Topic: Line Audio CM4 vs Schoeps / Neumann

[Gutbucket]

I haven't actually run Line Audios myself, but my listening impression is in line with these comments-

In general, I think the Schoeps have a bit more refinement straight out of the box, particularly in the highs, with no added EQ.

Before I sold my CM4s, I posted a comparison with the 4015s in the same (good) spot in a local theater.  The CM4s sound great, but there is a significant improvement on the DPA recording, IMHO.  I posted it to the line audio thread.

In grawk's comp, the CM4's sound great, and the DPA's kinda just kick up another notch in detail and fidelity.

Will also add..

For me personally, the only thing I really want to spend serious money on is the MK41 capsule. It's the smoothest hyper on the market IMO, and I have many taping scenarios where I have to set up in the most crowded spot of the venue.

Likely a parallel move pricewise, but Microtech Gefell M21 is very much on par with MK41 (Note: MG is historically related to Neumann) and is what I and a number of TS'ers use as a top quality supercard.  Presumably the newer MG M41 capsule and fixed MG310 pencil mic are similar.  DPA 4018 and Sennheiser MKH 8050 are a couple other top quality hyper/supercardioids fully worthy of consideration.. and similarly top-tier priced.  At that level they all have a smooth response and maintain a consistent pattern, so it becomes mostly a matter of taste and of interchange compatibility with existing gear.

My observation is that it seems in general one need spend a bit more to get a really good performing supercard, whereas a good subcard can be had for less.  Although if price is no object, I always really like what I hear from DPA 4015.

[grawk]

I have both the DPA 4018s and the Schoeps MK41Vs.  I haven't decided yet which I'm keeping, they're both really good.  Next time I'm in the appropriate situation, I'll run them head to head.

The CM4s are so much better than the mics I had access to when I started taping, especially at that price point.  I definitely recommend them to people for whom the top tier mics aren't an option, for whatever reason.  A recording no one else made is better than no recording, and the CM4s will always do pretty well in any good sounding location.  Sub/wide cards are my favorite pattern, by far.  The happiest combination of the strengths of cardiod and omni.  And the best rear rejection of any pattern.

[Gutbucket]

Sub/wide cards are my favorite pattern, by far.  The happiest combination of the strengths of cardiod and omni.  And the best rear rejection of any pattern.

Agreed on favorite pattern overall and it being a happy combination of strengths.  Interestingly (to me at least) the multi-mic array I use which consists of a combination of supercards and omnis, and produces something similar to an subcardioid-like response overall in the room when considering all mic channels together in combination.  I think it's that "overall forward facing sub cardioid sensitivity in the room" thing that sounds so good and works so right down at a level of fundamental acoustics, regardless of how one gets there.  A simple pair of near-spaced subcards is the easiest and most obvious route when both room and audience are on our side.

"Best rear rejection" in terms of smooth and natural sounding off-axis response for sure.  I think that's a big part of the goodness of sub-card sound, along with the extended, near-omni like low frequency response.  Super useful when room/ audience sound from all around the recording position is involved.  I've even entertained using subcardioids in my rear-facing channels specifically because of those traits - the PA and stage content that does get picked up in the rear-facing channels still tends to be somewhat dominant, so it needs to sound good, clean and natural.   I use supercards in those channels because they provide the maximum rearward rejection in terms of level, even though they are not as smooth in off-axis response as a subcardioid, because in comparison to the content from the other channels in the mix their off-axis content is low enough in level that it becomes effectively buried in terms of perception.  That plays off the fact that despite the rear-lobe of the supercardioid pattern, I find I can achieve greater rearward rejection from a pair of narrowly angled supercards than from a similarly angled pair of cardioids that have a null in place of that rear lobe.  However, if I weren't running a pair of omnis in the array, I'd probably use a wide spaced pair of rear-facing subcards to fill the role of both the omnis and dedicated rear-facing channels.  That "best sounding" rear rejection attribute is a big reason why.

[grawk]

I think it's more than just best sounding.  Super/hyper card has that super directional rear lobe, and even cards have a lobe that points back.  The sub/wide cards tend to actually have a pretty strong null toward the rear.

[Gutbucket]

I think its the absence of any null that makes a subcardioid behave so nicely off-axis all the way around the back.  Just a nice smooth -6dB attenuation around back 180 degrees off axis.  Not a whole lot, certainly no sharp null, but so often just right.. and well behaved.

