Why Sennheiser MKH8000 mics?

[MichaelPatrick]

I'm curious to know why people use these mics. Not questioning people's taste or judgement, I'm wondering what about them makes them special or worthy of a second look for anyone considering them. For one thing, they are RF mics, not AF mics. Does this matter? Why. What are makes them worthy of serious consideration and how can they be used to advantage in practical applications?

[Plush]

I have been very pleased with the 8020 omni mics. The reasons I like them are for their ruler flat response, their extended high end capability, their reasonable price and the their small size.

They are a very different sound than Schoeps--quite an attractive sound but somewhat drier and more dessicated. Bass response is even better than the MK2 I feel.

Lastly when buying one of these mics for under $1000, one does not have to be a participant in the very high price currently asked by the USA Schoeps importer. This price is out of bounds and does not fit with historical pricing of the Karlsruhe (Durlach) product.

[Hornblower64]

Hello Michael,

I will have a pair of MKH8020's in a few weeks, we should get together and try them against your omni's. We also need to try the Nagra VI against the SD 788T.

Cheers,

David

[hughesmr]

I own MK21, MK4, MK2S, and the 8020. Apart from the HF lift of the 2S, I can tell you that there IS a significant difference to the sound signature of the 8020 vs Schoeps. To me the Senns are just smooth and warm ... no hype at all. Warm midrange character. The HF is probably a bit dark for many modern ears, but I find that lack of brightness to be "honest", for lack of a better word. But just when you think it might be too dark, a triangle cuts through from the back of an orchestra with a crystalline clarity. I think they are special mics.

On piano, the 8020s rock. As mains for an ensemble, they work extremely well, but might occasionally need a touch of EQ boost to compensate for HF loss at a distance. Schoeps, while neutral and fantastic mics, generally have a touch of "sheen" in comparison. And the low end on the Senns seems not more pronounced, but rather "rounder" and a bit more enveloping to my ears. Mind you, I'm not talking a/b comparisons or anything, just personal experiences recording similar sources in the same venues, but at different times using different mics.

The more stuff I record, the more I'm liking the 8000 series sound. Some might call 'em boring, but I just find them appealingly honest. JMO.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Hornblower64

Hello Michael,

I will have a pair of MKH8020's in a few weeks, we should get together and try them against your omni's. We also need to try the Nagra VI against the SD 788T.

Cheers,

David

David,

Yes, we're still on for mid May. Main mics this time will be Josephson C617set in AB. The preamp will be a Gordon 5 with isolated mic splits (Radial JS-3 XFMR) to the recorders. The Gordon 5 input impedance with phantom power ON is 13.6k ohms; with such high relative impedance there will be plenty of current for the recorder mic pres to chew on.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Plush

I have been very pleased with the 8020 omni mics. The reasons I like them are for their ruler flat response, thier extended high end capability, their reasonable price and the their small size.

They are a very different sound than Schoeps--quite an attractive sound but somewhat drier and more dessicated. Bass response is even better than the MK2 I feel.

Lastly when buying one of these mics for under $1000, one does not have to be a participant in the very high price currently asked by the USA Schoeps importer. This price is out of bounds and does not fit with historical pricing of the Karlsruhe product.

Plush, thanks for the good word. Schoeps mics are special but I don't think they are the end-all and be-all. And with a price point that's now above the pain threshold for most of us, other options definitely needed.

Originally Posted by hughesmr

I own MK21, MK4, MK2S, and the 8020. Apart from the HF lift of the 2S, I can tell you that there IS a significant difference to the sound signature of the 8020 vs Schoeps. To me the Senns are just smooth and warm ... no hype at all. Warm midrange character. The HF is probably a bit dark for many modern ears, but I find that lack of brightness to be "honest", for lack of a better word. But just when you think it might be too dark, a triangle cuts through from the back of an orchestra with a crystalline clarity. I think they are special mics.

On piano, the 8020s rock. As mains for an ensemble, they work extremely well, but might occasionally need a touch of EQ boost to compensate for HF loss at a distance. Schoeps, while neutral and fantastic mics, generally have a touch of "sheen" in comparison. And the low end on the Senns seems not more pronounced, but rather "rounder" and a bit more enveloping to my ears. Mind you, I'm not talking a/b comparisons or anything, just personal experiences recording similar sources in the same venues, but at different times using different mics.

