mk8 LF response

[zakco]

So...I've had some time now to use my new Scheops mics in a variety of situations. This is the first time I've used a SCD with a fig8 pattern. One thing I noticed right away was that the mk8's low end was lacking compared to my other fig8 mics (all LDC or Ribbon). At first I thought that the capsule might be damaged, but it sounded nice, just a little thin on it's own. When used in MS with the mk4 it sounded lovely. Clean and clear with a very usable room sound.

I had a look on the schoeps site and sure enough, the mk8 is 6db down at 50 Hz. I had a look at comparable models by DPA and Neumann and saw a similar lack of LF response. Obviously this is by design...

I had a chance to use them for a small choir recording in a nice theater. I put up an ORTF pair of mk4s and AT4050s as Omni outriggers and just as an experiment I used a MS mk4/mk8 combination at the same distance but not as high. I didn't have any time to work with the MS positioning, and where I put it didn't really work in this application. The mk4 is just too focused on the center (I get the feeling a wide cardoid cap would be better in this case) and the mk8 just didn't sound "big" enough. Compared to the ORTF and omnis, it just sounded small.

I'd like to try it again some time but with a different approach to positioning.

Has anyone had simlar imppresions of the mk8?
What are your favorite applications for MS with mk8/mk4?

Thanks,

-Zak

[audiothings]

I had a look at comparable models by DPA and Neumann and saw a similar lack of LF response.

Sorry to go OT, but do DPA or Neumann currently make fig-8 SDC at all?

And since I'm here, I'll just take a couple of guesses on your time.

* -6 dB down at 50 Hz would probably be a benefit in many situations (tho' certainly not all), particularly for an 's' mic.

* You'd probably have to place the m/s pair some distance behind the ORTF pair, or alter the balance between the 'm' and 's' mics in favour of the 's' mic, to get a similar balance to 'ORTF'.

As I'm simply guessing, somebody please correct me.

Best,

[Recording David]

I love Schoeps mics and use them for pretty much all my work. For direct to stereo applications I usually use an MK8/MK5 MS set up with a Peter Engh Sonic Orbit and it sounds great. I often use the MK5 in omni rather than cardioid.

Of course, one of the magic aspects of MS is the control of stereo imaging you have by controlling the balance of the mid/side mics (more S=wider perceived image). I have also found an MS pair much easier to position well than other standard stereo configurations and if you're using an omni as the mid mic there is no risk of proximity effect if you're going in a bit closer.

In MS you get all the low end you need from the mid mic, in my experience, and therefore it doesn't matter so much that the MK8 is down at 50 Hz - this is definitely the rumble zone in most cases.

Don't worry too much about the frequency charts - if it sounds good, it IS good!

[zakco]

Originally Posted by audiothings

Sorry to go OT, but do DPA or Neumann currently make fig-8 SDC at all?

Neumann makes the ak20 capsule for their km100 series. It's a whopping 8db down at 50 Hz. Apparently DPA doesn't make a fig8 SDC, my mistake...not sure what I was thinking there...

* -6 dB down at 50 Hz would probably be a benefit in many situations (tho' certainly not all), particularly for an 's' mic.

I think you're probably right there. So far in the studio (18'x30'x10') this has certainly been true.

* You'd probably have to place the m/s pair some distance behind the ORTF pair, or alter the balance between the 'm' and 's' mics in favour of the 's' mic, to get a similar balance to 'ORTF'.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to match the stereo imaging, just the tonality that I was getting from ORTF/Omnis. I'll try your suggestion, though I suspect the farther distance from the source will further reduce the "bigness".

Thanks for the suggestions!

-Zak

[zakco]

Originally Posted by Recording David

I love Schoeps mics and use them for pretty much all my work. For direct to stereo applications I usually use an MK8/MK5 MS set up with a Peter Engh Sonic Orbit and it sounds great. I often use the MK5 in omni rather than cardioid.

Of course, one of the magic aspects of MS is the control of stereo imaging you have by controlling the balance of the mid/side mics (more S=wider perceived image). I have also found an MS pair much easier to position well than other standard stereo congigurations and if you're using an omni as the mid mic there is no risk of proximity effect if you're going in a bit closer.

In MS you get all the low end you need from the mid mic, in my experience, and therefore it doesn't matter so much that the MK8 is down at 50 Hz - this is definitely the rumble zone in most cases.

I agree that 50 Hz is indeed rumbleland but the mk8's LF rollofff starts about 200 hz which can be pretty important in some situations. I think you make a good point though and I'm looking forward to trying the schoeps omni or wide cardoid capsules for this application.

