Schoeps MK2H or Sennheiser MKH20

[JSheltonLogic]

Hey guys, I have followed this forum for a long time, and I am finally posting.

I wanted to get opinions on some differences between the Schoeps MK2H and the Sennheiser MKH20.

They will be used as flanks to a pair of KM184's. I haven't tried them side by side and have only recorded with the MKH 20's once. I am recording an orchestra in a very live room.

any help is appreciated. Thank you a ton!

[Corran]

You can check out this recent thread for a discussion on the 8020 vs. the MK2S. Not exactly what you are looking for but possibly still a good resource.

Sennheiser 8020 v. Schoeps Mk2S

[JSheltonLogic]

Thanks, I will check that out for sure.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by JSheltonLogic

Hey guys, I have followed this forum for a long time, and I am finally posting.

I wanted to get opinions on some differences between the Schoeps MK2H and the Sennheiser MKH20.

They will be used as flanks to a pair of KM184's. I haven't tried them side by side and have only recorded with the MKH 20's once. I am recording an orchestra in a very live room.

any help is appreciated. Thank you a ton!

I really loved my 2H's. They are very versatile. Personally, I would spend the cash on a pair 8040's and 8020's instead of a new pair of Schoeps. Since you're getting most of your sound from the center pair, you might want to up grade them first. The 8040 will smoke the 184.

[JSheltonLogic]

that's good to know. A purchase will be coming rather soon. Although right now I am dealing with school provided equipment...thankfully...

[jnorman]

inre: "The 8040 will smoke the 184."

i would like to hear a demonstration of that. can anyone post some sample clips comparing those two mics? (as ortf pairs, not as close spot mics) thanks.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by jnorman

inre: "The 8040 will smoke the 184."

i would like to hear a demonstration of that. can anyone post some sample clips comparing those two mics? (as ortf pairs, not as close spot mics) thanks.

That's a good question! Always good to hear in real life what the differences will be. However, it's a safe assumption that these two mics are in entirely different leagues in both quality and price. Hence it may be difficult to find a direct A/B.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by JSheltonLogic

that's good to know. A purchase will be coming rather soon. Although right now I am dealing with school provided equipment...thankfully...

The best!! No overhead! No maintenance costs. I wish I could be in that boat...

[d_fu]

Haven't tried the Schoeps, but I'd go for the MKH. They give you the choice of applying HF lift or not, so if you use them in another setup at greater distance, that might come in handy. For flanks, you'd probably want quite flat.

[pkautzsch]

Schoeps are more "musical" than MKHs - ie. subtly colored. I've found modern (!) MKHs a bit sterile.
As the equalization in the MKHs is done the same way as in an EQ, it simply doesn't matter if you use diffuse field or free field setting. Both are AFAIK heavily equalized, as the capsule's curve itself isn't exactly linear.
BTW: the diffuse field curve (the one with HF lift) is the "natural" pressure transducer curve, as the lift simply results from diaphragm resonance. Free field equalization will necessarily incur phase shifts, no matter if done acoustically or electrically.
I guess one should (if one needs to) drop HF in the DAW rather than at the mic, as this will reduce hiss (if there is any) between mic and DAW.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

As the equalization in the MKHs is done the same way as in an EQ, it simply doesn't matter if you use diffuse field or free field setting. Both are AFAIK heavily equalized, as the capsule's curve itself isn't exactly linear.

To put this in context.

Most microphone manufacturers heavily damp the capsule to get a flat frequency response, often resulting in off-axis anomolies.

The symmetrical capsule MKH microphones (MKH 20 series and MKH 8000 series) are lightly damped. The response os not flat, but it *is* smooth.

The reverse of this response is in the electronics to make a flat response with a higher output level.

It is not "heavily equalised", just the reverse curve of a lightly damped capsule.

1 = natural response of the lightly damped capsule
2 = response of the amplifier circuit
3 = microphone output response

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

As the equalization in the MKHs is done the same way as in an EQ,

Well of course.. How could it be any other way?

BTW: the diffuse field curve (the one with HF lift) is the "natural" pressure transducer curve, as the lift simply results from diaphragm resonance.

Resonance and the baffle step.

Free field equalization will necessarily incur phase shifts, no matter if done acoustically or electrically.