The more stuff I record, the more I'm liking the 8000 series sound. Some might call 'em boring, but I just find them appealingly honest. JMO.

Michael, thanks for the thoughtful response. I like how you describe the sound and uses. Food for thought!

[boojum]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

David,

Yes, we're still on for mid May. Main mics this time will be Josephson C617set in AB. The preamp will be a Gordon 5 with isolated mic splits (Radial JS-3 XFMR) to the recorders. The Gordon 5 input impedance with phantom power ON is 13.6k ohms; with such high relative impedance there will be plenty of current for the recorder mic pres to chew on.

Um, I hope you will also test the recorders on the basis of their built-in pre-amps. That would be most interesting. Any chance you are going to do that, too??

[Hornblower64]

The internal preamps will be used, they get the isolated splits. A third, non isolated split goes to the Gordon, which provides phantom power. This will insure the preamp sections of both recorders are given the same conditions.

[John Willett]

I have the 8040s and the 8020s will arrive shortly.

The thing I like is the naturalness of the series and the ultra-low IM-distortion.

I also use them with the MZD 8000 in AES42 digital mode - a stereo pair through a single MZD into a Nagra VI.

There was a very interesting interview wirh the designers in a German magazine - you can read the English translation HERE (NB: this links to a pdf).

[mljung]

Originally Posted by Plush

Lastly when buying one of these mics for under $1000,

I wonder why they cost so much more in Europe. If anyone here knows a source in EU selling them at this price - please let spread the word...

::
Mads

[Denis Goekdag]

VAT is one reason, probably the main reason.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by John Willett

I have the 8040s and the 8020s will arrive shortly.

The thing I like is the naturalness of the series and the ultra-low IM-distortion.

I like them a lot due to size, noise performance and the natural sound however my measurements do not indicate superior distortion performance compared to good non-symetrical capsules such as Earthworks QTC1 for example.

A symmetrical design makes for less or no even order harmonics and the associated IMD (quadratic term) but there will always be symmetrical nonlinearities which means odd order harmonics and IMD associated with such nonlinearities (cubic term).

So far I have two pairs of MKH8040, one pair of MKH8020 and one pair of MKH8050 and even though I will possibly add other mic's to my collection (have other mic's as well) I can't see myself parting from my Sennheisers anytime soon.


/Peter

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Audiop

I like them a lot due to size, noise performance and the natural sound however my measurements do not indicate superior distortion performance compared to good non-symetrical capsules such as Earthworks QTC1 for example.

Please note I said *IM-distortion* and not *harmonic distortion* - it's in the IM-distortion that the symmetrical capsule really wins out.

And I have done side by side tests with the old MKH 20 and the QTC1 - and, yes, the QTC1 is a great mic.; it's just that the very small capsule does make it rather noisy.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by Denis Goekdag

VAT is one reason, probably the main reason.

True - but it can't explain the price-difference alone!

[fifthcircle]

I think the 8000 series is the latest fad on GS- that's why you hear a lot about them. That being said, they are a pretty darned good fad IMO. I own 8040's and 8020's and like them both- although they are very different mics (aside from pattern).

The 8040 is one of my favorite mics. Huge low end response (especially for a cardiod) and a great image- both left to right and front to back. The 8040 has probably some of the best front to back depth of any mic that I've used. They also seem to work relatively well on just about anything. I've tracked gospel vocals with one, I've used the same mic for classical stuff- vocals, high strings, low strings, woodwinds, main pair, etc... It has gotten to the point that I reach for them before I reach for my Schoeps a lot of the time.

The 8020 reminds me a lot of the Schoeps MK2. Dark in comparison to a lot of stuff, but with a better focus and reach when I use them as a pair of outriggers. I've found them to fill a number of the holes that the MK2 has- definitely with the reach into a group and it seems to be more forgiving of the room than the Schoeps. In comparison to the Schoeps, I also find them to be a bit more sensitive to preamps used- I find it to be a bit much with the darker stuff I own. They sound beautiful, though, with my DAV, Boulder and Grace pres.

