I think Tim is right here. You will IMO get a lot of mileage out of having a pair of subs & hypers as opposed to subs & cards.

[Napo]

here some more debate from the archive

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=135525.0

[Tim]

mk41's

I love all Schoeps caps, but I think Tim is right here. You will IMO get a lot of mileage out of having a pair of subs & hypers as opposed to subs & cards.

great point, I should have said that in my first post. having subs and hypers will be a pretty versatile arsenal.

btw - love those mk21's

[su6oxone]

As I recall, Napo mostly tapes jazz in clubs with quiet audiences, so I'm not sure if hypers would be the best choice for set #2 of caps.  I like the MK5 suggestion since then you'll have cards and omnis.  Personally, I wouldn't get the 4Vs due to the prominent HF bump. 

MK41 - if taping in more challenging situations (e.g. noisy crowd, poor acoustics, boomy, etc.).
MK4 - all around good choice.
MK5 - could be nice if you can tape close to the stage in a relatively quiet room.

You could also consider the vertical/side address MK41V, which may have a very mild HF bump too, but less than the MK4V (as reported by DSatz, but also obvious when looking at the frequency response graphs on the Schoeps website).

[taylorc]

My recommendation would be to go to arhcive.org and download several recordings with each mic (with the same or at least very similar signal paths).  Spend a week or so listening.

[Napo]

su6oxone, you recall very well  I record jazz in controlled environments.

taylorc, great advice and very sensible.

Now through reading I was almost convinced to go for MK4V's (high end on jazz and ambient music is important) but then....
I read that Bernard from Shoeps said that the farther from the stage you are the brittler/thinner the sound becomes.

Back from where I started

[Brian Skalinder]

Especially for jazz in a controlled environment, I'd go for MK5s to gain the addition of the omnis.  Love the sound of omnis in good sounding spaces or locations.

[sparkey]

I will join the chorus of voices in support of hypers

mk41's

I love all Schoeps caps, but I think Tim is right here. You will IMO get a lot of mileage out of having a pair of subs & hypers as opposed to subs & cards.

great point, I should have said that in my first post. having subs and hypers will be a pretty versatile arsenal.

btw - love those mk21's

[DSatz]

Napo, Schoeps microphones aren't dark-sounding (with one possible exception: the MK 2 omni if it is misused in reverberant sound field conditions, instead of the close-up placement that it's designed for). Otherwise, most Schoeps capsules are very close to neutral in their high-frequency response--much more so than most competing brands--and very low in distortion.

So many condenser microphones are designed to sound artificially bright, and/or to have audible levels of distortion, that many people assume both qualities to be inherent in condenser microphones. Their ears have become so accustomed to hyped-up sound that to them, a microphone with low distortion and essentially flat response sounds "dark" to them by comparison.

But no form of deviation from flat response and low distortion can always sound good on all material. Microphones with built-in sonic coloration inevitably complement some recordings and harm others. A microphone with very low coloration, on the other hand, is adaptable to a wider range of situations, and the results are more predictable. So this is a matter of attitude as well as technology.

I'm a classical engineer and your mileage may vary considerably from mine, but the above expresses a lot of what I like about Schoeps mikes: They tend to "remove themselves from the equation" about as much as a microphone can.

--best regards