I've never tried MS with an omni as the mid, I'll try it definitely.

Don't worry too much about the frequency charts - if it sounds good, it IS good!

I totally agree, but it was my ears that prompted me to seek out a chart to confirm what I was hearing, not the other way around.

thanks for the info!

-Zak

[pkautzsch]

Sennheiser's MKH30 is also a fig-8 SDC, and, as MK8 and AK20, single-diaphragm.
I think the bass roll-off is not actually by design like it is with the close-miking version of the MK4, but rather an issue of physics, the pressure gradient being not very large at low frequencies. If this occurs more in single-diaphragm fig-8s, this could be explained in that there is way less distance between the two sides of the diaphragm than the distance between the two diaphragms of a switchable LDC.
I have found the Schoeps CMT56 (which is more or less the predecessor of the MK6 switchable cap) to be a great S mic, way better phase coherence than Neumann KM86 (which is basically two KK84 back-to-back). The MK8 I know only as choir spots with the nulls towards the brass in oratorio recording. Will do some extensive fig-8 testing in July.

As to the difference in "tonality", I might point to decorrelation between L and R, which is an important factor determining how spacious a recording will sound. In MS and XY you'll always have correlated signals as there is no time difference.

[David Spearritt]

The lack of LF in a fig 8 is not by design its by physics as stated. At LF the wavelength is much much larger than the distance between the front and back of the capsule, so each side of the fig 8 experiences or is immersed in more or less the same pressure, hence no response.

I have found, in frequent use of MS and Blumlein over the last 14 years, with MK8, AK20, KM86 and Royer SF12/24 that the LF rolloff in the 8 capsule has NEVER been a problem, almost more of an advantage typically, to remove the woof from the sound and to provide superb clarity to the side information. I think I have ever so slightly boosted LF EQ of the side mic about 3 times in hundreds of recordings.

I sold the KM86 because, while it had a nice on-axis sound, anything off axis was too nasal and uneven, most likely due to the great distance between the front and back of the capsules, something you definitely don't want in a fig 8.

Overall, the single diaphram fig 8 is probably my favourite mike pattern, first as a problem solver in multi-mike use because of the amazing dead nulls, and secondly for superb image focus and clarity in Blumlein. Its also a natural capsule, ie no built in delays relying on diffraction paths to set the directivity.

[sonare]

The Sennheiser fig-8 LF is quite robust, thanks to onbaord EQ. I have a Schoeps MK6 that seems to have very good LF response.

Rich

[mosrite]

Has anyone had simlar imppresions of the mk8?

I used it a while ago on a small choir in a large Cathedral and, a the time, was very happy with the results. Listening back now I find the recording clean and precise (but not clinical, after all it is Schoeps we're talking about), but lacking in spaciousness (the consequence of coincident micing I guess).

What are your favorite applications for MS with mk8/mk4?

Although I havn't tried it myself I reckon those charactertistics mentioned above might well suit a quartet. LF isn't as much of an issue in that scenario,
clean and precise would probably suit and, depending on the acoustic, the lack of spaciousness probably wouldn't be an issue either.

However, and this is purely personal, I have very much gone off MS in general. It might be the (overly?) strong central image or something but it almost has an unnaturalness to my ears.

But then what do I know, I don't really like the sound of omnis either it seems

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to match the stereo imaging, just the tonality that I was getting from ORTF/Omnis.

Tonally they are all very different capsules / arrays.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Listening back now I find the recording clean and precise but lacking in spaciousness (the consequence of coincident micing I guess).

However, and this is purely personal, I have very much gone off MS in general. It might be the (overly?) strong central image or something but it almost has an unnaturalness to my ears.

I so much prefer spaced AB pair in most cases (including recording solo instruments in the studio) from the reasons you mention - lack of lush and spaciousness usually reached with near coincidence positions ... And I thought I am the only one who never liked MS, always sounded a bit strange and flat to my ears. After a good intention I always rushed away from it ...
The only coincidence position which I like is Blumlein on my R88 ...

[David Spearritt]

Although I havn't tried it myself I reckon those charactertistics mentioned above might well suit a quartet. LF isn't as much of an issue in that scenario,
clean and precise would probably suit and, depending on the acoustic, the lack of spaciousness probably wouldn't be an issue either.