I haven't used the 8020 as much as a close mic so I cannot comment as intelligently there... For choral stuff and orchestral stuff, I've found the 8020 to work very well. I haven't had a chance to use them on organ yet, but I think that would probably be pretty impressive as well.

A few thoughts...

--Ben

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Please note I said *IM-distortion* and not *harmonic distortion* - it's in the IM-distortion that the symmetrical capsule really wins out.

Yes and no. I also made some points about harmonic and IM dist.

HD and IMD comes from the same non-linearity. The distortion products you see depends on the input to the systems and the non-linearities of said system.

When you make a system symmetric you basically remove even order harmonic distortion and the type of IMD that comes with it (the non-linearity can be explained by a quadratic curve). You still have symmetric non-linearities though which give raise to odd order harmonic distortion and the IMD that comes with it.

I have done measurements and simulations and found some interesting things. If you feed a two tone signal - as a 19k and 20k sine - into a asymmetrical nonlinear system (with a dominant 2nd order harmonic distortion) you get a difference tone at 1kHz (amongst other).

A system with symmetrical non-linearities does not produce this difference IMD-product at 1kHz but still has sum and difference products around the fundamentals of the input signal components (and of course the upper harmonics + sum and difference tones around them).

What's more interesting is to see what happens when you feed a multitone input (something like 10 spectral components from 2kHz to 20kHz). Doing this I saw that both type of nonlinearities (symmetrical vs asymmetrical meaning odd and even order harmonics respectively on a pure sine input) produce difference tones below the fundamentals but with a difference..

The asymmetrical system had slightly less products but at a higher level.

In a particular test where both systems had equal levels of harmonics distortion on a single sine, the symmetrical system had less audible distortion even though there were more spectral components.

One possible conclusion from this could be that microphones and high frequency speaker drivers (tweeters..) should have symmetrical nonlinearites if possible in order to avoid fold down of IMD down into the area where the ear is most sensitive iow. around 3kHz.

For LF and MF drivers one could argue that for a given level of distortion, the even order from asymmetrical non-linearities is to prefer since even low order harmonics are less audible than odd.

And I have done side by side tests with the old MKH 20 and the QTC1 - and, yes, the QTC1 is a great mic.; it's just that the very small capsule does make it rather noisy.

Yes and that's to bad since it's such a great mic otherwise.



/Peter

[MichaelPatrick]

Ben,

Thanks for your insightful comments. Thanks.

When you speak of how 8040s image soundstage width and depth, what array patterns are you using or do you find most successful?

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

I think the 8000 series is the latest fad on GS- that's why you hear a lot about them. That being said, they are a pretty darned good fad IMO. I own 8040's and 8020's and like them both- although they are very different mics (aside from pattern).

The 8040 is one of my favorite mics. Huge low end response (especially for a cardiod) and a great image- both left to right and front to back. The 8040 has probably some of the best front to back depth of any mic that I've used. They also seem to work relatively well on just about anything. I've tracked gospel vocals with one, I've used the same mic for classical stuff- vocals, high strings, low strings, woodwinds, main pair, etc... It has gotten to the point that I reach for them before I reach for my Schoeps a lot of the time.

The 8020 reminds me a lot of the Schoeps MK2. Dark in comparison to a lot of stuff, but with a better focus and reach when I use them as a pair of outriggers. I've found them to fill a number of the holes that the MK2 has- definitely with the reach into a group and it seems to be more forgiving of the room than the Schoeps. In comparison to the Schoeps, I also find them to be a bit more sensitive to preamps used- I find it to be a bit much with the darker stuff I own. They sound beautiful, though, with my DAV, Boulder and Grace pres.

I haven't used the 8020 as much as a close mic so I cannot comment as intelligently there... For choral stuff and orchestral stuff, I've found the 8020 to work very well. I haven't had a chance to use them on organ yet, but I think that would probably be pretty impressive as well.

A few thoughts...

--Ben

[MichaelPatrick]

John and Peter,

Lab grade tech talk is useful some places, and some people (like those who hang out in the Geekslutz forum) find great value in it. We need good engineering. However, test methods and metrics are not what this thread is about, and I will be grateful if you will help by not straying so far from the opening topic.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Audiop

Yes and no. I also made some points about harmonic and IM dist.

