CO-100K vs MKH 8020

[Norm@gear]

As I promised and because some friends here asked (in another thread), here are 2 files from my recent clarinet + piano session. Both CO100 and 8020 on the same stereo bar.

Download SCHUMANN_8020_96.wav from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way
Download SCHUMANN_CO100_96.wav from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

Recorded to Sequoia through DAD AX24, 24/96.
Of course, spots are not included in the mix.

Also, one non-professional photo.

Norm

[jglamar]

I am surprised how much I like the Sennheisers; in this case I think I prefer them. I just used the Co-100ks on my last 2 Naxos discs and loved them. Perhaps in your particular application (also also just generally) it might be useful to angle them up towards the ceiling, maybe as much as 45 degrees from horizontal. That might alleviate some of the corner-of-the-embouchure leakage the Sankens are showing, and to some extent that might be a more germane comparison with the on-axis sound of the Sennheisers. Thanks for posting this.

[JEGG]

Thanks very much, Norm, for posting these very interesting files.

The transparency of the Sankens is really impressive, however I found them to be a little unnatural-having an almost piezoelectric quality on the top that was not at all uniform in the treatment of the source material. In terms of the general texture, I found the Sankens to resemble the small 4060/4061's, in that I thought the "guts" or the fundamentals were missing in a trade off for transparency.

The Sennheisers sounded much more natural and consistent across the source material. The clarinet sounded like a clarinet! They also image really, really well! As do the Sankens-though to match, the Sennheisers could be perhaps a little further apart or the Sankens a bit closer together.

Jglamar-I'm interested in your remarks about embouchure. That was perhaps one of the biggest differences between the mic's. What I thought I was hearing, though, was simply an anomaly (or a "feature") in the phase/frequency response of the Sankens which over emphasized this facet of the sound. However, it wasn't only that embouchure sounds were over emphasized and bright-they had that unnatural "piezo quality" thing going on, too, as did the rest of the clarinet sound in general.

If you would write a few more words about the Sanken pointing and HF directional characteristics of that mic, I would enjoy reading them. As I write, I'm not able to look at the photograph that I saw earlier. I've forgotten where the ceiling was (is).

Thanks again to Norm for these great comparison files. A nice job of recording, too. Maybe you can post a small example of your final choice/mix. I would really like to hear that. The photo showed that you had all bases well covered!

[jglamar]

JEGG - I hear what you're saying about phase/freq diffs, but to me it just sounded like plain old air leakage, which is of course one of the endemic problems of recording clarinet. Clarinetists are of course often hyper-sensitive to this issue. Not all of them! - some have no trouble with this at all.. and some don't think of it as a 'problem' in the first place. Sometimes they will ask for the top end to be rolled off to address this. And as you see Norm is wisely using R84s for the spot pickup - they will naturally compensate for this effect somewhat. But as for the main pair: I wouldn't derive from this example that the Sankens sound in any way unnatural - though they do have a huge rise above 10k and even bigger ones at 20k and 50k. When I use them as a stereo pair in a free-air placement, I tend to angle them up a bit (if the ceiling were low I would have to listen to see if there were unwanted reflections) - they just sound great that way. Talk about imaging! Anyway, don't take my word for it - I assume you've read what Mike Bishop says about how he uses them.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by jglamar

JEGG - I hear what you're saying about phase/freq diffs, but to me it just sounded like plain old air leakage, which is of course one of the endemic problems of recording clarinet. Clarinetists are of course often hyper-sensitive to this issue. Not all of them! - some have no trouble with this at all.. and some don't think of it as a 'problem' in the first place. Sometimes they will ask for the top end to be rolled off to address this.

Hi there-I've been around and recorded lots of clarinetists for recordings and broadcasts, ranging from professional orchestra players to collegiate faculty to talented high school students. (And for some years, I sat next to oboists and clarinetists in professional chamber ensembles and orchestras.) Perhaps I'm lucky in that I've never made a recording- or been asked to fix one- that painted an unflattering "picture" of air escaping from the embouchure-and that even with bright sounding mic's! In this case, though, there is a world of difference between the Sennheisers and the Sanken, and it's a real challenge for me to believe it is the Sankens that are reporting things in a natural way. Then again, natural is not always wanted.

Originally Posted by jglamar

And as you see Norm is wisely using R84s for the spot pickup - they will naturally compensate for this effect somewhat.

