Which Figure-8 Mic For Mid-Side?

[BigEars2]

Drat. I didn’t press ‘send’, it just went.

From measurements and from mfgr. data, my best estimate of the LF response is:

Ambient ATE_208 150 Hz
AKG blueline CK94 90 Hz (not credible)
Neumann KM120 100 Hz
Schoeps Mk8 135 Hz
Sennheiser mkh30 60 Hz

The only one of these for which I’ve had significant personal experience is the Schoeps Mk8. I’ve used them a lot and measured the dickens out of them. I use a 10 dB shelf filter to extend the LF response from 135 Hz down to about 50 Hz. A friend has used the AKG ck94 quite a lot and his recordings show that the response rolls off at about 160 Hz, not 90 Hz as the mfgr. data seem to suggest.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

This is an ideal position, yes. But you also want a mic that sounds correct when matrixed, which the MK8 does.

Arguably almost all fig8 microphones do.

So you're guessing now: "probably", "suspect", "perhaps". You've actually never heard a problem with the MK8 imaging have you Roland. Next we will probably get the "not a matched pair" detection in spaced omnis.

You missed my point, I stated that in context it wasn't a problem I could hear, remember I used this combo, I simply hypothesized that possibly out of a contextual situation it may be possible to hear the differences between the front and back responses. Possibly without the differences, the image may be more precise, however, this is purely speculation.

My only problem with Mk8 was that it led to a bass light recording that I had to carry out post production corrective work too in order to achieve a satisfactory result.

Not defending Schoeps, defending against GS facts.

Everything I mentioned as fact, is fact, even the non symmetrical response. I didn't draw any particular conclusion to that other than to say there are fig8 mics that are symmetrical in response, it is for others to decide if that is an issue for them or not.

Blind faith? C'mon Roland, we are talking proper listening tests here and not theoretical mumbo jumbo that exists because Schoeps are honest about their specs.

I know at least 2 engineers that if it's not Schoeps it isn't any good, strange but true. I don't know any other microphone manufacturer that elicits quite the same "allegiance". Certainly Schoeps are not the only answer, though they make a great line of microphones, that I have often deployed to excellent effect.

Why are we not talking about the artificial EQ applied to the Senn fig 8 to counter the laws of physics?

IMHO there is nothing wrong with applying electronic EQ to a microphone capsule, it isn't new, the Soundfield microphone only works because of it, every loudspeaker we listen too employs electronic correction, we don't seem to question this. In a real world situation it doesn't appear to cause any ill effect, indeed the Sennheisers are some of the quietest microphones available.

As a side microphone, the Sennheiser MKH30 can be thoroughly recommended. Having done many recordings with an MKH30 and numerous centre mic combinations it's a really good, versatile option. However they achieve their extended low end response the end results are pleasing.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by BigEars2

MBHO is the dark horse in this race and I have no data on it.

The MBHO and Ambient are almost the same, MBHO make the EMESSER for Ambient as an OEM item.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Roland

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.

If the perfect response curve they publish is true it means Sennheiser tuned the mic to reverse the proximity effect so it will act like an omni at distance. It also means that we can't know how it will behave up close unless they give us an application note explaining what they did to make it defy physical laws and how to avoid problems from improper use.

Originally Posted by Roland

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.

IMO the issue here is a rumor that impugns a manufacturer's credibility: "a friend ... told me that he was told ..."

We deserve to know the truth about what our manufacturers publish. IMO rumors like this have no credibility or place in our forum.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

If the perfect response curve they publish is true it means Sennheiser tuned the mic to reverse the proximity effect so it will act like an omni at distance. It also means that we can't know how it will behave up close unless they give us an application note explaining what they did to make it defy physical laws and how to avoid problems from improper use.



IMO the issue here is a rumor that impugns a manufacturer's credibility: "a friend ... told me that he was told ..."

We deserve to know the truth about what our manufacturers publish. IMO rumors like this have no credibility or place in our forum.

Whoa! I'm sorry Michael, but you need to back up a little here, I merely refered back to Johns earlier post and I quote

Originally posted by John Willett
"Interesting how you question Sennheiser and trust Schoeps ???

Both are top quality, highly respected companies.