HD and IMD comes from the same non-linearity. The distortion products you see depends on the input to the systems and the non-linearities of said system.

When you make a system symmetric you basically remove even order harmonic distortion and the type of IMD that comes with it (the non-linearity can be explained by a quadratic curve). You still have symmetric non-linearities though which give raise to odd order harmonic distortion and the IMD that comes with it.

I have done measurements and simulations and found some interesting things. If you feed a two tone signal - as a 19k and 20k sine - into a asymmetrical nonlinear system (with a dominant 2nd order harmonic distortion) you get a difference tone at 1kHz (amongst other).

A system with symmetrical non-linearities does not produce this difference IMD-product at 1kHz but still has sum and difference products around the fundamentals of the input signal components (and of course the upper harmonics + sum and difference tones around them).

What's more interesting is to see what happens when you feed a multitone input (something like 10 spectral components from 2kHz to 20kHz). Doing this I saw that both type of nonlinearities (symmetrical vs asymmetrical meaning odd and even order harmonics respectively on a pure sine input) produce difference tones below the fundamentals but with a difference..

The asymmetrical system had slightly less products but at a higher level.

In a particular test where both systems had equal levels of harmonics distortion on a single sine, the symmetrical system had less audible distortion even though there were more spectral components.

One possible conclusion from this could be that microphones and high frequency speaker drivers (tweeters..) should have symmetrical nonlinearites if possible in order to avoid fold down of IMD down into the area where the ear is most sensitive iow. around 3kHz.

For LF and MF drivers one could argue that for a given level of distortion, the even order from asymmetrical non-linearities is to prefer since even low order harmonics are less audible than odd.



Yes and that's to bad since it's such a great mic otherwise.



/Peter

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

John and Peter,

Lab grade tech talk is useful some places... //snippitysnipp//... and I will be grateful if you will help by not straying so far from the opening topic.

Oki!


/Peter

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

The 8040 has probably some of the best front to back depth of any mic that I've used.

How can this work? How can a mic itself influence "front-back" depth.

To me that can only come from technique ie Blumlein to get accurate phase representation from the acoustic where the lateral cues are correctly recorded.

But I could be wrong.

[fifthcircle]

To answer your question, David, I have no idea *how* it works, nor do I really care.

I have found that all mics are definitely not the same when it comes to the imaging of an ensemble and how well it picks up inner voices. For example, when I use DPA cardiods, I get a beautiful sound and spectacular image from left to right. However, I find that when you get to the 2nd or 3rd row of musicians, the clarity lacks and instruments start sounding like they are in a different acoustic. This is confirmed by my clients that when I use DPAs complain about the 2nd violin and viola in the quartet not sounding as present as the 1st violin and cello. When I use my Schoeps and especially my sennheisers, this is never the case.

The 8040 I find has a reach and a clarity of sources at a distance that few other mics have. When I've tracked studio vocals with it, I can have the mic probably 2-3 times further out on the singer and still have the same presence. Gives me a slightly more subtle sound, if for no other reason that there is no proximity effect. Also, when I use them as a main pair, I find that I need to position it a bit further out than a similar pair of Schoeps or Neumann mics as the sound is more present.

Now, back to Michael- I usually find myself using the 8040 as a spot mic or for stereo usages in a standard ORTF. The one caution on using them as an ORTF pattern is if you aren't careful with setting your angle, you can get some strange things in a stereo pair. To me it almost sounds like a comb filtering issue with perhaps a bit of phasing at the highest frequencies. It is always solved by making sure that I've got at least 90 degrees in the pickup.

I rarely use them in X-Y if for no other reason than I'm not a big fan of X-Y.

--Ben

[MichaelPatrick]

Ben, thanks. If we get some 8040s I'll observe your caution about near-coincident use with angles <90 degrees.

fwiw, I have a theory that the quality of front-to-back imaging --especially in complex soundstages like orchestra-- is affected by the transient capabilities of the whole signal chain, and not just the ability to capture and convey a transient, but to convey all its harmonic products in proper phase. And the temporal resolution needed is certainly in microseconds if not nanoseconds. The 8000 series may be exceptionally good in this way.