The free field bump = phase distortion. EQ'ing the mic back to flat means also a removal of that phase distortion. Mic's is minimum phase devices as are analog EQ's and speakers. Phase follows frequency response. If one is flat, the other is too.

I guess one should (if one needs to) drop HF in the DAW rather than at the mic, as this will reduce hiss (if there is any) between mic and DAW.

Interesting idea. Some setups where micpre noise is an issue could benefit from this approach. Typically there shouldn't be any audible noise injected in that part of the chain though.

/Peter

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Don S

However, it's a safe assumption that these two mics are in entirely different leagues

Why?


/Peter

[jglamar]

If I had a pair of km184's and access to mk2hs for orchestra I'd be looking to use the schoeps as the main pair and hope I didn't need the 184s at all. You could consider doing a modified tree config. with either the sennheisers or the 184s as some coincident pair in the middle (John Eargle's old pattern I think?) but that arrangement seems to work less than half the time in my experience (though sometimes it's just the thing).
Another idea - schoeps as main pair, neumanns as ww spots, not flanks. might enable you to get out a bit wider and further into the hall with the omnis to take advantage of the mk2h's high-end rise. Providing the room is good.
Let us know what you end up going with, why, and post samples please!
Jamey

[0VU]

Originally Posted by John Willett

To put this in context.

Most microphone manufacturers heavily damp the capsule to get a flat frequency response, often resulting in off-axis anomolies.

Off axis anomalies exist regardless of the level of damping applied to the diaphragm.

The symmetrical capsule MKH microphones (MKH 20 series and MKH 8000 series) are lightly damped. The response os not flat, but it *is* smooth.

And the more heavily damped capsules of other mics produce responses that are as flat - or smooth - but with their own set of compromises/problems.

The reverse of this response is in the electronics to make a flat response with a higher output level.

It is not "heavily equalised", just the reverse curve of a lightly damped capsule.

1 = natural response of the lightly damped capsule
2 = response of the amplifier circuit
3 = microphone output response

Looking at the EQ/response curve in that diagram, what would you call it if not "heavily equalised"? It's not a curve I'd readily apply to the output of a mic, and I'm pretty easy going when it comes to using EQ when I feel like it. If I was carving things about to that extent it'd suggest to me that I'd used the wrong mic, put it in a very wrong place, recorded in a really poor room, or recorded someone who probably couldn't make a decent noise. Or a combination.

To some extent, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I know that Sennheiser's built in EQ is just an electronic method of fixing some of the problems of producing a flat, smooth output from a mic capsule instead of a mechanical method, and that which method a manufacturer chooses (heavier damping/electronic tailoring) is a matter of preference as to the specific compromises/tradeoffs that they're most comfortable with in their designs but saying that it's not 'heavily equalised' is perhaps pushing things a bit far.

Originally Posted by Audiop

The free field bump = phase distortion. EQ'ing the mic back to flat means also a removal of that phase distortion.

How does that work? I thought that it was the reduced damping that improved the phase linearity. Surely, if the capsule is producing phase distortion, an EQ, which theoretically is an amplitude change rather than a phase change, will either pass the existing phase distortion but with an amplitude change or would have to be designed specifically to introduce more phase distortion to 'cancel' that produced by the capsule. Given that most EQ circuits introduce phase changes of their own and the comparative complexity of most analogue 'linear phase' EQ circuits, it seems a lot to pack into a mic. Or maybe Sennheiser have designed a very compact circuit which somehow can 'fix' the phase distortion of the capsule but it seems unlikely to me?

[JSheltonLogic]

Originally Posted by jglamar

If I had a pair of km184's and access to mk2hs for orchestra I'd be looking to use the schoeps as the main pair and hope I didn't need the 184s at all. You could consider doing a modified tree config. with either the sennheisers or the 184s as some coincident pair in the middle (John Eargle's old pattern I think?) but that arrangement seems to work less than half the time in my experience (though sometimes it's just the thing).
Another idea - schoeps as main pair, neumanns as ww spots, not flanks. might enable you to get out a bit wider and further into the hall with the omnis to take advantage of the mk2h's high-end rise. Providing the room is good.
Let us know what you end up going with, why, and post samples please!
Jamey

ya well, i did consider it, and in fact before I got here (just transferred) I would have totally done that. However, the hall is VERY VERY live, in fact wayyyy to live. It really a recital hall, not well suited for a large ensemble. So in order to cut down the natural reverb a bit, I use the 184's as the main pair, much like Eargle. having said that, I have plenty time to experiment and you can bet I will try that! I think for the first concert I am going to try 184's ORTF, MK2H's for flanks and Sennheiser MKH800's as woodwind spots. Will post samples

Thanks for the advice guys.