Yes, he definitely covered all scenarios! I'd like to hear a little bit of the mix.

Originally Posted by jglamar

But as for the main pair: I wouldn't derive from this example that the Sankens sound in any way unnatural - though they do have a huge rise above 10k and even bigger ones at 20k and 50k. When I use them as a stereo pair in a free-air placement, I tend to angle them up a bit (if the ceiling were low I would have to listen to see if there were unwanted reflections) - they just sound great that way. Talk about imaging! Anyway, don't take my word for it - I assume you've read what Mike Bishop says about how he uses them.

I can understand why they would be fantastic "air" mic's, and could probably capture air in almost any room! I have read some of Mike Bishop's comments, and admire his work. I've no doubt that the mic is excellent, but probably not for me, at least for now..... Having said that, it would telling to listen to them pointed differently-as I'm extremely careful in pointing omni's with even 3dB of lift. And I have other omni's with 0 and 6 dB HF boost. So, I may like the Sankens much more than I imagine at this point. (Not a suggestion or criticism of Norm's excellent examples. In fact, I'm happy that we got to hear them as they are-that's much more useful (to me) than having them pointed differently, as it gives a more complete sense of the mic's characteristics.)

Thanks for your additional thoughts. I appreciate it!

[rumleymusic]

Yeah, I am listening to the files with a frequency analyzer and spectograph and it is not only easy to hear but to see the rise in the high frequencies with the Sanken. It sounds good with the piano, but I agree that all I can notice with the clarinet is the leaky airflow, quite distracting. Much prefer the Sennheisers in this example. Both sound natural and clean which I like very much.

[Hornblower64]

Thanks!

I have a pair of the MKH8020's, and am very happy with them, but have always wondered about the Sanken CO-100K.

For my taste, the microphones are too far away, but the Sennheisers seem to preserve more weight and detail at that distance, and not get lost with all the reflected energy.

I now wonder a little less.

Also curious about the Josephson C617set. Perhaps I can convince my friend Michael to try his pair with my pair of MKH8020. We did a Nagra VI/Sound Devices 788T shootout on GS last year.

[phaseshift1]

Hello Norm,

Thank you so much for posting these samples!!!!

For me, on my system, the CO-100K's are night and day superior to the 8020's.

Which microphone cable did you use?

Thank you for your efforts.

[avebr]

Opinions are very diverse about the CO-100K, but I'm still curious and eager to try them.

Originally Posted by Hornblower64

(...)
Also curious about the Josephson C617set. Perhaps I can convince my friend Michael to try his pair with my pair of MKH8020. We did a Nagra VI/Sound Devices 788T shootout on GS last year.

You must try the C617set! It's currently my first choice for the main pair!


For me, it sits in the middle of a scale between:


1) too detailed, flat, clinical; 2) C617 ; 3) too colored, forgivin, too gluey.


I would say that the CO-100K, some DPAs, MKH800 and maybe MKH8020, and MBHO 604+omni/cardio caps are in different positions inside column (1).

To column (3) I would put some Schoeps, some tube or transformer-based mics at most extreme positions, and maybe KM14x / KM183/4 on mid positions on column (3) too...

For now, I can only think of the C617 on such midle position.

Thinking this way, anybody would suggest more mics to scale?

(all these are just my personal opinions and the way I think about this. A mic being more flat, clinical, colored or forgiving is not a bad or better thing per ser, just another option/tool that we can use, that's what I truly believe)

all the best,
ave.

clarification about the 'scale': think about a ruler with 3 big marks and many infinite possibilities/submarks in-between each other.

[Audiop]

Thanks for posting the files.

To me both recordings sunds very good but I have a slight preference for CU100k listening on HD600.

I have the MKH8020 myself and at this point it seems to me that the difference is mainly a question of frequency response.

When I compared MKH8020 to Earthworks QTC1 I experienced a similar difference.

As others have mentioned it would be interesting to adjust the microphones angle and apply EQ in order to see how close they come to eachother.


/Peter

[amfortas2006]

I liked the Sankens, but would like to hear their sound without the nasty air-leakage.

Maybe some slight EQ?

And without the spots, I find the balance between the instruments to be too much in favor of the clarinet. Bringing the piano a bit closer would have solved that for me.

