Topic: Schoeps Mk41 vs. Schoeps M-S "hypercardioid"

[myke2241]

XY relies on phantom center. MS actually has a center. Although the math may say they are the same, they are indeed different in how they physically pickup sound. A this makes a difference.

[Tom McCreadie]

XY relies on phantom center. MS actually has a center. Although the math may say they are the same, they are indeed different in how they physically pickup sound. A this makes a difference.

Not really. The concept of "phantom center" is purely a property associated with playback through two L,R loudspeakers, usually in your sitting room, Every method of recording whatsoever, when played back through two speakers, has to rely on the principle of a phantom center to give the illusion of centered sounds coming from a third, centered speaker that isn't there. If all mics involved had theoretical patterns, with perfect off-axis responses at all frequencies, then the M/S and XY techniques would be absolutely indistinguishable in the quality of the phantom center - or the entire stereo image, for that matter. Of course, the mics are never perfect, so, in a classical or acoustical music context, at least, M/S will generally give a more satisfying, solid center because the M mic gets to point its "best, on-axis side" at the important center stuff.

In the context of a rock venue, though, where almost all the sound might happen to come from L, R  PA stacks, you might be grappling with _two_ phantom-imaging instances: that from the stacks for the attendees during the show..and then later again from speaker playback, at home on the sofa. In that case it might make sense to employ XY and have their "best, on-axis side" pointing at the stacks? Think of it as avoiding a double whammy and postponing all the phantom witchcraft until you get home.   :-) 

[DSatz]

To sum up a part of this discussion, for every possible M/S arrangement there is a theoretically equivalent X/Y arrangement, although it might require a pair of "theoretical microphones" with some in-between pattern that you can't buy off the shelf.

But when people say, OK, given that principle, M/S is still better than X/Y because in M/S, the M microphone is facing directly forward while in X/Y, both mikes are facing somewhat to the side, and are therefore picking up a lot of the direct sound from off-axis angles (where their frequency response varies from the spec-sheet curve)--I have two things to say in response.

Actually, the first thing I have to say is a rhetorical question: "But what about the "S" channel microphone? You're aiming its "null" front and center. You can't get more off-axis than that."

And the second thing is, the observation is completely valid that X/Y stereo recording places huge demands on the off-axis response characteristics of microphones. That's really fundamental. Actually it's not just X/Y stereo, but also closely-spaced pairs or practically any other combination of two or more main microphones that you'd ever be likely to mount on the same mike stand. Ideally we shouldn't classify microphones as "cardioids" or "omnis," etc.--that's too vague and general for our purposes. Ideally we should describe them the way they function both on-axis and off-axis. But since our terminology isn't that precise, we need to keep that aspect in mind when talking about microphones in such oversimplified terms as "omni" or "cardioid," etc.

--best regards

Quick P.S.: The actual hypercardioid pattern is very rare. Most microphones labeled as either hyper- or supercardioid are actually a mixture that usually comes closer to being supercardioid (but isn't exactly supercardioid, either). This applies to Schoeps, Neumann, AKG, Sennheiser, Beyer and many others.

[thunderbolt]

This is extremely interesting, and some of you guys have the maths calculated beyond what I can grasp.  What I find fascinating is, as DSatz says, we do place huge demands on the off-axis response of our mics.  And it is very true, that you can't get more extreme than facing the nulls of a figure eight toward your source.

On a subjective level, I do think that the M-S is appreciably better, for the reasons listed.  There is a central focus, yes at the expense of crowd noise on the side, but the central image and vox do sound more "direct" and present, and it definitely has more "pop."

AJ, how much of the fig eight did you mix relative to the card mid in your post-processing?  Sounds like you nailed it.

BR,
Corbin

[noahbickart]

I am finding that running MS allows me to use a "wider" capsule for the M than I ever would running ORTF, DIN, etc.  my schoeps mk22 is getting a great deal of use.

Also, look at the pattern created by running an mk41 m/s some time- it's quai blumlien! Cool.

[Tom McCreadie]

Actually, the first thing I have to say is a rhetorical question: "But what about the "S" channel microphone? You're aiming its "null" front and center. You can't get more off-axis than that."

But then the MS zealot would probably retort: "So what! The sound signal captured from the null direction of the S is, by the very nature of 'null', of such a tiny level anyway that - even though it may be brimming with 'off-axis distortion' - it still can't make a huge impact on the overall audio picture."

(Not that I'm an MS zealot or have a horse in this race...just throwing in some arguments from both sides of the fence.)

[noahbickart]

Actually, the first thing I have to say is a rhetorical question: "But what about the "S" channel microphone? You're aiming its "null" front and center. You can't get more off-axis than that."

But then the MS zealot would probably retort: "So what! The sound signal captured from the null direction of the S is, by the very nature of 'null', of such a tiny level anyway that - even though it may be brimming with 'off-axis distortion' - it still can't make a huge impact on the overall audio picture."

(Not that I'm an MS zealot or have a horse in this race...just throwing in some arguments from both sides of the fence.)

Right, but his point is that precisely that when you go to a concert and try to record it- intentionally arranging one of your microphones such that its null is pointed at the musicians sounds counter intuitive, which it is.

But, we all know however how important capturing the space in which a performance occurs is. Having pinpoint control over the ratio of direct to reflected sound is the reason to use m/s.

[Scooter123]

I own both and sometimes run redundant rigs, with the only difference being the mikes. 

There is no discernable difference between the mk41 and the mk4.  Well maybe there is, but I couldn't notice anything that jumped out at me. 