We know that electronics in any device can distort the phase relation between fundamentals and harmonics in upper frequencies where most localization information resides. And it, likewise, makes sense that simpler sound stages with only several players will image more easily, so fine temporal accuracy is less important to capture a compelling image of that kind.

P.S. The Gordon Model 5 preamp is more temporally accurate than any I've heard. Likewise, I can only imagine that some microphones are better than others; the most time-accurate mic I've heard is Josephson's C617set omni. Putting them together in a chain is both deadly accurate and "musical." My colleagues and I are working on ways to get better imaging from omnis and these are mainstay devices in our quest.

[FreeJazz]

Originally Posted by Plush

I have been very pleased with the 8020 omni mics. The reasons I like them are for their ruler flat response, their extended high end capability, their reasonable price and their small size.

Plush!

First, permit me to thank you for your input, voice of reason and words of wisdom over the years. I've been lurking in these forums for some time now, as I research potential purchases, and have always appreciated your comments.

So if I may ask, I'd be very interested in your comments about a purchase I am contemplating. I record acoustic music exclusively: choral, chamber and jazz.

I have determined that I want a highly portable, robust, relatively simple, and nice-sounding setup. I am, therefore, considering the following to achieve these aims:

Sound Devices 744T
Broadhurst Gardens No. 1 (for inputs 3 & 4 on the SD)
Sennheiser MKH 8020 (matched pair)
And I already own a matched pair of Beyerdynamic MC-930s

Your affinity for the BG No. 1 is legend in these parts, and your comments about the 8020s speak for themselves. My question is: What has been your experience using these two pieces of kit together?

I envision using the BG and 8020s as the main pair and the 930s as spots/flanks/ambience as necessary. How would all this work with the 744T?

Thank you. Your comments will be most appreciated!

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

John and Peter,

Lab grade tech talk is useful some places, and some people (like those who hang out in the Geekslutz forum) find great value in it. We need good engineering. However, test methods and metrics are not what this thread is about, and I will be grateful if you will help by not straying so far from the opening topic.

Thanks

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

fwiw, I have a theory that the quality of front-to-back imaging --especially in complex soundstages like orchestra-- is affected by the transient capabilities of the whole signal chain, and not just the ability to capture and convey a transient, but to convey all its harmonic products in proper phase. And the temporal resolution needed is certainly in microseconds if not nanoseconds. The 8000 series may be exceptionally good in this way.

We know that electronics in any device can distort the phase relation between fundamentals and harmonics in upper frequencies where most localization information resides. And it, likewise, makes sense that simpler sound stages with only several players will image more easily, so fine temporal accuracy is less important to capture a compelling image of that kind.

Michael.. so it was not about what was said but the fact it came from me?

There are flaws in your theory above but since you don't want me to go techno-babble I guess I should not adress it..

It just looks bad to ask me (and John) to "stay on topic" and then you go on with "lab-talk" yourself. The two posts of yours does not sit well together.

I really appreciated your civil tone but now I'm a bit sad and confused really.


/Peter

[Tom McC]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

......

The 8040 I find has a reach and a clarity of sources at a distance that few other mics have. ........When I've tracked studio vocals with it, I can have the mic probably 2-3 times further out on the singer and still have the same presence........
--Ben

I'm a bit uneasy that the terms "reach and clarity" and "front to back depth" in this thread are getting equated or casually interchanged with each other.

To most folks, "front to back depth" contains the notion of holographic soundstaging, and not merely a maintenance of performer clarity with increasing distances. Does Fifthcircle genuinely experience an improved front/back image illusion? He and his clients observe with the 8040 that sound souces further away don't get murky so quickly, e.g. the 8040 has less likelihood of the 2nd row of musicians "not sounding as present" as the 1st row. But "having the same presence" does not necessarily have to mean that a sharper, front-to-back holographic imaging has taken place, whereby, say, the 2nd row can more convincingly be discerned to be seated behind the 1st row.

Maybe - just kiddin' - the 2nd row has the same presence as the 1st because the depth perspective was actually flattened and they appear as sitting in the laps of the 1st row players? :-)

[MichaelPatrick]

Peter,

I encourage you to open a thread, paste my theory there and take it on. Then we'll learn the details of your objection and it won't distract from MKH8000 mics and the reasons to use them.

