MKH8040/TLM193/CMC621 Comparison

[madriaan]

My order of preference: 3>2>1. Liked 3, didn't care too much for 1.

M.

EDIT: sorry, let me rephrase. I liked the sound of all the clips; if I hadn't heard 2 and 3, I would've liked 1.

[wildplum]

I much preferred #2 on both pieces over either of the other two, by a wide margin. I found it to be balanced and warm on the male and the female vocal as well as the piano.

#3 was detailed but overly bright, exaggerating the detail in places (e.g. breaths between words). I preferred it slightly more than #1 on the female voice but felt that the brightness detracted from the male voice, robbing it of some of its warmth. #3 also exhibited the most room sound.

#1 was the darkest. It extended the furthest into the low end but was a bit too rounded down there for my taste. The high end seemed somewhat closed. However, I preferred it to #3 on the male voice, but only slightly. It was also the driest sounding.

I really have no idea which is which, but I’ll hazard a guess.

#3 is the CMC621. It has the widest pattern and hence picked up more “room”. It also has the brightness that I find characteristic of Schoeps.
#2 is the 8040. I have not heard these yet, but people are saying they are very balanced.
#1 is the 193. I own a pair of these and have always found them to be extended but a bit cloudy in the low end, but flattering on instruments which do not put out much low end and need a little rounding on top.

[newyorker42]

Samples 1 a/b have the least sense of space to me. They also seem a tad brittle, especially noticeable to me on the sibilance in the female singer's voice. The piano is lacking the woody-ness and bottom end present in the other samples.

Samples 2a/b have the best piano sound to me. The bottom and woody-ness is there and clear; for comparison, listen to the short ascending bass run in the middle of the b tracks. Also, there is an odd feeling of reverberation of the hall being overly present in the left channel on these two to me.

Samples 3a/b have a mist over them. The piano does have the same bottom end and woody-ness as in 2a/b, but sounds more murky and muddled, especially noticeable at the start of 3b. These samples also have a larger sense of the room to me, making me think they are the Schoeps with the wider pattern.

All of the above is hair-splitting, and I'd buy a CD that sounded like any of them.

I don't own any of these mics, but I'm going to hazard a guess just from 1 year of reading people talk about these mics on this forum. So, if I'm wrong, it is really that you all can't describe them correctly. How's that for a little covering my rear?

1. 193
2. 8040
3. 21

Whether I am right or wrong, I prefer number 2 by a small margin.

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by wildplum

I much preferred #2 on both pieces over either of the other two, by a wide margin. I found it to be balanced and warm on the male and the female vocal as well as the piano.

#3 was detailed but overly bright, exaggerating the detail in places (e.g. breaths between words). I preferred it slightly more than #1 on the female voice but felt that the brightness detracted from the male voice, robbing it of some of its warmth. #3 also exhibited the most room sound.

My findings also, but I made a different conclusion. I think 2 is the MK21 and that the overly bright one is the 8040. I own and use frequently the MK21's and I never find them bright, they are most uniform and faithful to the source. I find 3 to be too treble boosted.

I'll be completely stunned if 3 is the MK21's.

[ISedlacek]

Rich, maybe the right time to tell us ?

[mljung]

It's interesting to see how different the conclusions people have about these samples are.
To my ears #3 set are not overly bright [has some files been moving around].
Anyhow it's interesting and tells a lot about how different our equipment [including our ears] seem to be.

Mads

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by mljung

It's interesting to see how different the conclusions people have about these samples are.
To my ears #3 set are not overly bright [has some files been moving around].
Anyhow it's interesting and tells a lot about how different our equipment [including our ears] seem to be.

Mads

How's your high frequency hearing loss coming along?

[666666]

Wow, interesting thread. I shall download the clips in a moment. What I find interesting is the great difference / contradiction in what people are hearing. I also find it funny how some say, "this one is bright, it must be the Neumann", and others say, "this one is dark, it must be the Neumann"... I love these types of threads, it helps to expose the extreme diversity of our hearing / general perception of things... and helps make us all realize that we should always take each and every opinion on this forum with a grain of salt.

I personally do not think it makes much sense for people to try to guess which mic is which... what's the point? What is way more interesting and valuable to the forum is reading each person's sonic assessment / descriptions of the clips... not necessarily trying to guess what's what.

I am a big Schoeps fan, as well I love the Neumann TLM170s very much (which are supposedly very similar to the TLM193s which I have not yet used)... and I've been very curious about the 8040s... so I look forward to hearing this stuff.



Edit: can't seem to access any of the files... oh well

[zoom]

Originally Posted by mljung

It's interesting to see how different the conclusions people have about these samples are.
To my ears #3 set are not overly bright [has some files been moving around].
Anyhow it's interesting and tells a lot about how different our equipment [including our ears] seem to be.

Mads

...probably it is interesting to mention additionally the equipment we used while listening?
for my conclusion (1=193, 2=8040, 3=MK21) I've used my computer-speakers (Genelec 2029 B - analog input) via MOTU828-II in my office. A normal room - no studio-acoustics, stadard furniture damping only.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

How's your high frequency hearing loss coming along?