Its always a good idea to spot the cello in a SQ, this can be an omni of course.

so much prefer spaced AB pair in most cases (including recording solo instruments in the studio) from the reasons you mention - lack of lush and spaciousness usually reached with near coincidence positions ... And I thought I am the only one who never liked MS, always sounded a bit strange and flat to my ears.

What you are essentially saying is that you like a lot of uncorrelated sound contamination on the two channels, some really wonky imaging as well as some comb filtering. This does indeed sound spacey from loudspeakers but it bears little relationship with reality of the original sound stage. It sometimes sounds like muzak, you know, appears comes from everywhere.

But you can get the uncorrelated stuff with coincident techniques as well, with judicious use of reverb, and used wisely with MS or Blumlein it works wonders. The fact that you prefer Blumlein is already a clue to the increase in reverb coming from the back lobes. With MS, try adding some spaced pair recorded convolution reverb to the recording, perhaps with some LF EQ boost only to the reverb, you then get the best of both worlds without the comb filtering and image problems.

All that being said, I am using spaced omnis more and more, because of the "air" they impart, but usually as outriggers rather than being a main pair.

[mrsteaks]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

All that being said, I am using spaced omnis more and more, because of the "air" they impart, but usually as outriggers rather than being a main pair.

David, would you use spaced omnis with a Blumlein main, such as an SF12? To my thinking, SDC omnis would likely impart a boost to the LF (something the SF12 can lack), as well as a sense of air.

Am I off base with this question?

~~~~Mark S.
Pretty Good Recordings

[David Spearritt]

Certainly. On many occasions the main pair is an SF24, and SF12 previously and 4003 or KM130 outriggers, this is one of my favourite setups for chamber music recording and its usually the first thing I try.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

And I thought I am the only one who never liked MS

Me, too...

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

What you are essentially saying is that you like a lot of uncorrelated sound contamination on the two channels, some really wonky imaging as well as some comb filtering.

With smaller AB setups, I've not noticed any comb filtering. And I also get perfectly sufficient imaging - I just don't care much about the pinpoint imaging that people who test loudspeakers in Hifi magazines get all excited about...

This does indeed sound spacey from loudspeakers but it bears little relationship with reality of the original sound stage.

Please define "reality" in this context...

[mrsteaks]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Certainly. On many occasions the main pair is an SF24, and SF12 previously and 4003 or KM130 outriggers, this is one of my favourite setups for chamber music recording and its usually the first thing I try.

Silly me, I've never tried using outriggers. I've been so smitten by the "pinpoint imaging" Blumlein presents that I simply overlooked using them! I will now, though.

I just love this forum - wealth of knowledge, and lots of "dammit I knew that!!!" Always up for learning.

~~~~Mark S.
Pretty Good Recordings

[Yannick]

Reality of space:
with a AB recording I can recognize the tonality of a space, but not the space itself.
With a good MS or Blumlein recording the real dimensions are left more intact.

But we'll probably never get out of this coincident versus spaced techniques discussion. For a large part of this worlds population the Western harmonic system does not sound harmonic, so why bother to try to agree on something trivial as recording techniques ?

Anyway, I know MS to be better

Topic: mk8 LF response, for me it seems to drop off too early, like many fig8 mics do. That's why I really like the MKH30, and of course SF1 (which is flat to 30 Hz).

Question: does ANYBODY know when/if a real fig8 keeps its bidirectional characteristic down to its LF limit ?

[mrsteaks]

Originally Posted by d_fu

With smaller AB setups, I've not noticed any comb filtering. And I also get perfectly sufficient imaging - I just don't care much about the pinpoint imaging that people who test loudspeakers in Hifi magazines get all excited about...

