Why Sennheiser MKH8000 mics?

[Suda Badri]

Originally Posted by John Willett

The MZD 8000 AES42 module is *already* 2-channel.

If you are asking about the Y-cable to connect two heads to a single MZD 8000, then this also already exists and you should be easily be able to order it from your local Sennheiser agent. Sennheiser had a Press Release at IBC that announced this cable and also the one that enables you to connect an MKH 800 TWIN to the MZD 8000.


Sent from my iPhone using Gearslutz

Ah I see!! I am getting keen now...

How cool is that RME DMP unit?

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

Yep! Glad someone else hears it!!! It is like an all out assault on my auditory system. I had a pair and tolerated them for about 3 months before giving up on them. I tried them on so many things....the only things I found them useful for were Double Bass, Cello, and Baritone Saxophone...and I could not justify the rather high prices for the limited application.

Originally Posted by klaukholm

If you cant make a good recording with the 80s or 800s then your problem is not your mics.

In a few weeks we will have them as outriggers on an EMI chamber music
recording while my other pair will be LS RS for a orchestra recording the same day in a different location (featuring a world class violin soloist). I am confident they will exel in those applications.

You would be surprised how many super smooth filmscores are done with 800 or 80s rather than noisy m50s.

Interesting - two opposite feelings.

Could it be that the extended top end is reacting with the mic. pre. and giving the result that is not liked?

Just a question as I have always liked this range of mics and am just wondering if it could be a pre-amp. thing. ???

I already have 10 symmetrical capsule MKH mics and will be getting more soon (pair each of: MKH 20, 30, 40, 800 and 8040 with the 8020 coming soon).

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

Ah I see!! I am getting keen now...

How cool is that RME DMP unit?

The press release I mentioned is HERE.

And if you are talking about the new RME BabyFace - it has been delayed slightly I am told, so not tried it yet. But due any moment I think.

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Interesting - two opposite feelings.
Just a question as I have always liked this range of mics and am just wondering if it could be a pre-amp. thing. ???

John, I am also wondering this.
We have MKH20-30-40-80-800-and 800twins
Never had any issues through our Grace 802R and m802 preamps.

There was one period however, where I was in doubt. But since then we have changed for better AD converters (eg m802 + AD option), and I really think the MKH series sounds natural and almost smooth...

This top end hysteria - I get this with nearly ALL Schoeps mics, and some B&K or dpa mics. I go really nuts when I hear this.
As I said before, our MKH mics really do blend well with our Royer SF mics - that must prove something.

Maybe the truth is in the ear of the beholder ?
Maybe we are just hearing things differently, our ears focus on different problems ?
Maybe some undocumented HF mic-cable-preamp-AD converter thing ?
I can see tons of double-blind tests coming up

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Interesting - two opposite feelings.

Could it be that the extended top end is reacting with the mic. pre. and giving the result that is not liked?

Just a question as I have always liked this range of mics and am just wondering if it could be a pre-amp. thing. ???

I already have 10 symmetrical capsule MKH mics and will be getting more soon (pair each of: MKH 20, 30, 40, 800 and 8040 with the 8020 coming soon).

I use them through millennia grace and pacifica. The mic is supremely detailed which means placement and playing plays a huge part.
If there is whitenoise/dirt/impurities in the playing it will be heard a lot in these mics. If the playing is supreme, you catch all of the greatness of the sound. So this is not a prosumer mic, it works best when you have 1st class professionals in front if the mic.

Much like millennia, the 800 does nothing to aleviate harshness in the source.
The 8040 is a much more flattering mic for less than stellar playing.

[Suda Badri]

Hi I meant this box to turn AES 42 to AES and provide control and that...
RME: DMC-842 Its called DMC 842... thought it was DMP...

Was interested in getting one of the new avid IO's but now I am really interested in this RME unit for it has analog outputs and the aes 42 inputs can be used for AES3 as well, so it will be a standalone converter D to A while its not being a digital mic preamp... a big plus on its side...