Now the choir concert for a couple of weeks from now....I really don't know what to do..it's my first choral recording.......

[Don S]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Why?


/Peter

Because they are more expensive and sound much better. Actually, I think they are underpriced in regards to performance vs. price. I'm reaching for them in place of my Schoeps Mk4's. At half of the price, I would call that a bargain.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Don S

Because they are more expensive and sound much better. Actually, I think they are underpriced in regards to performance vs. price. I'm reaching for them in place of my Schoeps Mk4's. At half of the price, I would call that a bargain.

Ok, I don't agree though that just becasue the price is higher "it's safe to assume" anything.


/Peter

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by 0VU

How does that work?

Phase follows frequency response in a device with min-phase function.

I thought that it was the reduced damping that improved the phase linearity.

Nope. Any deviation from flat FR also means turn of phase in MP devices. Use an EQ to get the FR back and phase follows.

Surely, if the capsule is producing phase distortion, an EQ, which theoretically is an amplitude change rather than a phase change,

Nope. An analog EQ (which is MP) affects time the signal in time domain as well. The higher the slope of a LP or HP-filter the more phase distortion. The more wiggly the frequency respsonse the "wigglier" the phase response.

will either pass the existing phase distortion but with an amplitude change or would have to be designed specifically to introduce more phase distortion to 'cancel' that produced by the capsule.

The "cancel" you will have for free anytime! :-)

Given that most EQ circuits introduce phase changes of their own and the comparative complexity of most analogue 'linear phase' EQ circuits, it seems a lot to pack into a mic. Or maybe Sennheiser have designed a very compact circuit which somehow can 'fix' the phase distortion of the capsule but it seems unlikely to me?

You contradict yourself here. :-)

Analog filters are not linear phase. That's why antialiasing-filters are digital since the needed lowpass in AD's can be realized without phase distoriton in the audioband. Old time AD's had high order analog lowpass slopes which introduces gross phase distortion in the audible range.


/Peter

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by John Willett

To put this in context.

Most microphone manufacturers heavily damp the capsule to get a flat frequency response, often resulting in off-axis anomolies.

Interestingly, the Schoeps MK41 has the smoothest off-axis plot and least coloration not only among hypers, but among SDC mics in general. Don't know the 8000 series so far, maybe they are similarly smooth.

The symmetrical capsule MKH microphones (MKH 20 series and MKH 8000 series) are lightly damped. The response os not flat, but it *is* smooth.

The reverse of this response is in the electronics to make a flat response with a higher output level.

It is not "heavily equalised", just the reverse curve of a lightly damped capsule.

1 = natural response of the lightly damped capsule
2 = response of the amplifier circuit
3 = microphone output response

Thanks for making these curves available here.

Originally Posted by Audiop

Well of course.. How could it be any other way?

Still, there are enough people who seem to think it DID make a difference if the frequency curve was made in the mic or in the DAW.
Just pointing out that EQing is the same, be it mechanically at the diaphragm, electrically in the mic body, electrically in a desk or rack unit, or digitally in a plug-in (the last referring to "standard" plug-ins, not to these fancy "phase-linear" EQs).

Interesting idea. Some setups where micpre noise is an issue could benefit from this approach. Typically there shouldn't be any audible noise injected in that part of the chain though.

Depending on preamps and ADs. On location, you can run into lots of noises which "typically should" not be an issue, but in fact are.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

Interestingly, the Schoeps MK41 has the smoothest off-axis plot and least coloration not only among hypers, but among SDC mics in general. Don't know the 8000 series so far, maybe they are similarly smooth.

Slightly better judging from both manufacturers graphs.

Champs in this regard is perhaps small omnis and fig-8's?


/Peter