MKH8040/TLM193/CMC621 Comparison

[sonare]

Thought you guys might be interested to hear a short comparison between these mics. I had to record some auditions in a local church (my favorite recording venue) and put the 3 pair on the same Atlas stereo bar-- about 7 feet up and 3 feet from the singers. Because the 193s are vertical address mics, their capsules were were 5-1/2 inches lower than the others. The 193s and 8040s were 90 degrees and 11 inches apart; the Schoeps subcardioids were 110 degrees. All used the same micpres/ADCs which shall remain nameless for now.

This should give a good comparison between the tonal character of what are possibly the most "neutral" of currently available directional mics. Wish I had a pair of Schoeps 22 caps to include! I tried to match levels but didn't get too anal about it-- YMMV.

Click the link below to download a zipped 6MB folder with 192kBit/sec files.

https://rcpt.yousendit.com/610843878...c5708f9bbe2ae4

There are 2 clips of each mic. After the link expires (2 weeks/200 downloads) will let you know which file was which mic. Enjoy!

Rich

[ISedlacek]

Rich, great, thank you very much. I wish you could upload them as wavs ... To compare sonic subtleties in compressed mp3s is probably not the ideal platform ... If you need some ftp storage space, I can easily let you using mine.

[sonare]

At 192kB/s there really isn't much missing below 15kHz-- plenty of information to hear the personality of the mics.

If more people want to download 25MB I will put them up!

Rich

[fifthcircle]

I dunno... The differences I heard were anything but subtle. Sure, I'd prefer .wav files, but there is a heck of a lot to hear in those samples.

What I find amazing is how well they match with each other. For such massively different mics, they all have a lot fo similarities...

--Ben

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

What I find amazing is how well they match with each other. For such massively different mics, they all have a lot fo similarities...

Not listened yet - and I *would* prefer wavs.

But although very different, all the mics. are of very high quality.

Like comparing a Porsche with a Bentley I suppose

[Recording David]

OK, I'll be the first to bite and take a guess...

Clip 1 sounded the most 'transparent' to my ears and I'd guess it's the Senn.
Clip 3 sounded the darkest, so I'd go for the Schoeps.

I've never used the Neumanns before, so by process of elimination rather than educated guess they'd be clip 2 for me.

That church has a fabulous acoustic.

BTW Rich - it's me who bought your Troisi ADC a few years back. It did great service to me but it now has a new user back in the US!

Thanks for sharing these clips. I'd hazard a guess that maybe you used one of Mick Hinton's BG mic amps??

[ISedlacek]

Sample 2 sounds always a bit louder than the other two. In sample 3 there seems to be reversed stereo (L-R) comparing to the first two. After adjusting this, I would guess sample 2 is Neumann (sounds kind of crispier than the others - I like it the least), sample 1 Sennheiser (clean but a bit "smaller"), sample 3 Schoeps (extra velvet spacy touch) :) It may not be so, of course :)))

I wish we could hear wavs ... mp3s spoil the original sound a bit ... even below 15kHz ...

Originally Posted by sonare

If more people want to download 25MB I will put them up!

Rich

Please :) even 250 MB would be no problem :))

[sonare]

By poplular demand, here is a link for a zipped folder of WAV files:

https://rcpt.yousendit.com/610903538...4df78792dca335

And I checked-- no channel reversal here.

Rich

[ISedlacek]

Maybe it is because of slightly different mics positions, but when you listen for example to the female peak sample 1 vs sample 3 (I listen on headphones), in sample 1 the voice is more to the right, in sample 3 more to the left. When I reversed stereo in sample 3, the voice seemed to be placed at the same spot, that´t why I though the stereo may be reversed.

After listening again, on Koss headphones and laptop, my impressions are similar as above: sample 1 clean and "small", sample 2 bright , sample 3 more musical and spacy ...

Thank you again for great samples (all of them sound great, we are, of course, talking of "esoteric" nuances only)

[sonare]

Glad to make the samples available to everyone! If nothing else this may prove that the basic tonal personality of the three is VERY similar-- and if it were the Mk22 rather than the Mk21 I would be tempted to call them siblings.

I do think it will be fun to read everyone's impressions again at the end and see how they line up!

And BTW-- these are NOT Broadhurst Gardens micamps. I will be happy to say which micamps and ADCs these were NOT-- but first you must be willing to say what you think they are.

For the record, these micamps do remind me of the BG range.

Rich

[David Spearritt]

Many thanks for the samples Rich. Here is what I think it is:

1. Neumann TLM193
2. Schoeps MK21
3. Senn 8040

[ljudatervinning]

My impression/guess

1. Neumann TLM193
Not as good off-axis response as the other. A "Neumannish" sound.
I preferred this one the least. The darkest one. Maybe too dark.