Cheers

[amfortas2006]

On second tought, the balance between the instruments is good, but I would have liked them both a tiny bit closer to the main pair

[Celloman]

One should take into consideration that the venue is a smallish recital hall/theater. I think the Sankens would enjoy a larger/darker acoustic. My experience with the 8020's is that they work well in acoustics where the hf information is pretty direct in the stage area, as where these mics were placed. They also shine in close miking. I think it's safe to say that they are both superb mics and one will easily "shoot-out" the other depending on the acoustic.

Mike

[Celloman]

Originally Posted by jglamar

I am surprised how much I like the Sennheisers; in this case I think I prefer them. I just used the Co-100ks on my last 2 Naxos discs and loved them.

I think I heard one of the 2 you are referring to and I thought it was excellent work! Bravo

Mike

[Plush]

I think it's just the playa, instrument and room making the sound, not really the mics. Any quality omni will present a very accurate picture of what is offered on stage.

I cannot agree with the assignment of "sound character" in a 1-2-3 grid
(clinical to colored) written about above.

Any emphasis of air from clarinet is strictly due to the instrument and player. The mic only picks up what is offered. Larry Combs has no "air escaping" noises in his playing. Only tone emerges.

[avebr]

Originally Posted by Plush

(...)
I cannot agree with the assignment of "sound character" in a 1-2-3 grid
(clinical to colored) written about above.

You sure are allowed to disagree, it's just another way to see it!

But let me make things clear, because of my bad english - it's not a 1-2-3 scale. Think of it like a grayscale: from all-white(1) to all-black(3). The midle of it would be gray (2) - so they are not just 3 points but "infinite" possibilities in-between those marks... Someone once put a nice [and much better] graphic representation of this, but I'm not so skilled.

PS: my opinions are not based only on this recording.

PS2: sorry if in previous post I used (wrongly) the word 'column' instead of 'mark'...


all the best,
ave.

[fifthcircle]

Amen Plush about the clarinetist. I'm a clarinetist and air leakage is a player issue. If necessary, for the session, use a softer reed that allows for more tone. There is a feeling amongst many clarinetists that they need to play on tongue depressers to be cool.

Anyways, Sanken vs. Sennheiser. Used both, but own Sennheiser. Why? Sanken is known for the crystaline clarity of their microphones. They have an amazing reach and clarity into an ensemble. It is in many respects better than any other mic. However, the musical presentation is what can suffer.

Many that know me have heard me talk about the issue of transparency in classical recordings. It is something that engineers love, but often not the musicians. The transparency may show what is going on, but that picture isn't always flattering (as shown by everybody bitching about the air leak sound being so present in the Sanken sample). Instead, our jobs as an engineer doing music like this is to serve the music. Show what is going on musicially- it may not be exactly what you think you're hearing, but it is what people will want to listen to.

I've got plenty of transparent gear, but I also love my tubes and transformers. At the end of the day, my clients prefer the musical representation and couldn't care less as to how "transparent" the recording is. Hence, I own Schoeps, Sennheiser and such and not the Sanken Omnis. (I do own a set of the CU31 cardiods, however, and they can be very useful mics- just not as a main pair).

-Ben

[mathieujm]

Thanks for these samples
These sounds are too diffuse, so the brightness of the Sanken is wellcome here to compensate, but I would prefer the timbre from the 8020, just with more direct sound ?

JMM

[aracu]

On this comparison, I think the Sanken sounds quite clear and natural. The
Sennheiser clip sounds less natural to me... especially the reverb response.


"You must try the C617set! It's currently my first choice for the main pair!
For me, it sits in the middle of a scale between: 1) too detailed, flat, clinical; 2) C617 ; 3) too colored, forgivin, too gluey."


I have a couple of questions for c617 owners.

Do you find the somewhat low SPL to be a problem or limitation?

Do you find the mic to be useful in the diffuse field for example if
using the balls from Josephson which are designed for it?

I have the impression that is one of the best sounding microphones available
and am trying to get a clearer idea of how versatile it is.

[avebr]

Originally Posted by aracu

(...)I have a couple of questions for c617 owners.
Do you find the somewhat low SPL to be a problem or limitation?

No, you may misunderstood the spec sheet. Actually it's output is quite hot, sometimes it needs pad not to distort mic preamp. But never heard any distort 'in the microphone' because of not handling too loud sounds (at least as a main pair with orchestra).

Originally Posted by aracu

Do you find the mic to be useful in the diffuse field for example if using the balls from Josephson which are designed for it?

I bought the balls but could not yet use them in a real situation, and could still not 'understand' it's sound, althought in a non-ideal test situation (big studio).