The Sennheiser specs are certainly correct and not fiddled. But, remember, the MKH 30 is an RF condenser, not an AF condenser like the Schoeps.

Also, Sennheiser only lightly damp the capsule so the designer can concentrate on getting a good polar-pattern. The capsule spec is not flat, but a smooth curve - the converse of this curve is in the electronics so the mic's output is a wide, flat, frequency response as shown on the diagrams.

All this is widely documented.

There is nothing underhand here at all, which is quite clear when you understand how the mics are designed.

And they are measured at the standard distance of 1m. I understand that Schoeps measure at a closer distance."

I'm not trying to impugne Schoeps measurement, after all it is their published literature that shows the roll off starting around 200hz.

My point is that I was able to discern this by listening even before viewing their specs.

I would further point out as a matter of clarity that Schoeps main market is the broadcast television and film market. The number of Mk8's pressed into use in film and television probably is significantly more than find their way into strictly acoustic music recording.

The roll off would likely be a distinct advantage for speech and dialogue location recording, both in terms of making the microphone less subsceptable to wind noise, and I would expect the roll off to help with intelligiability, indeed Rolo in one of his earlier posts said that he felt the MKH30 needed to have it's bass filter switched in if it was to be used for these applications.

Forget all the measurement,s they are both great mic's, it's just that having used both (and I am one of the few in this thread who has) it is my opinion that the MKH30 is better for this application on the whole when recording music, particularly if it's full frequency.

John and Rolo have used both and seem to agree, I haven't read any post in this thread where someone has used both and seems to be saying otherwise.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Roland

Whoa! I'm sorry Michael, but you need to back up a little here, I merely refered back to Johns earlier post and I quote

It's clear to me who wrote it and it should be clear to others that it wasn't you.

I plan to call Schoeps tomorrow to get a statement about how they measured the MK8. This unfortunate rumor (not from you) needs to be put to rest.

[Rolo 46]

If we sat in a pub, over a quiet pint, this would be a discussion that made sense.
Over remote media it becomes partisan.
The MKH 30 is a wonderful and almost unknown mic
Very similar, but superior to the great ribbons of the past
The CCM8 is a brilliant, modern 8, unknown before, fabulously compact, an engineering masterpiece.
Both have their merits.
We should promote 8's and omnis.
They are our primary, and best transducers.

We should not ignore tech specs...
They are vital.
Modern modes of discrimination dismiss "technical mumbo jumbo" and prefer endorsement.
Both are vital imho.

[Ozpeter]

It was a simple question, unanswered. "Can you hear it?"

I think if we were concerned only with what can demonstrably be heard by a significant proportion of listeners, there would be very few posts in this forum. Surely the starting position has to be theoretical and technical merit, followed by properly controlled listening tests, followed by anecdotal evidence and personal taste and opinions.

Or put another way, there is ample evidence that most people can't hear the difference between a high bit rate mp3 and a wav format file. That's not a good reason to start using the former in pro audio rather than the latter.

So if the Sennheiser mic is theoretically the best, that's a good starting point, IMHO. Note the word "if", however. Then, do most people prefer it in controlled tests (probably never conducted)? Lastly, what's our taste in the matter? What anecdotal evidence of merit is available?

Speaking anecdotally then, personally I've used the same MKH series MS pair on almost every classical recording I've made in the last 25 years (live and session) and the results have pleased musicians and reviewers alike. Whether the same good results would have been achieved with a different side mic I can't say. But there comes a point where you have to wonder whether anyone hearing your recording without knowing how it was made would really say, "hmmm, that was clearly made with a brand X side mic and brand Y would have been better".

[Roland]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

It's clear to me who wrote it and it should be clear to others that it wasn't you.

I plan to call Schoeps tomorrow to get a statement about how they measured the MK8. This unfortunate rumor (not from you) needs to be put to rest.

I still don't understand your point, however Schoeps measured their microphone it is their specs that show a significant roll off and the slight asymmetry of the capsule, nothing in this thread suggests their spec measurement is unreasonable or claiming something that isn't factual.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Roland

I still don't understand your point, however Schoeps measured their microphone it is their specs that show a significant roll off and the slight asymmetry of the capsule, nothing in this thread suggests their spec measurement is unreasonable or claiming something that isn't factual.

