Originally Posted by tourtelot
I don't really see it as a blind defense of the Mk8. It is what I have and I think that the recordings produced by it are excellent and that works for me.
I am a bit amused by the whole PC/Mac type discussions that seem to be a common point of the GS forums and how folks seem to want to proselytize instead of discuss.
Now, just to be clear, I am not a Sennheiser "hater" and use the MKH50 as my PREFERRED dialog capture mic in film and TV. It is, to my ears, the BEST choice of mic for that job. And would I love to have two MKH40, two MKH20 and an MKH30 in my kit? You betcha!
It's just, as I was saying, that the Schoeps combination produces wonderful results for me, in spite of some silly lines drawn on a piece of paper (which have absolutely no input to my ears!) I know really well respected live recordists with great ears who agree, just as, I'm sure, there are respected engineers that wouldn't record without a Sennheiser pair, and that's all good. Just tools in a box, and I don't really see the need to argue which carpenter's hammer is better.
Go, one and all and make fabulous sounding recordings with whatever tools you have in your box. And remember that you can't hear a piece of paper.
To a large extent I agree with you, however, what a lot of posters here are probably not as aware of (as you obviously are), how big a presence in broadcast and tv and film sound Schoeps have. Predominantly I would say the majority of members of this forum are music recordists. Schoeps with their excellent interchangeable capsule system and vast range of accessories make them a great choice for a "kit of bits" that can be used to address almost every situation.
My original post, I think, detailed good reasons why the MKH 30 has some advantages in music recording. In my original situation it was an orchestral recording done with a simple, single point, microphone set-up. As I mentioned I was able to deliver results that were ultimately satisfactory. Was it the best tool for the job? Not for me, in that scenario, I have used the MKH 40/30 combo and the MKH 30 combined with other centre mics such as DPA 4006's, it really is a good all rounder for music recording, changing the centre mic allows for a further degree of "sculpting" the sound. Even combined with a Mk2 the Mk8 still lightens the sound, not what I want for orchestral work. Having a good idea of your background, I didn't think for a moment that you were a Sennheiser hater, however, I was making the point that in your work, the Mk8 would likely have advantages, and from your reply about you and your colleagues impressions of it as a side mic, this seems to be born out.
My point with the Apple analogy, was simply to say there are plenty of other posters jumping to defend the Mk8 when they (by their own admissions) don't have the experience of the MKH30 (I am fortunate to have experienced both and several other options too, as has John).
What about comments like these?
"The MKH has exceptional proximity."
OK, but what does that mean? And what does a perfect response curve mean for a Fig-8 mic? Proximity makes ALL the difference, right?
"Schoeps measure at a closer distance" (than industry-standard 1 meter).
Really? Please explain!
I think this is a great thread with a good OP and that cheering for a favorite mic is fine!
My problem is letting such biased claims go unchallenged
Proximity shouldn't really be a feature with a side mic in an MS set-up, I can't imagine employing an MS system close enough for that to be a factor. Measured at 1m there should be no discernible proximity effect.
I think it was John who said that Schoeps take their measurements at a closer distance, again this should have little effect, unless it is close enough that there is some proximity effect, then it would presumably mean that the bass response is potentially even worse than displayed on their published chart.
As I would reiterate, my findings, re the Mk8 were based on an initial listening assessment, I looked out the spec's subsequently and found they bore out my observations.
It's true that one subwoofer gives mono bass however two or more subwoofers gives you stereo. Multiple LF sources are (basically) always better than one no matter if the LF is mixed to mono or kept in stereo.
And interestingly I have found that surround recordings seem to portray a greater sense of scale and weight. I do have my own pet theory about why this may be the case.