[DSatz]

Tom, you've hit on the reason I put my little rhetorical question in quote marks: In the particular way that I put it, it isn't actually any better-founded than the statement I was using it to criticize. And its logical weakness is just as you said: The null of a well-made figure-8 is typically 20+ dB below the sensitivity of the "M" channel microphone across the entire audio range. So within a certain wedge of sound-arrival angles, the "S" channel's contribution just isn't audibly significant. This corresponds to the very center of the stereo image in playback--it pretty much all comes from the "M" mike.

But when you get, say, 30 degrees or farther away from the null, it's quite another matter. I think I've already told the story of my sad attempt, over a decade ago by now, to use a pair of Neumann KM 86 microphones for Blumlein stereo with a very energetic-sounding soprano soloist. The KM 86 was an excellent microphone for a lot of things, but look at its polar diagram in the figure-8 setting as shown below: It has a sizeable high-frequency response peak around ±45° (for those not versed in reading polar diagrams, the main point to note is the difference between the 8 kHz and the 1 kHz response around those angles). And those, of course, are the angles that face forward in a Blumlein setup; consequently the soprano voice came out harsh, almost spitty sounding. For the same reason, that figure-8 would be a poor choice as the "S" microphone in an M/S pair.

My point ("and I do have one," as Ellen DeGeneres says) is that the wrong virtue is being claimed for the front-facing microphone in an M/S pair. Historically, M/S was introduced as a mono-compatible stereo recording approach--as contrasted with spaced-omni stereo, which causes huge comb filter effects when you sum the channels. That distinction harks back to the 1950s when stereo records and FM radio were still new, and most people, even hi-fi enthusiasts, still had mono systems (I remember the single, big Electro-Voice speaker in our living room). In western Europe the classical music broadcasters were still publicly controlled, and they adopted a policy of using compatible stereo recording methods so as not to stick the majority of their listeners with bad sound.

(Incidentally, the whole way stereo FM works is directly analogous to M/S recording--the main carrier conveys the mono, L+R sum, a subcarrier carries an L-R difference signal, and these two signals are converted to L/R stereo by sum-and-difference matrixing inside the tuner or radio. A similar analogy could even be made with the vertical and horizontal modulation of phonograph grooves, with horizontal = M and vertical = S, except that stereo phonograph cartridges didn't generally pick up vertical and horizontal modulation separately.)

The real advantage of a front-facing "M" microphone isn't any beneficial effect on the resulting L/R stereo signal. Rather, it's the benefit that it has for the sound quality of the compatible mono signal--because that signal isn't derived by summing the off-axis response of two microphones as it would be given an X/Y recording (imagine how a mono version of my Blumlein recording would have sounded given the ±45° shown in the polar diagrams!), but rather, it is delivered directly by a single, high-quality, forward-facing "M" microphone--the "S" microphone being totally out of the picture where mono playback is concerned.

I could say more about this, and I probably will eventually, but I've talked long enough for one evening already.

--best regards

[Tom McCreadie]

Having pinpoint control over the ratio of direct to reflected sound is the reason to use m/s.

I'm unsure that MS has this purported big advantage of pinpoint control over the direct to reverb sound ratio. After all, the direct/reverb outcome depends on 3 decisions you make: (1) mic stand placement; (2) capsule-pattern choice for the X/Y mics or the M mic; (3) XY capsule-angling (or M/S ratio). And both our competing methods, MS or XY, allow you freedom to make those 3 choices. Indeed, MS might even be at a slight disadvantage, as it really needs an on-the-fly conversion to XY for a proper live listening evaluation (to nail the correct stand placement - a crucial parameter that, if judged wrongly, can never be "fixed in post.")

But granted, MS does have one significant additional element of control flexibility: you are freed from the shackles of having to employ matched, same-brand, same-pattern mic pairs. Not only could you use, say, a Neumann brand as M paired with a Schoeps as S, but you also then have access to a practical continuum of patterns for M: omni, omni with high freq beaming, subcardioid, wide cardioid, bit less wide cardioid, narrow cardioid, supercardioid....Fig-8 etc  This puts a whole arsenal of possibilities at your disposal.

[F.O.Bean]

I own both and sometimes run redundant rigs, with the only difference being the mikes. 

There is no discernable difference between the mk41 and the mk4.  Well maybe there is, but I couldn't notice anything that jumped out at me. 

I agree completely. Tonedeaf and I run side by side all the time. Me running mk41>LB him mk4>psp2. the preamps are the only difference I can hear, and its MINIMAL at that

[acidjack]

I think it's a testament to the MK41 that it has such similar tonal balance and response as it does to the MK4; however I wouldn't say it sounds "the same" at all.  The supercardiod pattern clearly picks up more direct and less reflected sound, which is why there are some rooms where I absolutely always run them.  In the ones where I feel better about running MK5s, the 41s still do OK, but the cardiod pattern clearly gives a more open, full sound.  What's incredible about the MK41 is that it doesn't have the harsh tin-can sound of most of the other hypers out there. 

[F.O.Bean]

I think it's a testament to the MK41 that it has such similar tonal balance and response as it does to the MK4; however I wouldn't say it sounds "the same" at all.  The supercardiod pattern clearly picks up more direct and less reflected sound, which is why there are some rooms where I absolutely always run them.  In the ones where I feel better about running MK5s, the 41s still do OK, but the cardiod pattern clearly gives a more open, full sound.  What's incredible about the MK41 is that it doesn't have the harsh tin-can sound of most of the other hypers out there. 

100% agreed. The mk41 is super full and balanced

[Scooter123]

"What's incredible about the MK41 is that it doesn't have the harsh tin-can sound of most of the other hypers out there"

By that you mean a warm, muddy sound. 

I like warm muddy sounds...........

[F.O.Bean]

"What's incredible about the MK41 is that it doesn't have the harsh tin-can sound of most of the other hypers out there"

By that you mean a warm, muddy sound. 

I like warm muddy sounds...........

Tonedeaf and I do too