Please re-read the thread. Someone here rumors that Schoeps measures their mics closer than 1m which is an industry standard for mic measurements published in product literature. The claim is: "I understand that Schoeps measure at a closer distance."

The rolloff isn't at issue; claiming that Schoeps cheated is.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

Please re-read the thread. Someone here rumors that Schoeps measures their mics closer than 1m which is an industry standard for mic measurements published in product literature. The claim is: "I understand that Schoeps measure at a closer distance."

The rolloff isn't at issue; claiming that Schoeps cheated is.

I'm sorry I don't read it this way, different manufacturers apply differing criteria to the way they conduct their measurements, all (I'm sure) believing that what they do get's their message across.

Quite possibly Schoeps think their methods are a more accurate representation of what their products actually do. As I've said several times before, I found their pubilshed spec backed what I was hearing.

[0VU]

Originally Posted by Roland

....I haven't read any post in this thread where someone has used both and seems to be saying otherwise.

Only because I'm so fed up with seeing and arguing when John mentions the asymmetry of the Schoeps fig-8 pattern at every opportunity, like it's some kind of aurally horrendous, absolutely obvious massive flaw rendering it useless alongside the otherwise wonderful and perfect MKH 30.

I agree with John about lots of things but the wonderousness of the MKH series in general and the 'symmetrical perfection' of the MKH30 in particular are not amongst them! I've tried MKH mics - even occasionally buying them (variously 20s, 30s and 40s) because every so often I wonder whether I'm just missing something about them and a proper long term trial will reveal all - and I still can't work out what all the fuss is about. I last owned an MKH30 about 10 years ago and after having that one for 18 months, still without finding a use for it where I didn't find something else preferable, I sold it to someone (who has, himself, since sold it). And yes, I have used other fig-8 mics - I own Neumann AK20s and KM88s, Schoeps MK8, MK6 and CCM8, as well as various LDCs and ribbon mics - but I don't own any MKH mics.

I perhaps can see the attraction of MKH mics in the rain (though it has to be pretty inclement for a Schoeps in a Rycote to fail) or for people who who feel good about their mics having perfect polar patterns, un-naturally fiddled frequency responses, and extra low IMD but I tend to judge mics on how they work for me, in my use, doing my day job, and the oft listed 'major' advantages of the MKH range just leave me unconvinced.

So there you go, Roland, I've owned and used MKH alongside other mics mentioned here, I principally record music (albeit much of it for broadcast), and I wouldn't give them mic locker space. If it came down to a choice between using supplied MKH30s on a music job or hiring something else, I'd hire. YMMV (and probably does )

[0VU]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

If we sat in a pub, over a quiet pint, this would be a discussion that made sense.
Over remote media it becomes partisan.
....
....
Both are vital imho.

Surprised to find myself agreeing with much of that post, Rolo.

Very similar, but superior to the great ribbons of the past

Though not that bit.

They don't sound like any ribbon I own (or have owned) and I don't hold them to be superior to a great ribbon mic. Different - and not in a way I find useful - but not superior.

But that's just me. I'd never suggest you're wrong to like/use them; I just prefer not to..

[Rolo 46]

Classic ribbons,lovely as they are, are impossibly impracticable.
Very low output
Very fragile
Difficult to gag ,move and store.

An RF SDC is none of the above.

I rest my (flight ) case.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by 0VU

Only because I'm so fed up with seeing and arguing when John mentions the asymmetry of the Schoeps fig-8 pattern at every opportunity, like it's some kind of aurally horrendous, absolutely obvious massive flaw rendering it useless alongside the otherwise wonderful and perfect MKH 30.

I agree with John about lots of things but the wonderousness of the MKH series in general and the 'symmetrical perfection' of the MKH30 in particular are not amongst them! I've tried MKH mics - even occasionally buying them (variously 20s, 30s and 40s) because every so often I wonder whether I'm just missing something about them and a proper long term trial will reveal all - and I still can't work out what all the fuss is about. I last owned an MKH30 about 10 years ago and after having that one for 18 months, still without finding a use for it where I didn't find something else preferable, I sold it to someone (who has, himself, since sold it). And yes, I have used other fig-8 mics - I own Neumann AK20s and KM88s, Schoeps MK8, MK6 and CCM8, as well as various LDCs and ribbon mics - but I don't own any MKH mics.