That's not funny

I can easily hear the extra energy in the consonants, but I still don't consider the recordings overly bright.
Overall I find some hardness in #2 [some nasal or congested quality] that I subjectively easily could call bright, but that's off course a matter of definition.

Still - I prefer #3

[squeegybug]

I preferred #2 on both pieces. Full, powerful, pleasant for my ears. Guessing it is Sennheiser. Agree with some others that #3 includes more room with different stereo image than the others, and is brighter than #2. Would think that is Schoeps. Good job Rich, thanks for posting.

Steve

[Mike Derrick]

Originally Posted by 666666

Wow, interesting thread. I shall download the clips in a moment. What I find interesting is the great difference / contradiction in what people are hearing. I also find it funny how some say, "this one is bright, it must be the Neumann", and others say, "this one is dark, it must be the Neumann"... I love these types of threads, it helps to expose the extreme diversity of our hearing / general perception of things... and helps make us all realize that we should always take each and every opinion on this forum with a grain of salt.

I personally do not think it makes much sense for people to try to guess which mic is which... what's the point? What is way more interesting and valuable to the forum is reading each person's sonic assessment / descriptions of the clips... not necessarily trying to guess what's what.

I am a big Schoeps fan, as well I love the Neumann TLM170s very much (which are supposedly very similar to the TLM193s which I have not yet used)... and I've been very curious about the 8040s... so I look forward to hearing this stuff.



Edit: can't seem to access any of the files... oh well

I believe the link was only active for a week after he originally posted it. I think the link's contents have expired by this time.

[newyorker42]

Originally Posted by 666666

Wow, interesting thread.
<snip>
I personally do not think it makes much sense for people to try to guess which mic is which... what's the point? What is way more interesting and valuable to the forum is reading each person's sonic assessment / descriptions of the clips... not necessarily trying to guess what's what.

Yes, this is one of the best and definitely most suspenseful threads in a while. (Time to relieve the pressure here?).

I think it is a very good idea to guess which mic is which. On this forum there are many saying "x is the best, most musical, most transparent" most whatever. It is good to put this to the test. All these products we love... are they really as good as the other products we don't love? Here is a pretty good (but not perfectly) objective way to gauge our closely held perceptions.

And yes, the most interesting thing is how differently the same clip has been heard. I said on another thread that the wetware is really the biggest difference among all of our perceptions, not the equipment (once you get to a certain level of equipment). Big caveat here though: those who do this professionally on a big scale... well, their opinions probably count more since they have experience of what ends up being perceived as great by a larger audience.

[sonare]

OK guys-- since the link has expired that means that it was down loaded 200 times (!).

CUE drumroll--

The envelope please---

1 is the Neumann TLM193-- 90 degrees and 11 inches

2 is the Sennheiser 8040-- 90 degrees and 11 inches

3 is the Schoeps CMC621-- 110 degrees and 11 inches

We record-- you decide! Next up-- an omni comparison. Up in about a month (after an organ project).

Hope everyone enjoyed this!

Rich

[willi1203]

thanks !

audio chain used ?

[ISedlacek]

Nice. Seems most people agreed about 3 being Schoeps ... and guessing of 1/2 was mixed ...

[mljung]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Nice. Seems most people agreed about 3 being Schoeps ... and guessing of 1/2 was mixed ...

But some said that #3 couldn't be Schoeps because they were 'overly bright'

This has been very interesting, the only thing is that MKH8040 had a harder sound than I had hoped for.
But again placement is different and so are the patterns. If this was a question only of the sound of different brands of microphones the Schoeps should have been a cardioid.

Thanks for doing the shootout Rich


Mads

[videoteque]

Hope everyone enjoyed this!

Yes, thanks!!!

[John Willett]

Certainly an interesting thread, but all three mics are quite different from each other - a large diaphragm cardioid, a medium diaphragm cardioid and a small diaphragm wide-cardioid.

I am certainly interested in hearing the omni comparison as all mics will have the same pattern.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Certainly an interesting thread, but all three mics are quite different from each other - a large diaphragm cardioid, a medium diaphragm cardioid and a small diaphragm wide-cardioid.

Are you referring to the 8040 as a "medium diaphragm"?


Daniel

[David Spearritt]

Thanks very much for the tests Rich. I am astonished by the MK21 sound, its not like how mine sound at all. Can you advise on what preamp you were using.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Are you referring to the 8040 as a "medium diaphragm"?

Yes - a small diaphragm is about 1/2" (12.5mm), a large diaphragm is about 1" (25mm) - the MKH 20/30/40 series and MKH 8000 series all have 16mm diaphragms - that makes them medium diaphragm mics.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Yes - a small diaphragm is about 1/2" (12.5mm), a large diaphragm is about 1" (25mm) - the MKH 20/30/40 series and MKH 8000 series all have 16mm diaphragms - that makes them medium diaphragm mics.

