Mini Mid-Side Field Rig?

[aracu]

Originally Posted by JEGG

It's not hard at all to get the Sennheiser to sound like the Sanken-if that's what one wants to do-and all it takes is applying EQ at such high frequencies-lots of it happening at 16k and above.

In my personal experience I have never applied eq to a Sennheiser mic
(Sennhieser 800 and 8050 to be specific) and felt happy with or used the result. If the location recording sound needed eq work, applying the eq
would make it sound worse to my perception.

To me the opposite of this would be an AKG 426, which seems highly adjustable with eq without degrading the sound.

So although I appreciate my Sennheiser mics I feel that there is a risk factor
in using them, especially in new situations where there is not much time
for a sound check.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by aracu

In my personal experience I have never applied eq to a Sennheiser mic
(Sennhieser 800 and 8050 to be specific) and felt happy with or used the result. If the location recording sound needed eq work, applying the eq
would make it sound worse to my perception.

To me the opposite of this would be an AKG 426, which seems highly adjustable with eq without degrading the sound.

So although I appreciate my Sennheiser mics I feel that there is a risk factor
in using them, especially in new situations where there is not much time
for a sound check.

You have, as utterly and completely as possible, missed the context and point of my remarks.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by OzGizmo

In the work I do, by not using MS its one less thing I have to worry about.
Its my choice!!!!

It's a perfectly fine choice, but you were presenting your opinions earlier as fact and industry standard, rather than merely a choice.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by OzGizmo

John you have tried to twist what I'm saying, all I was saying is....

"If a microphone has a wide setting "W" like the Shure VP88 and "Wide" as the Sony Ecm969. The mics have a wide setting and that is what was used [normal mic settings]... what you can't use normal mic settings now?

And I think it's ironic that your commenting on my use of the MS system yet you have, by your own admission NEVER used it live to air !!!

How about showing a bit of professional integrity!

There is no difference in using MS Live-to Air and recording with MS if you matrix direct to left/right stereo while recording and don't manipulate later.

I used to matrix to stereo while recording and that is no different than sending direct to Air.

What you have had is difficulties with particular microphones on a "wide" setting - this is your problem with those particular mics and not a problem inherent in MS. You seem intent on rubbishing MS as a whole because of a problem which you have had that is hardly ever experienced by others who use MS properly.

Most people use separate Mid and Side mics and never increase Side higher than Mid - in which case your problem doesn't happen.

Your problem is specific to your use of those mics and not to normal MS use.

[Petrus]

Back to the original question: there are 4 different compact single body M/S microphones made by Pearl. They have fig-8 with either cardioid or hypercardioid, and both come either hard-wired for LR or raw MS signals for external processing. These are the lightest and most compact M/S solutions for high quality stereo field recording I know. Well, maybe the Shoeps combo is smaller (shorter at least), but these are simpler and slightly cheaper.

Pearl Condenser michrophone stereo

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Back to the original question: there are 4 different compact single body M/S microphones made by Pearl. They have fig-8 with either cardioid or hypercardioid, and both come either hard-wired for LR or raw MS signals for external processing. These are the lightest and most compact M/S solutions for high quality stereo field recording I know. Well, maybe the Shoeps combo is smaller (shorter at least), but these are simpler and slightly cheaper.

Pearl Condenser michrophone stereo

Yes, Pearl is one of those manufacturers of excellent microphones that tends to be forgotten too often - and that's a shame, because they make good mics..

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Back to the original question: there are 4 different compact single body M/S microphones made by Pearl. They have fig-8 with either cardioid or hypercardioid, and both come either hard-wired for LR or raw MS signals for external processing. These are the lightest and most compact M/S solutions for high quality stereo field recording I know. Well, maybe the Shoeps combo is smaller (shorter at least), but these are simpler and slightly cheaper.

Pearl Condenser michrophone stereo

I have the Pearl DS-60 and like it quite a bit. I can do MS, DMS, Blumlein and a multitude of other single point arrays with the Schoeps DMS plug-in. I like the "tone" of the mic. But the flexibility of being able to run so many types of mic from the one DS-60 is nice. I am not sure how it compares to the Schoeps Mk4 + Mk8 setup. If I get a chance I will test it and post the results,


Cheers

[0VU]

Since we're going back to the original question, it might be worth remembering that it was:

My price range started at $350 max. The 8022 was $400. I have to return it. The Rode NT-4 is $530. I am defeated. For lack of any other solid options, I am going to order the Rode. Do I have less expensive alternatives that are high enough quality that I can use the recordings in portfolio work for video game jobs?

There are lots of great stereo mics and stereo mic combinations but "Less expensive alternatives to the Rode NT-4." are fairly thin on the ground and don't include anything made by Pearl. (Though they are very nice, and often under-rated/overlooked, mics.)

So, any stereo mics - MS or not - as good as a Rode NT-4 but cheaper?

[9sbean]

Originally Posted by 0VU

So, any stereo mics - MS or not - as good as a Rode NT-4 but cheaper?

There you go.
Superlux s502

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by 9sbean

There you go.
Superlux s502

The Superlux E524 seems to be a copy of the Rode NT4 - I can't say how it compares sound-wise.

The range of Superlux products available in the UK is HERE - I can't see the 502 on the list, though.

But I have found it at Thomann - HERE.

