The truth part two: Cymbal samples of different cardioids compared to cmc5 mk4

leifislive · 19th April 2007

Hi,

I am presently undertaking a comparison of different cardioid mics to the Schoeps cmc5 mk4 in order to find a comparable neutral, cheaper cardioid mic. The main application for this mic is intended to be a spot mic. I originally wanted only to look at modular systems, but then I got curious...
For the purpose I have, I recorded different mics simultaneously pairwise in a "X vs. mk4" fashion. I plan to record all mics simultanesouly together in the end; however, not all mics are already here.
Anyway, I have the first samples ready to be published

. I recorded my 22 inch sizzle K-custom ride cymbal in roughly 1.5m distance on axis and 90 degree off axis with the AKG c480 CK61, Neumann KM 184, Shure KSM137, MBHO mbp604 ka200, AKG c460, Oktava 012 and the Schoeps cmc5 mk4. Beyerdynamic MC930 and Microtech Gefell m300 wil arrive hopefully soon.

The files are 320 kbit mp3 encoded with samplitudes mp3 encoder using the highest quality possible. All mics were recorded using a RME Fireface400 with the same gain level in each channel. I did not match the gain according to the manufacturers sensitivty data.

PLEASE READ THAT:

Each channel of the recording was normalized for each microphone afterwards. Theoretically, both mics should therefore have the same level. However, due to different maximal levels spikes (e.g. because the mics are not completely coincident or due to unlinear frequency response) the normalizing function might be fooled. Therefore normalizing does not mean, that both do in fact have the same level. I did not want to adjust all levels to my taste of equivalent level. Please check that for each file for yourself again. The 0 or the 90 at the end of the file name indicate, whether it is recorded in 0 degree or 90 degree.

PLEASE READ THAT AS WELL....:

Left channel is the same cmc5 mk4 mic during all recordings. Right channel is the mic as indicated in the file name. For reference purposes I have included a files with two cmc5 mk4.
By panning the same file in two different tracks and setting your DAW main mix to mono, you can compare between the two mics. Please see my last post as well. Before each cymbal-recording starts, there is a short intervall of ambience noise, which could be used to judge the noise level of the tested mics.

Thanks go out to: pkautzsch for his cmc5 mk4 and oktava 012, d_fu for his AKG c460ck1 and finally Thomann music store for having 28 days of money back....

I don't want to comment on the samples a lot. If I can find time, I may be able to do some frequency response measurements later this week or afterwards. I hope....

Enjoy!

Best,
Leif

leifislive · 19th April 2007

More samples

leifislive · 19th April 2007

Much more samples

leifislive · 19th April 2007

And even much much more samples

leifislive · 20th April 2007

I thought presenting you the files in a "stereo way" enables you to compare between the test mic and the reference mk4 simultaneously in the following way:

- you need two tracks and a DAW with a mono option for the main mix (which I suppose you do have) and activate the mono option
- pan one file to the left (reference)
- pan the other to the right (test)
-switch between both tracks by muting one track (e.g. reference) and soloing this particular track only if you want to listen to this track

Now I have noticed that I had not written this explicitly until now you may have been confused why I posted stereo files this way.So, is this alright for you or would you prefer a mono version of each test file and reference file (this doubles the number of downloads)?

Please let me know.

d_fu · 20th April 2007

I'd prefer mono.

leifislive · 24th April 2007

Hi,

I received the m300 today. I have recorded the cymbal in 0 degree and the closest I could get to 90 degree of the 8 mics simultaneously. It was somewhat difficult to get the mics all close enough, but I think the results are in good agreement with the results posted above.

This time, the files are mono *.wav. I hope that this is fine to you.

leifislive · 24th April 2007

schoeps and neumann

leifislive · 24th April 2007

shure and gefell

leifislive · 24th April 2007

haun and oktava

JEGG · 27th November 2010

Greetings from the past, 2007.

I'm surprised there weren't opinions offered on this series of recordings.

Having said that, I listened to them, and I immediately discovered I'm not in the habit of listening to recordings of a single cymbal! So first, I had to just find out the identifiable "parts" of the sound of this cymbal. Others, who listen to this kind of source all of the time, would not have any problem to identify differences immediately (I think).

As to lack of responses, perhaps this was due to how the files are presented. Dual mono, with the Schoeps always on the left and the other mic's on the right.

For those of you who like myself find this a little impractical, let me suggest this way: Open all of the files simultaneously in some simple player-for example, QuickTime player.

Listen to the right channel only, and your right speaker only. This is a much easier way for me, at least, to hear and compare the files. (There is a file where the Schoeps is also on the right side, so that can be used as a point of comparison to the others.)

Evidently, there is a Part 1 to this thread, but I don't know where that would be.

I still have not puzzled out the differences, but I'd be very interested in hearing from people who can make faster judgements about such things-whether I might agree or not. It's easier for me to hear differences in the fundamental and lower partials, rather than the upper partials of the cymbal. But that's just from my own experience or inexperience, and/or my hearing limitations.