I don't own any Schoepses, but the diaphragm diameter of a KM 131 or AKG CK62 is around 18-19 mm. Certainly more than 16, anyhow. So to refer to the Schoeps as small and the Sennheiser as medium seems odd. Earthworks and DPA would be "small" in relation to an MKH, but hardly a Schoeps, methinks.

[666666]

Originally Posted by newyorker42

I think it is a very good idea to guess which mic is which. On this forum there are many saying "x is the best, most musical, most transparent" most whatever. It is good to put this to the test....

Good point!

Ok, I tried again to access the wav files and I finally succeeded (yesterday)... but just heard them for the first time now.

I re-read all the posts in this thread and realized that there was indeed a good degree of consistency with assessments, especially from the regulars here. Some had even guessed the mics perfectly.

After listening to the files myself, I must say that I pretty much agree with the "most consistent" assessments.... so I guess I am hearing more or less the same as the majority here... good! At least I know now that my ears aren't too wacked out.

I think the fact that the polar patterns are different make this an "unfair" contest, mic per mic. It IS fair to say which sounds "best" in THIS situation, but not fair to say "this mic is better than that mic" based on this one specific set-up. I'd love to hear these mics again in a different situation / position, etc, they very well may shine a bit differently.

Having said that, this test was still an excellent overall indicator of what these mics are capable of, and helped to reveal their general inherent characteristics... and thus very interesting and very helpful.

I'll say that I feel they are ALL very impressive. There is not one that truly "disappoints" me. This is a good lesson for any "newbies" out there about how when you're dealing with gear of this level, you really cannot go wrong... spend less time worrying about what mic to get and spend more time practicing your craft.

I really dig the TLM193... I don't know if I'd call it "too dark", but I would call it "less bright"... and perhaps it is a tad dull for this situation (this would purely be a personal taste thing), but I don't think it makes the mic any lesser. It does impart a pleasant and musical quality. It IS a large diaphragm after all and has the character of such... so it just depends on if you wish to hear that type of "color"... again, a personal taste thing.

The MKH8040... indeed very balanced. At first it was my least favorite, it initially did come across as a bit brittle as some others had said, lack of body, etc, but as I studied it more, I began to appreciate it's finer qualities. Again, I blame polar pattern differences here for possibly making this comparison a bit "unfair"... regardless, this mic still proves to be excellent... in a different position it may have been that much "better".

The Schoeps... if I had to pick one for this situation, in that position, this might be the one I'd pick. It has the "Schoeps thing" which I need not describe. These mics just have a character that I'm attracted to, for better or for worse. Perhaps in this situation they're a teeny tad on the bright side, but it seems to help accentuate the details nicely... and musically.

I already own and use some Schoeps and TLM170s (which are supposedly closely related to the TLM193)... these mics were chosen by me after a good deal of personal comparison tests... so this test here somewhat confirms yet again for me that I am using the "right" mics for me because very simply, I am enjoying what they are doing here.

The 8040s... if I needed more mics right now and had spare cash, I would not hesitate to pick up a pair. Perhaps these will be my next acquisition when the time is right.

sonare, thanks again for providing these sound clips!!! We greatly appreciate it!

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by d_fu

I don't own any Schoepses, but the diaphragm diameter of a KM 131 or AKG CK62 is around 18-19 mm. Certainly more than 16, anyhow. So to refer to the Schoeps as small and the Sennheiser as medium seems odd. Earthworks and DPA would be "small" in relation to an MKH, but hardly a Schoeps, methinks.

I was talking about the diaphragm diameter, not the capsule diameter.

But I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong - I can't find the diaphragm diameter on the Schoeps website, only the microphone diameter of 20mm - you then have to take into account the thickness of the metal of the tube and how you mount the diaphragm and hold it round the edge.

The MKH 20 series are 25mm mic. diameter with a 16mm diaphragm diameter. That's 4.5mm all round the diaphragm to clamp it and allow body thickness.

The MKH 8000 series are 19mm mic. diameter with a 16mm diaphragm diameter. That's just 1.5mm all round the diaphragm to clamp it and allow body thickness (and I'm still amazed how they did it).

I have been looking for a Schoeps cutaway to estimate the diaphragm diameter, but can't find anything on-line.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by 666666

The MKH8040... indeed very balanced. At first it was my least favorite, it initially did come across as a bit brittle as some others had said, lack of body, etc, but as I studied it more, I began to appreciate it's finer qualities. Again, I blame polar pattern differences here for possibly making this comparison a bit "unfair"... regardless, this mic still proves to be excellent... in a different position it may have been that much "better".

...and if 8040 was paired up with km184 instead I'm sure it was another microphone that was the "hard" one.
Another thing that's interesting to hear is the potential of LDC's in classical music in this test. Many of us are almost afraid of using them for classical/acoustic instruments as they're not trraaannsssppaareennntt.

Looking forward to the omni test!