I tend to prefer direct field/'linear' to diffuse field omnis. It's easier to get closer to diffuse ones with EQ than the opposite, althought surely it's not ideal, but works.

The diffuse ones surely have greater natural 'reach' so you can position it far - in this way they sound 'bigger' for me, similar to a closer direct field main pair + room pair - it gives a more complete picture but less controlable than two pairs. (here goes again my bad english)

Originally Posted by aracu

I have the impression that is one of the best sounding microphones available and am trying to get a clearer idea of how versatile it is.

You are correct!

I like it so much that I have already used the C617s as the main pair with MKH800s as room pair. And believe me I'm (was?) a Sennheiser-freak.

Not only the C617set, but Josephson is a great microphone maker. I hope to get a C700s soon...

I'm sure others will chime in and give their experiences.


all the best,
ave.

[didier.brest]

I prefer the Sanken take because it delivers more you-are-here feeling to me especially when focusing my listening on the piano. I tamed the Sanken HF bump (-15 dB, Q = 0.6 @ 19 kHz) to get a spectrum similar to the Sennheiser take's one and this does not change this feeling. Note that the Sennheiser take is about 0.5 dB RMS louder and both take have a strong tone at 19740 Hz.
Many thanks for sharing this. thumbsup

[rumleymusic]

both take have a strong tone at 19740 Hz.

I noticed that. It happens twice near the end, maybe some kind of computer interference...

No, you may misunderstood the spec sheet. Actually it's output is quite hot, sometimes it needs pad not to distort mic preamp.

You're right, it is one of the most sensitive mics I have ever experienced. Very little gain is needed.

[Norm@gear]

Friends, thank you so much for so many advanced opinions and thoughts! I enjoyed reeding this thread very much indeed.

My own experience with CO100s is still very short and I'm learning with every session something new about these mikes. They are so precise that every detail matters - placement, angle, room acoustics are extremely important, they capture air and all the nuances of abience almost like under magnifying glass. Also musicians are discovering many hidden things (both good and bad) in their style of performance, sound etc. My next project will be in big cathedral - organ (orignal romantic Walker-built instrument)+ voice and I'm looking forward with impatience to hear how this setup works in this context, also 2 orchestral CDs in summer. I have a feeling that Sankens really shines in a great hall and top-quality orchestra.

JEGG: I'm still not decided which pair I'll use in final mix, but also my preferences are more to the 8020 side for this particular ensemble and repertoire (Schumann). I'll try to make some rough mix with spots included at the weekend and post here. By the way, it was first time I used R84s in M/S configuration for soloist (suggested by Mr.Bishop in another thread) and I literally felt in love with their sound and flexiblity that allows spatial adjustment and control. Air leakage was a real issue with this particular player, some takes were much worse...

phaseshift1: in this project all cables went into hall's built-in multicore, which was ok, but from the very demanding point of view, was not the strongest piece of signal path.

Yes, I also noticed this 19740 Hz tone - very strange, have no idea from where it shows up?? Never saw something like this with my setup, may be from lights..

Thank you, guys, once more! Fantastic people here in GS, no doubts.

Norm

[Norm@gear]

Hi,

here you will find 2 files - CO100s and 8020s mixed with spot mics, just to have insight how all this setup blends together.

Download 8020_MIX.wav from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

Download CO100_MIX.wav from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

This is certainly not a final version, I did not any editing so far, very busy with other projects

Norm

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by avebr

Thinking this way, anybody would suggest more mics to scale?

There is this graph from here

[phaseshift1]

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

[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.

[Audiop]

CU100k is aprox. 5dB up at 10k and 11dB up at 20k in the free field. Recording on axis relatively near will result in excessive highs.. Small cheap speakers often have rolled off highs which possibly results in a relatively neutral sonic impression.

MKH8020 is flat on axis which means that recording relatively near and played back on a real monitor will result in a neutral sonic impression.

MKH8020 will OTOH sound dull on a neutral monitor when recording at a distance in the diffuse field.

Feel free to angle the mic's and use EQ to battle free field vs. diffuse field response and situations. :-)


/Peter

[didier.brest]

EQing the HF lift of the C0-100 track in the first post (main pair only) does not make it sound like the MKH8020 one.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

EQing the HF lift of the C0-100 track in the first post (main pair only) does not make it sound like the MKH8020 one.

Of course not, did you expect that?


/Peter