Angling of a mic pair complicates the combined overall collective pattern of the two of course, due to the off-axis pattern overlap.  A pair of subcardioids angled 90 degrees will produce a collective sum pattern that's maybe only 3dB down directly to the rear (but so smooth and nice).  A pair of cardioids angled 90 degrees points the rear-facing cardioid nulls 90 degrees apart, such that the collective pattern of both overlayed produces a collective pattern that is essentially subcardioid shaped, so something like -6dB sensitivity for the combination of both channels in sum directly to the rear.   A supercard has a conical null around its rear lobe, which in horizontal plane cross section equates to two nulls angled something more like 130 degrees off-axis, one on either side of its rear lobe.  A pair of super/hyper-cards angled ~90 degrees will orient one of the nulls from each mic more or less in line with each other directly backwards.  Because of that the collective pattern of the two ends up being cardioid like with its axis of minimum sensitivity being something close to a null facing 180derees away from the front.

A cool way to see that visually is by using the Sengpiel Audio Visualizer. Link- https://sengpielaudio.com/HejiaE.htm Take a look at the grey line that surrounds the two individual polars. It indicates the "collective summed sensitivity" of both mics of the pair in combination.  With the mics angled 90 degrees (or whatever angle you like) switch the pattern of the mics from subcardioid to cardioid to supercard and back and take a look at how the shape of that grey line changes.

A key aspect of a supercardioid for me is that it provides the greatest amount of rear rejection.  A hypercard has a slightly higher directivity index (on-axis sensitivity verses all other off-axis angles integrated) but has a somewhat more pickup directly to the rear than a supercardioid.  Of course as DSatz reminds us, most available super/hypers are tuned so as to be closer to supercard than hypercard.

[robgronotte]

How much do the CM4 sets go for?

Around €120 each, so €240 for the pair.

Source: https://www.jam.se/sv/produkter/studio-och-inspelning/mickar/kondensator/line-audio-cm4.html

How big are they?  Or the other mics being discussed here? I'm only looking for mics that are stealthable and could fit in a hat.

[grawk]

Cm4s are a little big for a hat but people do it

Schoeps, dpa, Neumann, akg, and geffel all have active cable solutions that work well in those spaces.

[SMsound]

Cm4s are a little big for a hat but people do it

Schoeps, dpa, Neumann, akg, and geffel all have active cable solutions that work well in those spaces.

I own:

Line Audio:
- A matched pair of CM4,
- 2 matched pairs of OM1/Omni1

Schoeps:
A matched pair of CMC1L / MK21
A matched pair of CMC1 / MK5 (brand new so haven't A/B'ed)

A few matched pairs of DPA CORE 4060

Everything I do is recorded into a MixPre-6. I have also tried them into Sound Devices transformer pre's, which I like better (more beefy sound), but usually don't bother with added cables/setup/things to go wrong.

My Schoeps MK21 are more 3D and "sharp" than my line audio mics. The line audio mics are mellower. As spots on operatic voices, mellower can be a good thing, as the Schoeps MK21 can sound harsher. My friend, who is a top pro and much more experienced than I, explained that he felt the same, but MK22 were mellower than my MK21 and more like the CM4. On piano, I much prefer the MK21's sharp/3d'ness. By "much prefer", I mean that I can usually tell them apart, and there's a 1% advantage for schoeps (but that's just piano not voice, where CM4 may win the day), but still sometimes I can't tell them apart. On high-stress situations (135dB soprano off-axis), Schoeps does have a little advantage. I'm not deaf -- on Gearspace, there are threads with 30+ people absolutely certain that A is Schoeps and B is Line Audio or vice versa, and they're right 55% of the time...  DPA is also a great sound. To me it's slightly more "granular". That probably is an ineffective word, but it's not really sharp in a harsh/beautiful way like schoeps, nor is it mellow like Line Audio. I wouldn't pick DPA for sound, but I do pick them for size.

MK5  cardio mode on spoken voice has the classic schoeps polish we know and love. Again, though, you're talking about spending thousands for something where sometimes you cannot tell the difference. Placement matters way, way, way more, as does the quality of your room.

If you're not a pro, and you don't just want Schoeps for personal satisfaction, then probably not worth the outlay. I love them both, but it's also just something that brings me joy. Also, I'm recording 135dB sopranos off-axis where any distortion is immediately noticeable to the human ear. No way you'd notice on a guitar or piano.