I perhaps can see the attraction of MKH mics in the rain (though it has to be pretty inclement for a Schoeps in a Rycote to fail) or for people who who feel good about their mics having perfect polar patterns, un-naturally fiddled frequency responses, and extra low IMD but I tend to judge mics on how they work for me, in my use, doing my day job, and the oft listed 'major' advantages of the MKH range just leave me unconvinced.

So there you go, Roland, I've owned and used MKH alongside other mics mentioned here, I principally record music (albeit much of it for broadcast), and I wouldn't give them mic locker space. If it came down to a choice between using supplied MKH30s on a music job or hiring something else, I'd hire. YMMV (and probably does )

Hi 0VU, I'm familiar with some of your work and do understand your point of view. In my experience there isn't a mic on the market that I don't know of well respected engineers who couldn't get on with them, be it DPA's, Neumann, Schoeps, Sennheiser's, etc.

Funnily enough, outside of it's use as a side mic in an MS set-up I've never found any other use for the MKH30, the MKH40 I likewise only ever used as a mid mic in MS set-up's as a microphone for other applications I have found it limited.

I myself am fairly ambivalous about the asymmetry issue concerning the Mk8.

[aracu]

"I would expect the roll off to help with intelligiability".

Definately and this applies to many if not most location recording situations of classical or other acoustic music. Stereo imaging, clarity and low noise are necessary to a music recording. A particular music and location may allow, and call for a deep bass response, but it cannot be a priority for every recording.

"there is nothing wrong with applying electronic EQ to a microphone capsule"

I suspect that when electronic eq is applied to a mic, it causes the microphone to be less workable in applying eq adjustments in
post production.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by Roland

I would further point out as a matter of clarity that Schoeps main market is the broadcast television and film market. The number of Mk8's pressed into use in film and television probably is significantly more than find their way into strictly acoustic music recording.

The roll off would likely be a distinct advantage for speech and dialogue location recording, both in terms of making the microphone less subsceptable to wind noise, and I would expect the roll off to help with intelligiability, indeed Rolo in one of his earlier posts said that he felt the MKH30 needed to have it's bass filter switched in if it was to be used for these applications.

The OP asked: "Which figure-8 mics do people use for the "side" mic in mid-side recording (or Blumlein for that matter)?" Nothing was said about context (music, speech, other), so I simply answered the question with telling what I am using (MK8). Within three subsequent responses this was a thread about MK8 vs MKH30 with the exchange of some really weird arguments and John Willett jumping in, playing his Sennheiser fiddle as always. Strange. Anyway, I use the MK8 for speech, surround atmos and location music. Let's say close to broadcast use. And it sounds great for those purposes.

Having said that, I might perhaps have used any other fig-8 when it was in my toolbox and had sounded good. I have a number of CMC6 units and it is very handy to grab just another head out of the box when there is a need. For me Schoeps MK8 is less expensive than Sennheiser MKH30 that way. (I can buy Schoeps for a very reasonable price anyway, making it a competitive option against Senn, Neumann and much cheaper than DPA.)

[chris319]

The OP asked: "Which figure-8 mics do people use for the "side" mic in mid-side recording (or Blumlein for that matter)?" Nothing was said about context (music, speech, other)

And deliberately so. I didn't want to give a litany of applications and risk leaving one out and then having people bicker on the basis of the application: orchestra, big band, chamber quartet, chorus/choir, etc.

outside of its use as a side mic in an MS set-up I've never found any other use for the MKH30

Blumlein?

[Roland]

Originally Posted by chris319

Blumlein?

i've tried the MKH30 for this and didn't like it. I also own a Perl DS60 which does Blumlein much better to my ears.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Roland

I also own a Perl DS60 which does Blumlein much better to my ears.

Nice!

For quick and visually small MS I use a Pearl MS8, but it's not in the same league. Now I'm jealous.

