Schoeps MK4 vs. Rode NT5 - the edited version!

[bove]

I have used and heard the Schoeps MK4 and MK21, and I really, really like their sound... they are the only condenser microphones I have used however... so I don't have an idea of "how much better" they actually are compared to other cheaper options...

Can anyone enlighten me?

Would the sound from a pair of Rode NT5s be blown away by the Schoeps? Is this even a reasonable comparison?

The reason I ask is that I plan to purchase a pair of the Schoeps in the near future (6 months- 1 year) but I am involved in an acoustic project (classical-ish chamber music ensemble) next week where the best microphones available at the moment are the Rode NT5... I am worried about the sound and was considering accelerating the Schoeps purchase to have them available. I am playing on the recording, and I want to make sure it sounds as good as it can!

Thanks for any info you can share!

[fifthcircle]

Schoeps are a totally different league. The NT5's aren't horrible mics, but they aren't fantastic, either. I see you live in NY. How about renting a good pair of mics?

--Ben

[bove]

Thanks for the advice.... from my research, that's what I was thinking, but I thought I'd throw the question out there just to confirm...

[liuto]

I haven't heard the NT5s but I can tell you about a similar comparison with Oktava MK012. I own Schoeps MK4 and MK2S and I am a real fan of these microphones for classical and jazz productions but I also bought a couple of the Oktavas and was "blown away" by their sound. If you are careful about mic positioning you can get professional sounding recordings. Nevertheless I prefer Schoeps, at least for main microphone applications, where they sound a bit more refined, smoother etc....
Regards Hermann

[TonyF]

I don't like either the Schoeps MK4 nor the Neumann KM140 straight cardioids on their own very much. For me the Rode NT5, NT55 and NT6 cardioid mics sound pretty similar except the top end is a bit sweeter. Small diaphragm cardioids like these all sound a bit thin and squawky no matter who makes them, so my advice would be to save your cash and buy Rodes. If you buy the NT55 it comes with omni and cardioid capsules in the kit which is useful - a bit like buying a camera with wide-angle and telephoto lenses in the box.

The sound of small capsule cardioids is why a lot of us use subcardioids (like the Schoeps MK21 and Neumann KM143) - they sound warmer and less like a mynah bird.

I think some people stay away from Rode because they are more worried about perceived profile than sound quality. Bit like wine snobs who like to flash expensive labels.

[bishopthomas]

Just to clarify, you are resurrecting a four year old thread to say that Rode mics sound better than Schoeps? I guess it's all subjective, so how could we argue...

[TonyF]

Whatever you say - no problem with me - I take your point. We might have some new visitors since four years, interested in expressing their opinions.

We all need reminding every once in a while that we should select microphones with our ears not with our eyes and prejudices. The integrity, credibility and pleasurability of the content is what counts in the end and few music-lovers do their shopping for downloads and CDs on the basis of the names of manufacturers on the microphones used in the recording. If I am shopping for a nice photograph it should not concern me whether it was taken through a Nikon, Sigma or Tamron lens.

The assumption that a small capsule cardioid capacitor microphone is universally right for any particular job is also worth questioning - a fig8 ribbon might do the job better and sound cleaner too, or a different pattern capacitor, or a classic large diaphragm mic.. After a long time in this business you learn that many assumptions thrust upon you are based on hot air and not based either on physics or even-handed aesthetics. A lot of modern microphones sound like breaking glass and reading the manufacturer's name will not change that.

Microphones are like fixed focal length lenses and no professional photographer would have just one brand and one fixed focal length of lens in his kit, then argue about which particular brand of fixed 100mm lens worked best. A serious point is being missed here.

[TLMUSIC]

I recently bought some Schoeps MK4 capsules. Before I bought them I compared them to the Rode (only on acoustic guitar I must add) and for me personally the Schoeps were considerably more detailed and just generally sounded better.

[John Willett]

Although the Rode are good value for money, the Schoeps will blow them away.

Personally, I prefer a different cardioid SDC, but Schoeps are among the BMW, and Mercedes of this world and Rode is more like a Ford (at the best).

[bishopthomas]

I agree with the point you are trying to make about using your ears to decide, just not quite with you on the specific tools you are comparing. Your analogy is slightly off too. Comparing different lenses is one thing, but your Rode to Schoeps comparison is more like a disposable camera to a DSLR. Sure, they both take pictures, but one IS better than the other (unless you're going for low quality).

[TonyF]

Well. As an owner of eight Rodes and fourteen Schoeps plus a lot of other mics used for orchestral recordings (last job last week Orchestre de Paris Soloists, next job next week London Symphony) I believe it is untrue to say that the Schoeps MK4 cardioids "blow the Rodes out of the water". They sound different that is true, and it is not a problem for me that they do. However the intimation that the Rodes sound 'ok but good value for money' and that the Schoeps sound 'markedly superior but at a price' is convenient but simply a false premise based on marketing preconceptions (at least judged by what my ears tell me).

Where does this talk come from? Is it based on the same notion that a high-end Audi car is more desirable than a low-end Volkswagen because it has more comfortable seats, a more powerful engine and all the other extras to make an expensive car more desirable than a low-budget one? I understand the differences between an expensive car and an inexpensive one. These scales of differences do not apply to the sound quality of a single diaphragm capacitor pencil cardioid microphone costing USD100, 200, 500, 1000 or 2000 and I believe many of us have vested interest in revisiting these false folklores which have nothing much to do with sound quality, and nothing much to do with any wholly fair blind listening at all.

There are bigger audible differences between the Rode omni and the Schoeps omnis I own (we only have MK2H and MK5 slide-switchables) and in differing circumstances my preferences shift. Overall I prefer the low-end extension of the Rode, but that is not because I am saying it is better designed or manufactured. Overall the Schoeps do feel more robustly built physically. However in the field the Schoeps CCM microphones have for me actually (surprisingly) been less reliable in terms of sporadic noise. The design and manufacture are based on slightly different choices made by the two companies. In the Wigmore Hall the Rodes sound wetter in the same physical position as the Schoeps - sometimes I want that, sometimes I don't - so I make my choice.

How we visualise sound in our own heads is our own business, and mea culpa I do visualise microphones as lenses or as lighting (in reciprocity). Sometimes I go further off the wall visualising them as aerials as in phased arrays when I am thinking through stereo options. With a camera there are three obvious ways I can frame a solo portrait - close-up with a wide-angle, medium-distance with a medium lens, long-distance with a telephoto. Within those choices I can set depth of field using aperture, shutter-speed and ISO. With audio the rules are different for sure, but germane. If you want 'presence' plus 'ambience' there are several ways to achieve it with microphones, especially if you are working in stereo or surround. Getting bogged down in what looks and reads like spitting contests over how much you paid or should pay for your favourite pencil small-capsule capacitor cardioid microphone is missing out on a lot of fun, and missing out on making great sounds in more interesting ways.

Vested interest is a powerful motivator and none of us should forget it. If I were a 'mature' professional photographer with a five year old USD10k camera and a USD5k lens I know I would be put out by a kid just out of college with his brand new USD700 Nikon and USD300 Sigma lens which made pictures pretty close to mine in terms of picture quality. We must not allow ourselves to indulge in the notion that with microphones "more expensive" necessarily must always mean "much better". The differences between the mature photographer and new kid on the block are much more to do with experience, wiles and guiles - not whether he is uses one brand of lens or another. The same is true for sound engineers. Give a bad engineer the best and most expensive microphones in the world, and give a great engineer a box of Rode microphones to play with and an hour or so to get used to them. I have a pretty good idea who'll deliver the better sounds.

[The Listener]

What I am reading in this forum in the past months generates a rather unpleasant thought in my mind - "should the engineers after certain age or many years of ear abuse, retire from this business or do their experiences outweigh the possible (and very likely) hearing loss...?" Seriously.

If someone doesn't hear well above let's say 16kHz the differencies between the mentioned Rode and Schoeps mics might not matter so much to them, the same with conversion, dithering, bit depth, sampling rate, etc. subtle details... I don't know. Just a thought.

There is no snobbbery in using Schoeps mics - they are "no BS design" work-horses, a bit too expenisve, though, but there are always a bit less expensive Sennheisers, Beyerdynamics, Audio-technicas, Shures, Octavas, Rodes, etc. But to say any of those alternatives (especially the Rode mics that tend to sound a bit harsh on the top end in most cases) are actually better or more versatile - better sounding on most or all sources... is not just subjective opinion, but misinformation and BS to me.

High frequency hearing loss causes many heated debates around here I guess... Maybe it's time to start posting our current audiograms in our signatures for better orientation.

This quote makes much sense, though and could be applicable to ITB vs. OTB debates at present, when digital is really starting to "shine"... BUT - it doesn't have much to do with this Schoeps vs. Rode thing... :

Vested interest is a powerful motivator and none of us should forget it. If I were a 'mature' professional photographer with a five year old USD10k camera and a USD5k lens I know I would be put out by a kid just out of college with his brand new USD700 Nikon and USD300 Sigma lens which made pictures pretty close to mine in terms of picture quality.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Well. As an owner of eight Rodes and fourteen Schoeps plus a lot of other mics used for orchestral recordings (last job last week Orchestre de Paris Soloists, next job next week London Symphony) I believe it is untrue to say that the Schoeps MK4 cardioids "blow the Rodes out of the water".

Yes!

I always find it uplifting that someone like TonyF [or any other for that matter] are willing to question what many takes for granted.
Given the experience that Tony has in this field there's no need to question his words professionally, what is left is as always subjective.

I like the analogy with cameras as they also are a tool for capturing a certain picture or "situation". I work with cameras and know that I can take very good pictures with my trusted Olympus C-8080 digital camera. No it's not the best you can get, but I know how to get the best out of it, I know its strengths and weaknesses... very good indeed.

Thanks Tony - I will consider getting a pair of the Røde omnis at some point. But first of all I will make my decisions based on what I hear rather than just using a certain brand, and this is the core in your words - this is the important thing!

Meanwhile those who will can drive home in their Mercedes, Audi or Ford automobiles - I'll take my bike

::
Mads

[TonyF]

Wow. Below the belt stuff. If you are saying that an engineer who thinks a Rode microphone sounds ok has to be over fifty who should retire, with no hearing sensitivity above 16kHz, then that is as extraordinary in as many ways as it is wrong. My guess is that I shall not be alone in disagreeing with you. Just because someone does not agree with you does not automatically make him/her stupid, let alone deaf through senility. Old fogies are supposed to be the bigoted biased ones with closed minds, and I resent your encroachment on what should be the territory of others.

Please let us finally have some evidence to back up some of these preconceptions about microphone brands and sound. I just keep reading that expensive German mics have to be the best,... like pirates, because they arrrrhhh. It bores me, especially when a proportion of the commentary comes from someone who has worked for many years in the sales department of the UK importer of two of the leading brands of German mic. manufacturers, Neumann and Sennheiser.

Hands up any engineers over 50 who do not think it is time to hang up their headphones yet.

[Roland]

At the risk of wading into this debate/controversy at a late stage, I would make a couple of observations. I agree with Tony that just because something has this or that name on it, might be no better than an indication as to it's possible performance. On a more detailed point I've worked with the Schoep's on many occasions and they are fine microphones, but by no means a cure all or the Holy Grail. I concur with Tony's assumption that in many cases the particular model's he's talked about are far from ideal, thought there are several, specific uses I've found for them, (read, not location classical work). The Rodes I have much less experience with, however, I've used them on a couple of occasions without any trouble and have a couple of clients that use them regularly and achieve very good results.

It is more than slightly insulting to suggest that Tony's experience is based on "age related hearing loss", there are many reasons why he might have better hearing than the majority of people half his age. I feel for the less experienced posters here that it is unwise to question too much Tony's opinion, his background and experience and the fact that he still works successfully at the level he does in the industry obviously suggests that his clients still believe he delivers. Personally I think that it is great that certain people high up in the industry are prepared to air unpopular opinions, rather than just smile politely in mainstream company sales literature as many do.


Regards


Roland

[TonyF]

I have no problem being questioned, please don't get me wrong, keep it up. I have a wife and four kids after all and am used to it. Anyone who calls me Mr. Faulkner and treats me with too much respect is likely to be more than a bit suspect. The politest in delivery are usually Immigration Officers or tax-men and one is usually politest in return, but one would hardly describe such conversations as free and enlightening.

My interest is uniquely on focussing the discussion on what is audible, rather than anecdotal preconditioned responses that in order to get 'the best' by way of tools one must always pay an arm and a leg, and that having paid out that arm and leg one is entitled to expect immediate success.

[rumleymusic]

Being one who uses both quite regularly, I agree that the Schoeps sound better than the NT5. The Rodes have a large upper mid presence that make them difficult to listen to for long periods of time without corrective EQ.

Other than that, they are great mics, and I actually prefer them over the Schoeps on woodwind instruments. They are also some of the best support mics that can be had. The junk to pro analogies seem to be based off of some preconditioned response that has nothing to do with the sound quality of the mics or personal experience.

[The Listener]

Well, obviously I have a talent of sounding more of an ass than I am, or maybe I just don't realize what an ass I am.

To be fair - it was not said that those particular Rode mics are "ok", which I agree with; it was stated like this:

"I don't like either the Schoeps MK4 nor the Neumann KM140 straight cardioids on their own very much. For me the Rode NT5, NT55 and NT6 cardioid mics sound pretty similar except the top end is a bit sweeter."

And a very old thread was ressurected just to state that...

If the top end of Rode NT5 can be described as being "sweeter" than Schoeps I have my doubts... Fair? And I also don't claim Rode NT5 are junk, they are useful mics and I can agree completely with the above poster...

I have heard some clips by another well known recordist that sounded quite harsh to me, that were preferred over smooth recordings by the bigger model mics of the same brand. Again, I can only conclude, that persons prefering those clips don't hear the top end anymore...

I agree of course (and I never stated otherwise) that it is not only information over 16kHz that is important to the judgement of "quality", etc. as someone mentioned... also most mics have presence peak below this of course, but hearing deteriorates the fastest in the "top end"... and it is most obvious when judging microphones - the first thing you notice - smooth or harsh, then all the rest... and also - the statement that triggered my reaction was about top end.

Also the differencies I mentioned (as someone argued) are not always subtle, but mostly they are, and recently many "experienced" persons started to claim in several threads that those "subtle" differencies are not even important or are outright irrelevant... I am getting tired of all this BS that seems to be based upon poor listening. (I am NOT saying that Mr.Faulkner has such). My reaction was not only to this "Rode has sweeter top end than Schoeps", but it was a culmination of all those threads...

I also don't claim, but question whether experience can be more important than hearing - and it seems that it is so... I also never said "persons over 50"... but some particular judgements about things like "16bit vs 24 bit being audible or not" and if "dithering does matter" and such from "experienced" people is confusing things too much IMO. And now - "Rode NT5 has sweeter top end than Schoeps..." but to be fair and to maybe clear the fog - I like and can easily agree with the rest of what Mr.Faulkner wrote about choosing the application of mics, unnecessary worship of brands, many new mics, whatever the manufacturer, sounding like broken glass, etc. I was just triggered by that initial opinion that claimed "sweeter"...

I am in no place to argue with such experienced persons, I only mixed a couple of jazz and world music albums, but I do react at more "extreme" opinions that seem strange to me, none the less.

[aracu]

Schoeps have a particular sound and colour, and should not be necessarily used
as the standard referance to evaluate other mic brands. An example of a recording made with all Schoeps, Igor Stravinsky "Symphony of Psalms" on Telarc, sounds interesting and bizarre if played on headphones or the right audiophile stereo system. The sound is surreal and fuzzy on the choir. The flutes don't sound much like acoustic intruments, and with a subwoofer there is a constant rumbling. On monitors it doesn't quite hold together.

[rumleymusic]

Schoeps have a particular sound and colour, and should not be necessarily used as the standard referance to evaluate other mic brands. An example of a recording made with all Schoeps, Igor Stravinsky "Symphony of Psalms" on Telarc, sounds interesting and bizarre if played on headphones or the right audiophile stereo system. The sound is surreal and fuzzy on the choir. The flutes don't sound much like acoustic intruments, and with a subwoofer there is a constant rumbling. On monitors it doesn't quite hold together.

Hmm, I haven't heard that one yet, I have the Chicago symphony version which sounds phenomenal. Telarc is kind of hit or miss I have discovered. I don't know how much that sound I would attribute to the mics or to the engineering.

[charles maynes]

the Schoeps mics in general are wonderful, but like everything else, they wont make or break a recording session. Nor will a RODE mic or a Shure mic.

The artistry is in knowing where to put the mic.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by TonyF

It bores me, especially when a proportion of the commentary comes from someone who has worked for many years in the sales department of the UK importer of two of the leading brands of German mic. manufacturers, Neumann and Sennheiser.

I couldn't agree more. Most people, perhaps without exception, here and elsewhere who have such affiliations plainly and very prominently list this in each and every post they write, instead of burying it somewhere and than explaining, when questioned, that what they write is completely unrelated to their work history. This is a pretense and is dishonest.

[Nobilmente]

At the risk of not wading into this debate at a late stage!!

I totally agree with Tony Faulkner, what's not to?
I have not read every entry in this thread (it's Christmas!) but suffice to say that I too have chosen less expensive microphones than the Schoeps on quite a number of occasions to get the best sound under the cirmcumstances. It's not exactly difficult choosing microphones that are cheaper than Schoeps.

I recorded a Male Voice choir in an acoustic that was very suitable, and used Calrec microphones. The recording sounded well and was favourably received. The next time the job came up, I decided to use a pair of Schoeps Mk5 capsules with the same choir in the same hall, thinking the sound might be improved, it was not, and the Calrecs performed better in those circumstances than the Schoeps. When the same job came up again for the choir (same room again) I returned to using Calrecs, and acheived the same sort of results as the first Calrec recording.

I like Schoeps very much and use them very regularly, particularly as main pairs etc. but in this instance the Calrecs worked much better. (Calrecs, for me, can work extremely well on percussion and give a "naturalistic" timbre too).

And in similar vein, making the point further.

I have been a full-time professional trombone player for 40 years (should have known better) - and this has been juggled with being a sound engineer for the past 25+ years or so. The trombone mouthpiece I used during this period and which was the most suitable for me, cost £4.50. I would have paid any amount to aquire "the best". At the time I bought it, in 1973, the going rate for mouthpieces must have been around £25 (from memory) - but this mouthpiece was, has been, and is the key to that particular door for me.

Isn't it so that high and low prices in themsleves are often used as marketing tools, and it can be difficult to feel secure in the judgement of your own ears or eyes in the face of relentless promotional advertising and conditioning? Trusting your own ears can be a useful way of making improvements - or so I have found.

Just my thoughts.

[Plush]

Hilarous posts by vaguely disturbed neo-"engineers" here. Legitimate and advisory commentary by a legendary practitioner is questioned with accusations of hearing loss.

That that writing is ignorant and makes the poster seem like a rank amateur is most sad. Backing up this impression is his contention that harsh sound is defined by what happens above 12-15KHz. He's uninformed and he's wrong on the physics.

As JEGG pointed out, harsh sound is harsh because of much different frequency bands than those described.

The fact is that Tony argues for making decisions based on listening. This is the opposite of how manufacturers want us to make our decisions. The takeover of Neumann by marketeers says that we should buy modern Neumann because the shadow and silhouette of a M49 or U67 is lurking in the background of the picture leads us away from sound considerations.

I appreciate Tony being here on GS and I hope that his commentary engenders lively discussion. That opinionated new posters don't even know who he is means that they have not read and have not done any of their homework.

I like to use the inexpensive Shure KSM 137 and 141 mics. These are wonderful mics that punch well above their weight.

[Roland]

At the risk of raising more controversy, I think that the point Plush makes is really valid, particularly the context of listening as against just buying on rumors or marketing hype!

In moderation it has to also be said that although there are some great "sleepers" in terms of microphones out there, it would also be fair to say this is the exception rather than the rule. Where as I have bought some great gear that was inexpensive, I thin it is fair to point out this, (unfortunately) isn't always possible and I think that both Plush and Tony would also agree that in spite of their auditory talents they also (within reason) use the best available equipment, which all too often is expensive.

Regards


Roland

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by Plush

Hilarous posts by vaguely disturbed neo-"engineers" here. Legitimate and advisory commentary by a legendary practitioner is questioned with accusations of hearing loss.

That that writing is ignorant and makes the poster seem like a rank amateur is most sad. Backing up this impression is his contention that harsh sound is defined by what happens above 12-15KHz. He's uninformed and he's wrong on the physics.

As JEGG pointed out, harsh sound is harsh because of much different frequency bands than those described.

The fact is that Tony argues for making decisions based on listening. This is the opposite of how manufacturers want us to make our decisions. The takeover of Neumann by marketeers says that we should buy modern Neumann because the shadow and silhouette of a M49 or U67 is lurking in the background of the picture leads us away from sound considerations.

I appreciate Tony being here on GS and I hope that his commentary engenders lively discussion. That opinionated new posters don't even know who he is means that they have not read and have not done any of their homework.

I like to use the inexpensive Shure KSM 137 and 141 mics. These are wonderful mics that punch well above their weight.

[Daniel Stark]

when testing an ADK TL against a whole bunch of really nice mics, i was shocked how well it stood up... i actually sold it because i liked the "rounder" and more "3d" sound of some pricey stuff.

and later my ears missed that clean, crispy tone that the ADK had.

live and learn. i think had the adk been the most expensive mic in that shootout i might have held onto it!

[sunflute]

Originally Posted by Plush

I like to use the inexpensive Shure KSM 137 and 141 mics. These are wonderful mics that punch well above their weight.