Thanks for the link!!

[aracu]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

You would be surprised how many super smooth filmscores are done with 800 or 80s rather than noisy m50s.

Both microphones with an exaggeration of the higher frequencies. Appropriate for far placement in great acoustics to record an orchestra, to compensate for the roll off of the higher frequencies. A flat response mic will generally sound too dark if placed far from the source.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Yannick

This top end hysteria - I get this with nearly ALL Schoeps mics, and some B&K or dpa mics. I go really nuts when I hear this.
As I said before, our MKH mics really do blend well with our Royer SF mics - that must prove something.

I'm allergic to top end problems and it felt like heaven when I got my pair of QTC1 many years ago but the noise.. I feel MKH gives a similar kind of neutral highly resolved sound although with the characteristics that comes with each polar pattern.

I have pairs of 8020/8040/8050 and have listened to many fine recordings with MKH20 and MKH40 (and also MKH80/800 me thinks). Don't think I ever heard the problems some describe. I have heard one single sample of a pair of MKH80 or MKH800 on the net which sounded less than stellar compared to a pair of KM183 on the same take but it's impossible for me to know what accounted for that difference in that particular case and it was a general (slightly) harsh/muddy sound not something I attribute to the top end.



/Peter

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

Hi I meant this box to turn AES 42 to AES and provide control and that...
RME: DMC-842 Its called DMC 842... thought it was DMP...

Was interested in getting one of the new avid IO's but now I am really interested in this RME unit for it has analog outputs and the aes 42 inputs can be used for AES3 as well, so it will be a standalone converter D to A while its not being a digital mic preamp... a big plus on its side...

Thanks for the link!!

The RME 842 is very nice. I have not used it myself, but was on a session in Abbey Road where three of them were used in an all-digital recording to Sequoia via MADI.

For 8-channels it seems to be just the RME and the Neumann DMI-8 at the moment.

So far I have only used the DMI-2, but plan to get a couple of the DMI-2 portable when they come out (the portable is DC powered and I hope can be powered direct from my Nagra VI).

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Audiop

I'm allergic to top end problems and it felt like heaven when I got my pair of QTC1 many years ago but the noise.. I feel MKH gives a similar kind of neutral highly resolved sound although with the characteristics that comes with each polar pattern.

Interesting - that was exactly my feeling when I did a comparison between the QTC1 and my old MKH 20 at Glyndebourne opera a few years ago.

Originally Posted by Audiop

I have pairs of 8020/8040/8050 and have listened to many fine recordings with MKH20 and MKH40 (and also MKH80/800 me thinks). Don't think I ever heard the problems some describe. I have heard one single sample of a pair of MKH80 or MKH800 on the net which sounded less than stellar compared to a pair of KM183 on the same take but it's impossible for me to know what accounted for that difference in that particular case and it was a general (slightly) harsh/muddy sound not something I attribute to the top end.

I have never heard a top end problem with my MKH and I have had them since 1986 (for my original 20/30/40 units). In the early days I just used a Sennheiser phantom power supply direct into my Sony PCM-F1. When I changed to DAT I used an Audiuo Developments MS unit. Then I upgraded to an Audio Design DMA-2 and now direct into my Nagra VI - never heard a problem, only good music.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Interesting - that was exactly my feeling when I did a comparison between the QTC1 and my old MKH 20 at Glyndebourne opera a few years ago.





I have never heard a top end problem with my MKH and I have had them since 1986 (for my original 20/30/40 units). In the early days I just used a Sennheiser phantom power supply direct into my Sony PCM-F1. When I changed to DAT I used an Audiuo Developments MS unit. Then I upgraded to an Audio Design DMA-2 and now direct into my Nagra VI - never heard a problem, only good music.