Some files are presented twice, so locate the wave versions further down the thread. It's a somewhat inconvenient download, but if you persist you'll find the free download links.

Brackish · 29th November 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEGG

As to lack of responses, perhaps this was due to how the files are presented. Dual mono, with the Schoeps always on the left and the other mic's on the right.

That's why I didn't bother listening.

JEGG · 1st December 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brackish

That's why I didn't bother listening.

And that's why I suggested an easy way around the inconvenience.

aracu · 1st December 2010

"a comparison of different cardioid mics to the Schoeps cmc5 mk4"

Why not just compare the mics to one another (including the Schoeps)?
Is it a good habit to always compare to Schoeps?

JEGG · 2nd December 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by aracu

"a comparison of different cardioid mics to the Schoeps cmc5 mk4"

Why not just compare the mics to one another (including the Schoeps)?
Is it a good habit to always compare to Schoeps?

Are you having a problem?

You don't have to listen to the Schoeps examples.

aracu · 2nd December 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEGG

Are you having a problem?

You don't have to listen to the Schoeps examples.

More of a philisophical problem, of wondering why the comparison
is centered around Schoeps. I'll consult with a microphone
psychologist.

JEGG · 7th December 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by aracu

More of a philisophical problem, of wondering why the comparison
is centered around Schoeps. I'll consult with a microphone
psychologist.

A good point. And that's from 2007, but now things are slightly (and only slightly) different.

The Schoeps MK4 is still the comparison standard, take a look at recent comparisons.

But now the world is moving toward, "Oh, yeah the MK4 is OK but using cardioids is just so passé."

Also, the MKH8040 is becoming the one to beat for many. This is an interesting change, as the 8040 does have some subtle colors but they work very well for many people in a variety of idioms.

For some reason, the world hasn't fallen in love with the DPA4011, a very nice mic IMO.

For me, the MK4 is appealing not because it's a great sound, but rather it inflicts the least amount of damage-especially the upper end- on things put in front of it! I still like the MKH40, that whole olde range being boring to many, but I like the range simply because they are the least obnoxious.

So, back to this cymbal test in this thread. After I began to be able to pick things out in the sound (no small feat for me), nothing sounded as perfectly polite as the Schoeps. I was a little surprised at the smallness of the differences. And I'm wondering how much of the existing differences were due to the slight variations of mic placement-and the usual but appropriate comment of users not necessarily putting one mic in the place that works for another.

But, it seemed to be that every mic in these examples had more in the upper end-and the upper end was more forward- than the Schoeps. There were even larger differences (for me) in the lower partials. Too bad no DPA or Sennheisers in this little test.

For anyone who comes along later, please don't take my comments too seriously- they weren't made to be product pronouncements.

Maybe the thread will resurface in three more years.

leifislive · 13th December 2010

Just came around here today.... and thanks for the interest

I chose the cymbal because of the high frequencies, where the most frequency response "damage" due to unliearities was expected. I once thought about using a vacuum cleaner, noise can be pretty reveling... Moreover, any comparison will cause more problems than finding the best source: how to place 8 mics in the same spot vs. how to find a reference???

I know, that the way of presenting the files wasn't perfect. Maybe one day I may repeat the story with a different setup and include recent microphones...

Having just listened to the files again 2,5 years later... well... I still think the Schoeps (followed by Neumann) is the "less damaging" for the 0 degree and the 90 degree. I think 90 degrees is the most revealing position. And it is important, as soon as you are not recording in dead spaces...

Having said that, therer are more interesting mics. I tested the Earthworks Cardioid once, and it is even less damaging, however, it has a little more noise, but not as much as I expected (less than the small DPAs). I didn't have the opportunity to get the 4011 (which was reported to me as being very good).

So in the end, the test proved to me, that Oktava is rather good for the money and will work OK, but nothing beats Schoeps for flexibility AND sound. So, if you want the best, pay most. Somehow, I think I knew that before...

Now, I moved on, bought some Schoeps for main mic applications, use Neumann for critical spots, and still wonder whether to take Oktava or Rode for the "economy spot"....

Best
Leif

leifislive · 13th December 2010

And listen to the sound of the sizzles...

JEGG · 14th December 2010

I'm amazed that you've "resurfaced!"

Your files presented a listening challenge to me, as I'm not accustomed to listening solely to such a sound source. I found it intriguing and educational, and so I thank you for the considerable effort that went toward this project. My ears have improved as a result of your files. Oddly enough, I simply couldn't stop listening to these until I was able to hear and identify the differences.

As you ascertained (I think), I came to the conclusion that the Schoeps did the least damage. But I also thought the Oktavas were not bad at all!

It's too bad that there wasn't an MKH40 and a 4011, not to mention a TLM193 which would have been very interesting. Not that these would have been better, but they would have been fascinating. OTH, knowing when to stop is a necessary skill.

Out of curiosity, was there a "Part I" to this?

Thanks again for your tests, and it's great to hear from the you! Do you have any other interesting tidbits floating around these forums or elsewhere?

JEGG · 14th December 2010

Quote: