CO-100K vs MKH 8020

[didier.brest]

No. One might understood from your previous post that difference between both tracks would be caused mainly by the CO-100K HF lift. So we agree that this interpretation would be wrong.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

No. One might understood from your previous post that difference between both tracks would be caused mainly by the CO-100K HF lift. So we agree that this interpretation would be wrong.

Nah, that was not what I wrote and not what I meant! :-)

You need to take the response into consideration at the time of recording by angle the mic properly according to the free and diffuse field response.

Doing that you can close the gap a lot between mic's (especially pressure mic's) since the dominant sonic fingerprint (by a large margin) is on axis frequency response and diffuse field response.


/Peter

[didier.brest]

So you mean that the CO-100k could be make sound close to the MKH8020, not by means of EQ after recording, which I can confirm because I tried, but by means of angle setting before recording ?

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by Norm@gear

For me it is still a dilemma, I prefer CO100 on small speakers like laptop ones, but on O300 8020s is somehow more "human" for my ear... I don't know

N.

I prefer the CO-100K when listening to the main pair alone (your first post). In the mix with the spot mics (the stereo image of which I felt being somewhat unstable or less natural), the extra accuracy from the CO-100K may not be so much beneficial.

[amfortas2006]

Originally Posted by phaseshift1

vote for using the C0-100K for the mix.

+1

this mix sounds clearer and more articulated to me

[designerroots]

The recording with Sankens sounds more "professional".

[amfortas2006]

Originally Posted by designerroots

The recording with Sankens sounds more "professional".

I don"t really agree with your opinion, sorry.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

So you mean that the CO-100k could be make sound close to the MKH8020, not by means of EQ after recording, which I can confirm because I tried, but by means of angle setting before recording ?

Yes.

If you have to mic's with the only difference beeing the frequency response, you can EQ them and angle them to end up with basically identical results.

Of course you may have audible differences in noise and distortion but still (with competently designed gear) spectrum is what makes most of the sonic impression.

I prefer the CO-100K when listening to the main pair alone (your first post). In the mix with the spot mics (the stereo image of which I felt being somewhat unstable or less natural), the extra accuracy from the CO-100K may not be so much beneficial.

What makes you believe that CO-100k is more accurate?


/Peter

[aracu]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Yes.

If you have two mic's with the only difference beeing the frequency response, you can EQ them and angle them to end up with basically identical results.

Are there any two two different mics which only have a difference in
frequency response?

Why is it that one mic can be very mallable with eq while another will
sound less natural when eq is applied to it?

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by aracu

Are there any two two different mics which only have a difference in
frequency response?

Not likely. But still what separates quality mic's most is frequency response.

If two mic's sound different the explanation is most likely to be found in
frequency response. Once you have EQ'd and/or angled them to account for this you can start to evaluate for real.

Why is it that one mic can be very mallable with eq while another will
sound less natural when eq is applied to it?

I can think of several of reasons.

Irregularities in the FR.
Improper use of EQ for the mic in question.
Problems in off axis response and thereby coloration of bleeding sound sources and/or early reflections and ambience.
Imagination.


/Peter

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by Audiop

What makes you believe that CO-100k is more accurate?

I don't believe the mic being more accurate, I feel its sound being more accurate. Another formulation, may be more accurate ( ) than mine, of the same feeling is

Originally Posted by amfortas2006

this mix sounds clearer and more articulated to me

[Audiop]

Thanks didier! ;-)


/Peter