Yes, this references something that is common knowledge. your preferences are different than mine. and that is ok. I don't have to enjoy what Yannick or Kjetil or you, John, or Peter enjoy..This is a strength of the human hearing system....not a weakness. I'd "personally" rather have the Schoeps Tube Mics or The FLEAs or Gefell um900 as main pairs. I prefer that sound rather than the "modern" sound which is ultra clean/detailed but not pleasing for me to listen to. The idea of a perfect "modern" sound to me is the Lux Aeterna piece (Morten Lauridsen) on RCM records. The TACET "TUBE ONLY" Recordings., many of the pieces from Yarlung Records....and not , for example, the TELARC recording of Boheme(Spano et al)


My preference does not point to a defect in my hearing, or a defect in my microphone placement, just as your preferences do not point to shortcomings... I have a sound in my head, and the MKH mics did not fit into what I was trying to paint..I don't like the "paintings" that others have made with them, either.. (here is one for example http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B002XG8...etteraddons-20 )




Pipe and slippers vs Analytical/ Lab Coat.

[amfortas2006]

I also found the 8040 to be hyped every time I heard them... I can only describe it as a effect similar to buzz - just that it is in the upper frequencies (or a kind of hiss, depending on the source and the music played), that my Schoeps or other mics I used doesn"t add.. Hard to describe.

Dont know much about the MKH8000 but I kinda like DPA when it comes to clean sound.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

Yes, this references something that is common knowledge. your preferences are different than mine. and that is ok. I don't have to enjoy what Yannick or Kjetil or you, John, or Peter enjoy..This is a strength of the human hearing system....not a weakness. I'd "personally" rather have the Schoeps Tube Mics or The FLEAs or Gefell um900 as main pairs. I prefer that sound rather than the "modern" sound which is ultra clean/detailed but not pleasing for me to listen to. The idea of a perfect "modern" sound to me is the Lux Aeterna piece (Morten Lauridsen) on RCM records. The TACET "TUBE ONLY" Recordings., many of the pieces from Yarlung Records....and not , for example, the TELARC recording of Boheme(Spano et al)


My preference does not point to a defect in my hearing, or a defect in my microphone placement, just as your preferences do not point to shortcomings... I have a sound in my head, and the MKH mics did not fit into what I was trying to paint..I don't like the "paintings" that others have made with them, either.. (here is one for example Amazon.com: Sheppard: Media Vita: Stile Antico, Sheppard, none: Music )




Pipe and slippers vs Analytical/ Lab Coat.

No probs, we all hear differently.

But, if you get a chance, listen to THIS.

My recording of John Lenehan playing Satie.

Recorded in the 1990's - pair of MKH 20 (early models without the extended bass) - Sennheiser Phantom Power Unit - Sony PCM-F1.

Track 25 is my favourite - magic performance, no edits.

It's the one CD my wife and I play over and over again for the great music and performance, rather than because I recorded it) - and a friend (who records loads of stuff for Classic FM) who, like you, does not really like MKH said that this recording almost made him change his mind about them.

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by aracu

Both microphones with an exaggeration of the higher frequencies. Appropriate for far placement in great acoustics to record an orchestra, to compensate for the roll off of the higher frequencies. A flat response mic will generally sound too dark if placed far from the source.

not so much,
the 80-800 is pretty flat in cardioid when the treble lift is set to 0.
at plus 3db or plus 6db it is akin to mk2h and mk2s.

[klaukholm]

Ted, not trying to step on your toes '
I also put tube mics up front for the majority of my work, I have and like tube schoeps, fleas, Rca ribbons and all that. Hey, I even went for a pacifica for colour options.
My 80s are often used as backup mains in case the M150s sound too bright. On the upcoming gigs I mentioned, the violin soloist will get an m49 each (both simultaneous gigs have violin solo in part of the programme)


What I have not tried, however, is recording in a stone church with its potentially tricky reflections.
I would nit be surprised if the 80 would bite me in the ass there, and the
150s would fare no better.