These are the same guys who get excited about laying pieces of wood on their speakers, insisting it improves the sound. Along with other foibles. Consider the source!

~~~~Mark S.
Pretty Good Recordings

[Ronnie Dixon]

I love Schoeps mics and use them for pretty much all my work. For direct to stereo applications I usually use an MK8/MK5 MS set up with a Peter Engh Sonic Orbit and it sounds great. I often use the MK5 in omni rather than cardioid.

I am often with the same view. The MK5 always appears more open in Omni , or is responding to small nuances in the room not unlike early reflexions.

The Schoeps works well with acoustic work.

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by d_fu

With smaller AB setups, I've not noticed any comb filtering.

For some material its hard to recognise, complex waveforms like harpsichord. But for solo oboe or clarinet or a soprano it is overwhelming.

And I also get perfectly sufficient imaging - I just don't care much about the pinpoint imaging that people who test loudspeakers in Hifi magazines get all excited about... Please define "reality" in this context...

Reality means recreating the phantom images and reverberant sound stage that was experienced in the hall, between the loudspeakers.

We have been here many times before. There is much debate about it all. I align with some of the writing on the subject found here. REGONAUDIO.

See the article "What Can and Cannot Be Expected from Stereo, Logically" for this hijacked thread topic in particular.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

For some material its hard to recognise, complex waveforms like harpsichord. But for solo oboe or clarinet or a soprano it is overwhelming.

Hmm, do you hear any "comb" for example Here ? Just a simple bamboo flute ...

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Hmm, do you hear any "comb" for example Here ? Just a simple bamboo flute ...

Very difficult to tell because there is so much distortion in this signal, it has fuzz and rattle all around the sound, and lots of breathe noise. Also what was the spacing and distance from the mics. It sounds to me like the flute's distance from the mics was also about the spacing, ie very close.

Perhaps the harmonics of the fundamental note are comb filtering, but it is such a complex waveform with already full of significant distortion and artifacts, its difficult to tell.

Its easier with a much purer waveform from a soprano or oboe.

[d_fu]

Ok, some more hijacking...

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

See the article "What Can and Cannot Be Expected from Stereo, Logically" for this hijacked thread topic in particular.

Interesting collection of articles. A bit one-sided, maybe...

Take, for instance, this: "So, de facto, minimal microphoning tends to produce natural (I.e., fairly distant) tonal balance in the recording of orchestras." (Records and Reality)

What is "natural"?
I simply don't think that any pure stereo mic setup (from AB to Blumlein, even baffled systems) in the same position as a listener will produce the same impression the listener is getting. It will always sound more distant/ambient.
One would need to stand/sit in front of an orchestra, right next to the mics, and then change from listening to the source directly to a pair of (in theory perfectly) closed headphones... Has anyone ever conducted such a test scientifically? In any hall/church with some amount of ambience, I would assume that to create an impression that resembles the "reality" the listener is experiencing, one would have to move the mics considerably closer to the source than he is. Just consider how relatively good the perceived live sound is even when you're sitting far back in a reverberant church or up on the balcony. Place any stereo mic setup in the same position, and you will get something completely different and wishy-washy. The ear and brain are obviously capable of filtering and emphasizing the remaining direct sound, while microphones can't do that, and the ear can no longer do that in the recorded sound.

And this is just considering pure stereo setups... Quoting pkautzsch here, spots mics do in recordings what our eyes do during the concert.

Anyhow, reading through these articles reminded me that I should actually get myself into the hall and listen to the live sound without microphones more often... Will try to get a chance during a live orchestra recording next weekend..

Daniel

[kstrauss]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Reality means recreating the phantom images and reverberant sound stage that was experienced in the hall, between the loudspeakers.

But are we always after reality? What about an amateur or student ensemble or a poor-sounding hall?

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

We have been here many times before. There is much debate about it all. I align with some of the writing on the subject found here. REGONAUDIO.

See the article "What Can and Cannot Be Expected from Stereo, Logically" for this hijacked thread topic in particular.

I am familiar with REG's writings an would consider him on the audiophile fringe. He has strong opinions and his articles are frequently filled with inaccuracies.

Reminds me of a joke:

Q: What is the definition of an audiophile recording?

A: A first-rate recording of a second-rate performance

[mosrite]

We have been here many times before. There is much debate about it all. I align with some of the writing on the subject found here. REGONAUDIO.

Interesting stuff David, thanks.

I am familiar with REG's writings an would consider him on the audiophile fringe. He has strong opinions and his articles are frequently filled with inaccuracies.

kstrauss, could you please point to some of these inaccuracies. I am not disputing it but would like to know what you are referring to.

Actually I found a lot that was written fitted with my own experience. I have found it very hard to like the sound of spaced omnis on pretty much any source. I think I have come to realise that it isn't the sound of the omni I dislike but what is created when 2 are put together in a spaced array.

My friend (an audiophile and musician with exceptional ears) listened to my orchestral recording I made a few weeks ago. I recorded it with 2 wide cardioids in a near coincident array (no spots, no outriggers).

His first comment was that it definitely captured the sound of the orchestra and sounded very real. His only criticism was that he was wanting more than that. I believe he was wanting the omni sound somewhere in the mix. I wonder if a certain ammount of conditioning is at play here.

I ignored his second comment and took strength from his first. After all, I couldn't ask for more than "definitely captured the sound of the orchestra and sounded very real".