Though I, personally, do tend to be pretty "anti" to manufacturers that copy other people's products.

[9sbean]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Though I, personally, do tend to be pretty "anti" to manufacturers that copy other people's products.

Don't you feel Sennheiser MKH8000 series, especially the boom bar system looks very similar to another Germany name brand?

Oh, how about Rode NTG3 vs. Sennheiser MKH416?

And I did post a list here:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6204062-post11.html

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by 9sbean

Don't you feel Sennheiser MKH8000 series, especially the boom bar system looks very similar to another Germany name brand?


Oh, how about Rode NTG3 vs. Sennheiser MKH416?

No - not at all - they are totally different. The microphones are different in every respect. For a start the others are normal AF mics and the MKH 8000 are symmetrical capsule RF mics.. The MKH 8000 series were about five years in R&D and are not a copy of anything else.

Regarding the extension tubes - there are only so many ways to do extension tubes - so I would say similar but not a copy - and remember that Neumann had been doing this for years and Sennheiser own Neumann.


I won't comment on the other one.

[9sbean]

Originally Posted by John Willett

No - not at all - they are totally different. The microphones are different in every respect. For a start the others are normal AF mics and the MKH 8000 are symmetrical capsule RF mics.. The MKH 8000 series were about five years in R&D and are not a copy of anything else.

Regarding the extension tubes - there are only so many ways to do extension tubes - so I would say similar but not a copy - and remember that Neumann had been doing this for years and Sennheiser own Neumann.


I won't comment on the other one.

Not at all? The boom and swivel mount looks so similar with Schoeps! Since Sennheiser own Neumann, why don't Sennheiser share the same boom bar with Neumann? Did they admit people prefer Schoeps style than Neumann?

Ok, Superlux copy XY from Rode (Did Rode invent XY layout?), and Rode did not "learn" RF condenser shotgun from Sennheiser. tutt

[OzGizmo]

Audio-Technica - Microphones, headphones, wireless microphone systems, noise-cancelling headphones & more : AT2022 X/Y Stereo Microphone

Audio-Technica - Microphones, headphones, wireless microphone systems, noise-cancelling headphones & more : BP4025 X/Y Stereo Field Recording Microphone

Audio-Technica - Microphones, headphones, wireless microphone systems, noise-cancelling headphones & more : AT8022 X/Y Stereo Microphone

[0VU]

Originally Posted by OzGizmo

....
Audio-Technica - Microphones, headphones, wireless microphone systems, noise-cancelling headphones & more : AT8022 X/Y Stereo Microphone

And from the post which re-started this thread:

Originally Posted by Slumberland

I just purchased the AT 8022.
It is an unacceptable microphone for stereo.
...
The 8022 was $400. I have to return it.

Ever get the feeling you're going nowhere?

[richgilb]

Originally Posted by John Willett

You can add the Sennheiser MKH 30 and the MBHO KA 800 to that list.

The MKH 30 is not small (25mm diameter and a complete mic.) - the MBHO is similar in size to the Neumann and Schoeps I think. Neumann, Schoeps and MBHO have detachable heads and usable on remote cables.

Is the AKG CK94 allowed?

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by richgilb

Is the AKG CK94 allowed?

If it's single diaphragm - but I thought the AKGs were dual diaphragm fig-8s.

[panatrope]

I'm not sure how they would fit a Braunmuhl-Weber 12cm capsule into that space. I suspect a single diaphragm with an acousto-mechanical baffle like the Schoeps (maybe check the referenced patent in their specs). 3db higher self noise than the MK8, a lot higher than the MKH or LDC figure 8s. Fig 8 pattern shows some slight diminution of the 90 degree null at 16kHz only.

But they perform satisfactorily in our 'starter kit' that allows our newer recordists to experiment with M-S. The venues they record in mean that level of self noise is not significant.

[aracu]

Clip of 8050/mk8 MS array on string quartet with piano:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/...2.8050.mk8.mp3

[A3rd.Zero]

I use the Neumann 191 a lot and love it. It's an MS shotgun which is not in your budget but I'd seriously consider a pair of microphones, one being a figure 8. I've never had the too wide problem however the 191 has a matrix box which puts out either MS or XY with a dial-able width. I always record XY narrow, as the editors seem to like that the most. Additionally I would never archive sound effects or audio assets as MS because filenames change and metadata is lost. An XY file will always make sense to anyone who uses it but an MS might not.

In the field I don't love stereo systems that are not shotgun MS systems. I find that outside of 10 feet the subject looses stereo definition on an XY, ORTF, or AB Omni system unless that subject is very very loud. AB Omni is nice for location ambiance and has nicer low end response but really suffers if the subject is quiet or the location is loud. XY and ORTF stereo rigs are great inside 10 feet but this stereo "fallout" tends to make moving target subjects sound funky to me. I'd rather do a car by with a mono shotgun than a stereo XY or ORTF.

Honestly you are rarely dealing with subjects beyond 10 feet so it's not a huge issue, but if I was budget strapped I'd buy the nicest shotgun I could and make an MS system when I got the scratch. And if I HAD to have stereo from the getgo I'd get a the nicest shotgun I could afford and make one of these for the Figure 8.

[aracu]

Originally Posted by JEGG

You have, as utterly and completely as possible, missed the context and point of my remarks.

I like to be thorough.