[aracu]

"I'd "personally" rather have the Schoeps Tube Mics or The FLEAs or Gefell um900 as main pairs. I prefer that sound rather than the "modern" sound which is ultra clean/detailed but not pleasing for me to listen to. "

That Gefell um900 you mention is a very interesting mic. I've only heard a tiny bit of it, but was really impressed with the sound, bright but lovely,
something exceptional. If you have any clips with it please post them.

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by Audiop

I'm allergic to top end problems and it felt like heaven when I got my pair of QTC1 many years ago but the noise.. I feel MKH gives a similar kind of neutral highly resolved sound although with the characteristics that comes with each polar pattern.
/Peter

Interestingly, I tried the QTC40 years ago, on a Boesendorfer 1880 piano (with VERY clear basses) through a valve preamp. Compared to our MKH mics this was HF hell.
Could very well have been the preamp doing funny stuff to the mic.

Which makes me think something similar can happen with the MKH mics.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

Ted, not trying to step on your toes '
.

Oh, I know you aren't Mr. Kjetil. I was just trying to clarify my position, I did not mean to insinuate that they were useless or anything(that would be ignorant of me!) , its just that I prefer a more pipe and slippers sound.


Lucky you with all those cool mics. Green with Envy.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by aracu

"I'd "personally" rather have the Schoeps Tube Mics or The FLEAs or Gefell um900 as main pairs. I prefer that sound rather than the "modern" sound which is ultra clean/detailed but not pleasing for me to listen to. "

That Gefell um900 you mention is a very interesting mic. I've only heard a tiny bit of it, but was really impressed with the sound, bright but lovely,
something exceptional. If you have any clips with it please post them.

I do, in fact. Ive got some early music recordings and A trumpet/organ piece as well. Just gotta dig em up.

[mlemaudit]

I have problems with mine that I bought a week ago. No filter, using the Invision7 suspension. recorded into sound devices 744t, no cable problems, has been tested with other mics.

here is a link to hear the weirdness :

splouf - Mkh 8050 bug ? - SoundCloud

[aracu]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

Yes, this references something that is common knowledge. your preferences are different than mine. and that is ok. I don't have to enjoy what Yannick or Kjetil or you, John, or Peter enjoy..This is a strength of the human hearing system....not a weakness. I'd "personally" rather have the Schoeps Tube Mics or The FLEAs or Gefell um900 as main pairs. I prefer that sound rather than the "modern" sound which is ultra clean/detailed but not pleasing for me to listen to. The idea of a perfect "modern" sound to me is the Lux Aeterna piece (Morten Lauridsen) on RCM records. The TACET "TUBE ONLY" Recordings., many of the pieces from Yarlung Records....and not , for example, the TELARC recording of Boheme(Spano et al)


My preference does not point to a defect in my hearing, or a defect in my microphone placement, just as your preferences do not point to shortcomings... I have a sound in my head, and the MKH mics did not fit into what I was trying to paint..I don't like the "paintings" that others have made with them, either.. (here is one for example Amazon.com: Sheppard: Media Vita: Stile Antico, Sheppard, none: Music )




Pipe and slippers vs Analytical/ Lab Coat.

An example of a recording which to me does not sound too "vintage"
or too "modern" is Chandos label: Dutilleux, Tout un monde lointain.
Through a decent playback system the orchestral colours sound
untampered with electronically, clear and "organic".

Music is already "coloured".

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by Yannick

Could very well have been the preamp doing funny stuff to the mic.
.

The Earthwork mics are known for not being compatible with some preamps because of their high current request from the fantom supply (~10 mA).

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

The Earthwork mics are known for not being compatible with some preamps because of their high current request from the fantom supply (~10 mA).

The spec. for phantom power defines 10mA as the requirement.

A phantom supply should be able to supply 10mA per microphone.

Although most mics draw much less - if a phantom supply can't supply 10mA it is not adhering to the specifications.