Based on Plush's recommendation I decided to give the KSM141 pair a try and for my uses (classical & chamber flute recording) I find them to be more useful than many other famous and more expensive sd condensers. Paired with a fast preamp these mics are amazingly clear and detailed, without any harshness in the high register. In some ways these mics are restoring my faith in condensers.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Plush

Backing up this impression is his contention that harsh sound is defined by what happens above 12-15KHz. He's uninformed and he's wrong on the physics.

I agree, making arbitrary statements is never wise. I should have written more precisely about it, I should not have chosen specific "air" frequency to back up my statement about "harsh"... and possible hearing loss..

Ok, let's not make this into an even more troll-like debate with any long attept at "defence" from my side, going further off topic - mea culpa... It came of as an accusation and sounded much uglier than intended...

Although I stand by the general opinion about possible hearing loss having to do with choosing birghter mics, not percieving the subtleties in bit depth, etc. which is not neccessarily connected specifically to this thread, though. I explained the stream of thought that caused my reaction. But it is easier to pick only the negative and keep fighting, yes? We all can learn from Steve Remote's elegant posting and dealing with heated debates, I guess.

...If TonyF is also the same person credited for producing Miranda Sex Garden "Madra" CD and engineering on Balanescu quartet "Possession" then I have quite some idea who he is. No "ad hominem" was originally intended though... btw, I mixed an album featuring Julian Arguelles, the equally famous brother of percussionist/drummer Steve A. from the "Possession" project, but that might not be enough to dispell the "ad hominem" attack about "vaguely disturbed rank amateur" I guess.

Well, I can leave it alone, it makes no contribution to this topic. To react about Rode NT5 top end being sweeter than Schoeps was a legitimate move, connected to the topic, or no? I can have my opinion, having used both occasionally as overheads. Bringing "hearing loss" in the game was obviously a bit tacky.

------

btw - we (our percussion group) bought a pair of KSM141 based on Plush's endorsement, too and happily use them as percussion overheads.

[RobAnderson]

I think the "squawky" coloration Tony mentioned is not unique to SDC cardioids - to me almost all cardioids suffer from it when placed at a distance to the sound source. Since SDC's tend to be used in this application more often than LDC's, I think it somewhat unfair to simply classify this as something only SDC's suffer from.

For me, the Schoeps cardioid has the most pleasant high end for close-micing in that it is not accentuated or "thin" as I have found to be the case with others such as the KM140. If I were in a less than par room, I might choose the KM140 as a main, however, since the thinner, brighter quality can be an advantage in this case. If I had my choice of ANY SDC, I would probably choose the DPA 4011 over the Schoeps MK4, but I will not part with my own pair of CMC64's - if I had to sell every other mic I own, these would be the last to go.

I must say, I have noticed a slight difference in sound quality in my newer pair off Schoeps CMC6 amplifiers and I don't consider it an improvement. I have also noticed that the newer version features a gold-plated XLR connector, whereas the older one uses a simple nickel connector. To my knowledge, gold-plating the nickel connector actually has a detrimental effect on sound quality since there is now a double up on the impedance changes in the signal chain - however slight this may be. Whether this is the problem or not I cannot say for certain.

On my demo reel, in between recordings made using equipment costing ten times as much (or more), is a 2-mic recording done using a pair of Oktava MK012's through a Sytek Preamp recorded to a 16-bit Sony PCM2300 DAT machine. I make no apologies for, or comments about, its quality - none are needed. It holds its own quite well against these other recordings. This means nothing in and of itself - give me a fine orchestra in a fine hall and I should be able to make a fine recording, whether I am using Schoeps or Shure.

However, the Oktava's have not aged well. I have noticed a graininess or grittiness in the high-frequencies which was not present when I first bought them a number of years ago. Also, as of this writing I could sell my first pair of Schoeps for more than I bought them - their value has actually appreciated. I dare say this would not be the case with Rode or Oktava microphones.

All that being said, I would pose the following question to any and all of the classical engineers here who have major label credits:

If you had to record the Berlin Philharmonic for a major label project, or national radio broadcast in the fine concert hall of your choosing, and were given the option of using ONLY ONE particular brand of modular SDC mic, with your choice of the individual capsule on each, and budget was not an issue, how many of you would choose Rode over Schoeps?

Despite the fact that I consider Schoeps to be overpriced at this time, I don't think I would give it a second thought.

My first mentor told me to never waste my money on "cheap" gear. He also qualified this with the statement that not all inexpensive gear is necessarily bad. However all things being equal, you will never outgrow good-quality gear and it will retain its value over time.