I have found that when I bring Schoeps and Sound Devices, other A/V pros are much more willing to take me seriously and lend me gear...so there's that.

[robgronotte]

Cm4s are a little big for a hat but people do it

Schoeps, dpa, Neumann, akg, and geffel all have active cable solutions that work well in those spaces.

I've never understood what "active cables" means. How would the kind of cable help them fit in a hat.

[Pieteker]

Cm4s are a little big for a hat but people do it

I have no problems at all wearing the CM4s inside my Kangol. I’ve got a simple technique that works great. Feel free to DM me.

[Pieteker]

How much do the CM4 sets go for?

Around €120 each, so €240 for the pair.

Source: https://www.jam.se/sv/produkter/studio-och-inspelning/mickar/kondensator/line-audio-cm4.html

How big are they?  Or the other mics being discussed here? I'm only looking for mics that are stealthable and could fit in a hat.

77mm x 20mm

[beatkilla]

How much do the CM4 sets go for?

Around €120 each, so €240 for the pair.

Source: https://www.jam.se/sv/produkter/studio-och-inspelning/mickar/kondensator/line-audio-cm4.html

How big are they?  Or the other mics being discussed here? I'm only looking for mics that are stealthable and could fit in a hat.

I attached a photo of AT 853 vs. AKG ACTIVES ( Schoeps are the same size )

Easily stealth able

[Gutbucket]

I've never understood what "active cables" means. How would the kind of cable help them fit in a hat.

"Active cables" allow one to run the microphone capsule remotely, or "all by itself" without having it's amplifier body directly attached to it.  The amplifier body is moved to the other end of the "active cable" and stowed remotely in the recording bag, in a pocket or wherever.. or eliminated entirely by substituting a specialized preamp capable of powering the mic capsules directly without the amplifier bodies.  Sometimes the capsule at mounted to the end of a rigid support tube type stand, making for a very small "microphone on a stalk" type of arrangement which doesn't visually obscure the talent.

In that way, the microphone or mic-pair is made significantly smaller, lighter, more compact and less visually intrusive, which allows it to fit better in tight places.  This of course requires a microphone system where the capsules are removable from the amplifier bodies (unlike the Line Audio mics) and requires special cables with special fittings, wiring assignments, etc.

The need for this kind of system been reduced by the ongoing miniaturization of microphone amplifiers.  Although Line Audio mics do not have removable capsules, the entire microphone including integrated amplifier body is significantly smaller than most small diaphragm microphones with attached amplifier bodies used to be just a few decades back.  Similarly some of the newest modular microphone systems now have amplifier bodies that are quite compact, only about the size of an XLR plug.  Such ongoing miniaturization doesn't entirely eliminate the usefulness or need for active cable systems, but does achieve much of what those systems seek to do in a simpler, more robust and less costly way. 

[DSatz]

Gutbucket, you defined "capsule extension" nicely, but left out what makes active cables active. A capsule extension is active only if it has active circuitry (usually FET-based) at the capsule end to convert the signal to low impedance, to prevent signal loss and interference in the extension cable (or other forms of extension such as thin metal tubes).

One such arrangement was used for some special microphones made for the French broadcasting system starting in the early 1960s; about ten years later it took on the ultra-compact form that has become familiar since then. The older, passive type of capsule extensions, mainly in the form of extension tubes for public address applications, has existed since the early 1930s. In our modern environment that is so full of cell-phone signals and other sources of radio-frequency energy that didn't exist back then, they're clearly obsolete. Sometimes even active accessories are hard put to stave off such interference.

Unfortunately some people on this board lump the two kinds of capsule extensions (passive and active) together under the term "active". I wish they wouldn't, because that obscures an important distinction in terms of operational reliability, especially for those of us who work in cities and other environments where the threat of electrical interference is in the air all around us all the time.

[morst]

Unfortunately some people on this board lump the two kinds of capsule extensions (passive and active) together under the term "active". I wish they wouldn't, because that obscures an important distinction in terms of operational reliability, especially for those of us who work in cities and other environments where the threat of electrical interference is in the air all around us all the time.

I've taken to calling the Neumann KM100 series LC-3 KA extension cable/capusle system "remote" rather than "active" for this reason.
In fact, I stopped using mine in 2018 when I got my MixPre6, because I noticed unpleasant levels of (RF, I assume) noise while using them.