2. Senn 8040
Good off axis coloration, a bit narrower than number 3.
I think I preferred this one the most, but it was a close call with number 3.
The voices sounded more natural on this one.

3. Schoeps MK21
It was a close call to number 2. Voices sounded best on number 2 but I really liked the "space" from this one. The brightest one, maybe too bright.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Many thanks for the samples Rich. Here is what I think it is:

1. Neumann TLM193
2. Schoeps MK21
3. Senn 8040

Also possible When I remember TLM 193 , it was rather dark ... (unlike U87 etc.), so it may not be No2 ... Seems David also changed his feeling reversing 1 and 3 later :))
So now we have all possible combinations given ...

[mljung]

I won't try to guess since I haven't got any of the microphones.

What I can say is microphone 2 had a little "hardness" that I did not like.

I preferred 3 overall, not the most precise [maybe] on the piano but relaxed and airy on voice.

I find 1 and 2 sounds more like a microphone whereas 3 has a more "musical" and natural quality...

[Bob Bickerton]

Very interesting.

I'm guessing:

1) TLM193, quite dark.

2) 8040, a little 'hard' sounding.

3) MK21, more spacious.

Liked 1 and 3 most, but for different reasons, sort of focus versus spaciousness.

Bob

[mljung]

Well Ok I will make a guess anyhow:

Since 3 is the most spacious it would be strange if it wasn't the subcard mk21 at 110 degrees.
[you're right Rich it would be interesting to include the new mk22 in this test]

I don't like mike 2 so if that's MKH8040 I know I won't get one, but I think it's TLM193.

So my guess is:

1. MKH8040

2. TLM193

3. MK21

___

LOL wrote this while Bob was making his comment - we agree in our comments, but we didn't make the same guess.

[lorudess]

Mine:

1) Neumann
2) Schoeps
3) Senn

BTW, great acoustics in that venue!!

[john caldwell]

Mike 2 to lest flattering the the female voice, I feel - less troublesome to the male. No 2 treats the room and space more clinically as well. Mike 3 is most musical and spacious to me. I prefer mike 3,1 and 2 in that order. No clue what they are, but the wider 110 degree angulation you used in the Schoeps made me wonder if it is #3, as was pointed out about by mljung.

John-

[hughesmr]

I'd say:

1. Neumann
2. Sennheiser
3. Schoeps

I'm fairly confident in #3. I have 8020 (not 8040), but I feel a touch of that character in #2. #1 was process of elimination.

[buzzjoe]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Many thanks for the samples Rich. Here is what I think it is:

1. Neumann TLM193
2. Schoeps MK21
3. Senn 8040

That's my guess too. To me #1 sounds not very open (especially male voice) but still nice, #2 much better high end but less "body". I like #3 best (detailed, "warm" and spacious).

Thank you Rich for posting!

[zoom]

not sure if i'm correct, but for me it seems to be obvious:

1. neumann 193 (sounds like a large diaphr. microphone with its coloration)
2. sennheiser 8040 (sounds nice, simply like a cardioid)
3. schoeps mk21 (more open, more room compared to No.2 - this should be the wide cardioid)

probably a comparison with identification of a km140, 8040 and MK4 would be much more difficult! for me it is easier to identify the microphone pattern than the brand.

thanks for posting
cheers
stefan

[sonare]

Originally Posted by zoom

probably a comparison with identification of a km140, 8040 and MK4 would be much more difficult! for me it is easier to identify the microphone pattern than the brand.

Your wish is my command! I hope to be able to record appropriate material for a comparison between Schoeps CMC62, DPA4003 (w/ trapezoid (nearfield) grids, and MKH8020 soon.

When I return from a recording expedition late next week I'll post true identities.

Happy listening!

Rich

[hughesmr]

Originally Posted by sonare

Your wish is my command! I hope to be able to record appropriate material for a comparison between Schoeps CMC62, DPA4003 (w/ trapezoid (nearfield) grids, and MKH8020 soon.

THAT I'll be looking forward to. Can you throw in the 4006TL for good measure?

[newyorker42]

Originally Posted by sonare

Your wish is my command! I hope to be able to record appropriate material for a comparison between Schoeps CMC62, DPA4003 (w/ trapezoid (nearfield) grids, and MKH8020 soon.

When I return from a recording expedition late next week I'll post true identities.

Happy listening!

Rich

Why put the traps on the 4003? You are stacking the deck for everyone to call that one "closed" or what have you. They suck the life out of piano, for instance, in my admittedly limited experience so far.