[Rolo 46]

Ive just come back from my singing bowls gig
We compared the Omni MS with the 8/8 MS, all MKHs
Recorded on a Nagra VI.
We both preferred the MKH30/MKH30 array, it had amazing proximity,which worked to advantage on the bowls.
Mounting the 30/30 in a large Lyre has improved their sonics, the LF is cleaner and more defined.

My like of the 30 came about with the demise of Stereo TV soundtrack acquisition in the UK.
Its gone out of fashion.
I was left with 2x 30, 2x40 ,2x50 MKH s.
I traded the 50's for 20's and experimented with every MS configuration that I could envisage.
Now for music, not tele.

I had also a compact CCM 41/CCM8 array for documentary use, in a small ball gag.
This I sold as it was a popular item amongst my peers.

I was also keen on Ribbons, and borrowed,long term, 4 BBC PGS bronze monsters which were fabulous, but impractible.

My experience with the PGS led to using the 30s as stand alone 8's and the purchase of another pair of 30's.
Hence my enthusiasm for them.
In my retirement I have become Hair Shirt fundementalist purist, especially in pursuit of coincidence and phase.

Other working Recordists, with commercial concerns and deadlines ,with access to tech stores or hirers full of Schoeps and Neumann will have other agendas.

[MichaelPatrick]

I said I'd call Schoeps to find out how they measure the MK8. I talked to an electrical engineer who does quality testing and he's forwarded the question to acoustical engineers who are currently in France at an event.

As soon as I hear back I'll let you all know what they say.

Again, my concern is the integrity of published specifications and the question someone here has raised about how Schoeps conducts their frequency measurements.

[aracu]

A subjective criticism of the ccm8 is that I don't find it particularly interesting for "Blumlien mid-side" using a pair of them. I would prefer something more colourful. It's a nearly colourless side mic which creates a very clear stereo image, but I would prefer to use a different fig 8 as a mid mic.

I particularly like the way it combines with a wide cardioid close to a source, taking on the character of the mid mic.

For extremely quiet music, an interesting mid-side combo is a Sennheiser 800 set to figure 8, which has a "magnifying" effect, with a DPA 4060 as mid, placed close to the source.

[MichaelPatrick]

Here is a response I just received today from Schoeps. I believe more info will come when Jörg returns to the office next week:

Hello Michael,

Bernhard and me were discussing your mail and I offered to give you an answer because I have some older precise info about low end response available. This dates from a research that has been made when SCHOEPS was considering the hot wire transducer, invented by Dr. de Bree. This is the only transducer that can even detect a flow of air in one direction, so DC! However, all bipolar condenser transducers are pressure gradient transducers and you will know that the pressure gradient is zero at zero Hz. For this reason all directional electrostatic transducers roll off towards low frequencies. Measuring such transducers means always that proximity effect plays a role. The only way to avoid that is the measurement in a plane sound wave. Even good anechoic rooms are no perfect remedy. For this reason SCHOEPS has a 20 m long tube under the earth that has a diameter of approx. 40 cm and 5 m absorbing material at one end. Here perfect propagating flat sound waves can be produced. This allows SCHOEPS to measure pressure gradient microphones at lowest frequencies with unique precision.

Just now I am in Paris and cannot attach measurement results, however, we can assure you that the dipoles of SCHOEPS and Sennheiser have the best low end response but Sennheiser uses some electric eq. That is not bad and can be extended but it results finally in a microphone with extreme sensitivity against wind and solid born noise.

Next week I am back in Germany.

Best regards,

Jörg Wuttke

### END ###

[chris319]

SCHOEPS has a 20 m long tube under the earth that has a diameter of approx. 40 cm and 5 m absorbing material at one end. Here perfect propagating flat sound waves can be produced. This allows SCHOEPS to measure pressure gradient microphones at lowest frequencies with unique precision.

That's interesting. And Jörg is the author of many of the Schoeps technical papers.

[boojum]

Nice to see Herr Wuttke's quick, detailed and straightforward response. I have had very kind responses from Schoeps for even the most trivial of questions, and I am a miniscule player. Likewise with SD. It is interesting to see they have dealt with the low frequency proximity effect. I look forward to seeing further data from the company.

Thanks, Michael.