Originally Posted by Audiop

Michael.. so it was not about what was said but the fact it came from me?

There are flaws in your theory above but since you don't want me to go techno-babble I guess I should not adress it..

It just looks bad to ask me (and John) to "stay on topic" and then you go on with "lab-talk" yourself. The two posts of yours does not sit well together.

I really appreciated your civil tone but now I'm a bit sad and confused really.


/Peter

[MichaelPatrick]

Tom, what Ben is saying is pretty clear to me. I think that, to sharpen our use of terms and understanding of these concepts, you could open a thread and propose something to make us better informed. Knowing that you are "uneasy" provokes my sympathy, but it isn't very helpful.

Originally Posted by Tom McC

I'm a bit uneasy that the terms "reach and clarity" and "front to back depth" in this thread are getting equated or casually interchanged with each other.

To most folks, "front to back depth" contains the notion of holographic soundstaging, and not merely a maintenance of performer clarity with increasing distances. Does Fifthcircle genuinely experience an improved front/back image illusion? He and his clients observe with the 8040 that sound souces further away don't get murky so quickly, e.g. the 8040 has less likelihood of the 2nd row of musicians "not sounding as present" as the 1st row. But "having the same presence" does not necessarily have to mean that a sharper, front-to-back holographic imaging has taken place, whereby, say, the 2nd row can more convincingly be discerned to be seated behind the 1st row.

Maybe - just kiddin' - the 2nd row has the same presence as the 1st because the depth perspective was actually flattened and they appear as sitting in the laps of the 1st row players? :-)

[John Willett]

The one thing that the MKH 8000 series have is the symmetrical capsule - this has a very low level of intermodulation distortion compared to other mics.

IM-distortion seems to me to be like looking through a window that has not been washed for a while and you get this thin layer of grime over it - you don't realise it's there until you clean the window and suddenly you can see more clearly.

This is the reaction I had when I started using the symmetrical capsule series and what, I think, people mean by "clarity".

I hope this helps.

[fifthcircle]

I'm a bit uneasy with the term "holographic soundstage" Give me a break.

If you're involved with classical recording, you'd understand that there is a hell of a lot more to an image than how the source is presented from left to right. You need to have a sense of depth, but yet keeping a clarity to the sound as you go back.

With some gear, I get great left to right. With a very small amount of gear, do I get that other dimension. When the main mics don't provide that sense of depth and clarity of sound, I end up needing to reach for spot mics which opens up a much larger can o' worms. Spots are sometimes a necessary evil, but certainly not what you want to plan on being required to use to make the recording work.

--Ben

Originally Posted by Tom McC

I'm a bit uneasy that the terms "reach and clarity" and "front to back depth" in this thread are getting equated or casually interchanged with each other.

To most folks, "front to back depth" contains the notion of holographic soundstaging, and not merely a maintenance of performer clarity with increasing distances. Does Fifthcircle genuinely experience an improved front/back image illusion? He and his clients observe with the 8040 that sound souces further away don't get murky so quickly, e.g. the 8040 has less likelihood of the 2nd row of musicians "not sounding as present" as the 1st row. But "having the same presence" does not necessarily have to mean that a sharper, front-to-back holographic imaging has taken place, whereby, say, the 2nd row can more convincingly be discerned to be seated behind the 1st row.

Maybe - just kiddin' - the 2nd row has the same presence as the 1st because the depth perspective was actually flattened and they appear as sitting in the laps of the 1st row players? :-)

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by John Willett

The one thing that the MKH 8000 series have is the symmetrical capsule - this has a very low level of intermodulation distortion compared to other mics.

IM-distortion seems to me to be like looking through a window that has not been washed for a while and you get this thin layer of grime over it - you don't realise it's there until you clean the window and suddenly you can see more clearly.

This is the reaction I had when I started using the symmetrical capsule series and what, I think, people mean by "clarity".

I hope this helps.

John, aren't all spherical capsules "symmetrical?" Other makers like Pearl say that rectangular capsules have less audible resonance distortion. Can you help me understand how Sennheiser 8000 capsules are distinguished and what "symmetrical" means in this context?