I'd also rather see the 4006TL in the comparison.

I find it really interesting that there are many guesses that differ here. Reinforces to me at least that brand loyalty and fashion (are you a Porsche or a Maserati person?) is what really is driving most purchases once you get into the top echelon... of anything really.

[hughesmr]

Originally Posted by newyorker42

Why put the traps on the 4003? You are stacking the deck for everyone to call that one "closed" or what have you. They suck the life out of piano, for instance, in my admittedly limited experience so far.

If I'm not mistaken, the trapezoid grids make it a flat nearfield omni with some directionality at high frequencies ... which would be the DPA attachment that makes the 4003/4006 most comparable to MK2 or 8020.

Do the nosecones make the 4003 a "true" omni, i.e. no directionality in any freq band?

[newyorker42]

Originally Posted by hughesmr

If I'm not mistaken, the trapezoid grids make it a flat nearfield omni with some directionality at high frequencies ... which would be the DPA attachment that makes the 4003/4006 most comparable to MK2 or 8020.

Do the nosecones make the 4003 a "true" omni, i.e. no directionality in any freq band?

I have a matched pair of DPA 4006TLs and the "suitcase" full of all the grids and balls. These are my only mics so I'm getting to know them well.

The trap grids have a HF roll-off starting at 12kHz and reaching -3db at 20kHz, on axis. According to DPA literature "it is designed to provide a soft and smooth high-end response, especially suitable for close miking applications."

I have mainly recorded piano, and I tried these a couple times and did not like what they did. Perhaps if I was to put the mics 3 inches off the strings it might sound better with these grids than with the regular grids.

I could see them being useful for acoustic slide guitar or something where you want to take some of the bite out of the highs, but I can't imagine it being used as a main pair away from the source a bit and having a good result.

Then again, I am a beginner recordist.

Yes, the nose cones are supposed to make them more "true omni" in regards to on/off axis freq response, but there is still some HF emphasis on axis.

[sonare]

I used 4006TLs with trapezoid grills as mains on a Houston Symphony CD last November and they were terrific-- very detailed and lots of resolution but not much like the silver grids. Clearly another example of not getting a complete picture from a graph. They were 9.5 feet up and about 1 foot from the front of the orchestra on a 3-ft bar.

If anyone is curious enough to buy the CD-- look on Naxos in early 09-- the main work is the Zemlinsky Lyric Symphony-- sort of late Mahler meets early Schoenberg.

Rich

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by sonare

When I return from a recording expedition late next week I'll post true identities.

Rich, that's pretty tough keeping us in suspenders that long.

[Mike Derrick]

I initially posted this response at another forum where you also posted the samples. Thought I'd add my thoughts here too. Sorry for the repeat for those who attend both forums.
I listened to the male voice first and then the female, however my notes here are listed as female first.


1a - Definitely the clearest/brightest. This one sounds closest to being mono compared to the other two, as if I'm sitting in the front row or closer.

2a - The most dynamic, I love the crescendo at 0:25-0:27 in this sample, it outshines the others by a bit as the mic seems to reveal an extra range of burst in her voice in comparison to the others. On this note alone, I'd probably chose this mic. I like this stereo image. Close, but not too close, just enough depth to give a sense of the room, maybe the sense of sitting 2 or 3 rows back. The intimacy (close, soft, yet full, not distant) for the last line 0:28-0:33 of the vocal sample is also a big draw for me.

3a - Again like my male voice comments, something much different with this stereo image compared to the other two I think. It sounds more like I'm sitting in the pews of a beautiful old church about 10 or more rows back. A greater sense of the room with a nice blend of vocal and piano.


1b - Exhibited the narrowist image and brightest sound.

2b - Had a focused sound for the vocalist, and perhaps the darkest sound. This soundscape felt the most natural with the perception of the vocalist in front and the piano behind. I liked this mic best for the character of tone for the voice. I can hear the richness in his lower tones best.

3b - I hear the most room in this mic, as if I'm listening to room mics in comparison to the other two. Something different going on here with the image and placement, it feels as if the singer is further back from the mics than the other 2 samples. This has the nicest blend imho for the vocal and piano, but I still like the tone of the vocal representation better for 2b.


I think my tastes lean most towards the placement and sound of the "2" mic, but I also love the space and depth of the "3" mic. I felt the "1" mic was nice, but I think I'd space them apart a little more perhaps, or back them up a bit...who knows. I listened to these samples on a pair of Adam p33's. I did adjust volumes up and down a bit to allow for perceived volume differences.

Nice reco