[didier.brest]

Well according to the above post and some other ones (see 3daudio and Neumann forums), it seems that the compliance of some preamps with the Earthwork mics is bad, wich is not surprising according to Wikipedia:

Phantom powering is not always implemented correctly or adequately, even in professional-quality preamps, mixers, and recorders. In part this is because first-generation (late-1960s through mid-1970s) 48-volt phantom-powered condenser microphones had simple circuitry and required only small amounts of operating current (typically less than 1 mA per microphone), so the phantom supply circuits typically built into recorders, mixers, and preamps of that time were designed on the assumption that this current would be adequate. The original DIN 45596 phantom-power specification called for a maximum of 2 mA. This practice has carried forward to the present; many 48-volt phantom power supply circuits, especially in low-cost and portable equipment, simply cannot supply more than 1 or 2 mA total without breaking down. Some circuits also have significant additional resistance in series with the standard pair of supply resistors for each microphone input; this may not affect low-current microphones much, but it can disable microphones that need more current.
Mid-1970s and later condenser microphones designed for 48-volt phantom powering often require much more current (e.g. 2–4 mA for Neumann transformerless microphones, 4–5 mA for the Schoeps CMC ("Colette") series and Josephson microphones, 5–6 mA for most Shure KSM-series microphones, 8 mA for CAD Equiteks and 10 mA for Earthworks). The IEC standard gives 10 mA as the maximum allowed current per microphone. If its required current is not available, a microphone may still put out a signal, but it cannot deliver its intended level of performance.

So Eathworks requires the maximum current allowed by the IEC standard ...

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

Well according to the above post and some other ones (see 3daudio and Neumann forums), it seems that the compliance of some preamps with the Earthwork mics is bad, wich is not surprising according to Wikipedia:



So Eathworks requires the maximum current allowed by the IEC standard ...

Yes - exactly as I said:-

The IEC standard gives 10 mA as the maximum allowed current per microphone. If its required current is not available, a microphone may still put out a signal, but it cannot deliver its intended level of performance.

Don't blame the mics if the supply is out of spec.

[didier.brest]

I did not blame anything. I just advise the people who are interested in the Earthworks microphones that they have to check whether their preamp comply with the IEC specification by a sufficient margin.

There is not only the fact that Earthworks mics require more than twice current than most microphone condensers and are at the limit of the IEC specification, which may be not fullfilled by some preamps, but, more important, there are bad experiences about the compliance of Earthworks mics and some preamps reported on several forums.

[Sheikyearbouti]

I have a rather strange question. Has anyone here used those on snare or toms? Particularly the 8050 on snare and the 8040 on toms.



I know that it is not the to go mic for this purpose but I am going to have a remote session soon with a drummer in something like a cave - a bit humid but no water dripping. Already did a session there and the sound was impressive. (I might open soon a new thread on this as it will not be exactly a standard recording).
As I have access to quite a few of these mics I though that they might be as impressive for this purpose as they have always proven to be in so many other situations.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Sheikyearbouti

I have a rather strange question. Has anyone here used those on snare or toms? Particularly the 8050 on snare and the 8040 on toms.



I know that it is not the to go mic for this purpose but I am going to have a remote session soon with a drummer in something like a cave - a bit humid but no water dripping. Already did a session there and the sound was impressive. (I might open soon a new thread on this as it will not be exactly a standard recording).
As I have access to quite a few of those mics I though that they might be as impressive for this purpose as they have always proven to be in so many other situations.

I have 8020s and 8040s.

I have not used them on drums, I'm afraid; but with your description of the venue I think they will be the best mics to use as they are RF concensers and won't be troubled by the damp like normal AF condensers.

[nosebleedaudio]

Well IF the mic does indeed draw 10ma, the mic would ONLY have 14 Volts left to work with...Not much..Based on the typical 6.8K resistors...
And that does NOT include the current to drive the input impedance of the mic pre...
My question is; do these mics REALLY draw that much OR is it the "Requirement" amount?? Big difference..

[Audiop]

The remote cables for 8000 series, how flexible are they?

John? :-)


/Peter