[tourtelot]

That's cool. I love reading stuff like that; the science behind our art.

D.

[panatrope]

I have 414s and I also have the 2 in 1 C426B, which I regularly use in M-S (M=cardioid) or M-S Blumlein (the original pattern BTW). Works very well for orchestras with a soloist in front because the M diaphragm is flat-on to the performer. Gives a bit better definition.

I also have a Scheops M-S pair (MK21 or MK4 with MK8) which I rather prefer for smaller groups - it gives a more precise location, mainly because the capsules are closer together than in the case of C426B.

Roland remarked about the low frequency roll-off of the MK8. In M-S in difference mode, the S mic adds very little to the sound due to what it adds on one side it cancels on the other, and the fact that below about 125Hz, the directivity of the ear means that it may as well be mono (hence the single sub). So it is not a substantial factor. Using MK8s on their own (eg., Faulkner array) - that's a different matter.

The Sennheisser technique of compensating for reduction in low frequency free-field sensitivity in pressure difference transducers by electronic means was actually developed by Blumlein in the 30s. The technique was preferred over mechanical means (damping) because it resulted in lower noise. Now of course, one can also carry out such EQ outside the microphone, without a significant increase in noise. And I have stored a set of curves for the MK8 and the MK4 (based on Schoeps published responses), which I will use depending on the material.

I have also listened to the result produced by my colleague Ozpeter and his Sennheiser combo, which always sounds nice. But with what I can achieve between the AKG and the Schoeps, I feel no need to move in the Sennheiser direction. I would be interested in listening to the 8000 digital series, once they get round to implementing an 8030 fig-8 (could it be they are having trouble implementing a satisfactory design?).

[dseetoo]

Schoeps MK8 asymmetrical characteristic is well known and its effect is readily audible, whether used as S mic in a MS configuration or a Blumlein setup. In both cases you would notice losing of high end from the “dull side”. The consequence is more problematic in a MS configuration because you could never decode L/R properly or symmetrically, whereas in a Blumlein configuration, because what you ultimately end up with, the stereo image is symmetrical therefore its asymmetrical response is not nearly bothersome. (So, you lose some high end from the back of the hall.) I use the word bothersome, because I was very bothered by the fact I could never get the whole sound stage to sound symmetrical with a MK8 as S mic. One could “fix” this somewhat by using slight EQ on the “dull side” of the decoded channel. But, using EQ does not really fix the problem, it actually introduces a new problem: because you unavoidably EQing the output of the M mic that is in the matrix as well. I realized, after working with MK8s for a long while (years) the situation is hopeless and I gave up on it.
Of course, the cure is in using a perfectly symmetrical figure 8 mic if MS is your thing, whether it is a true symmetrical capsule like MKH30 or one with double cardioids, (almost 100% of the switchable pattern microphones available use double cardioid principle, LD or SD with the only exception of MK6) One can argue about the sonic attribute of one of those double capsule microphones thus not being suitable as a M mic. A simply solution would be to try to use two of your favorite cardioid microphones, say a pair of MKH8040 or MK4 and place both capsules as close as possible but facing back to back just like what it is in a double capsule microphone to roll your own favorite figure 8 microphone, the equivalent of MKH800 Twin. Make sure you don’t reverse the polarity of either cardioid microphone when decoding with the M microphone. Yes, you would need a third channel in your following chain to accomplish this. A hint: the result could be very rewarding.


Best regards,

Da-Hong Seetoo

[David Spearritt]

Far be it from me to argue with the venerable Mr Seeto, but reading this thread gives the impression that the MK8 is unusable and dull, which is plainly not the case, as evidenced by the many fine recordings and many users round the world.

Schoeps MK8 asymmetrical characteristic is well known and its effect is readily audible, whether used as S mic in a MS configuration or a Blumlein setup.

Well my ears must be shot then, but seriously, I guess all my recordings are of ensembles where the two sides of the MS array are on different instruments, violins on the left, celli on the right, so the source is extremely asymmetric and therefore difficult to detect any asymmetry in the mic response. If you follow the instructions of Schoeps, the matrixed left channel is always the bright one, being the direction with the red dot on it on the MK8.

The reason I find I prefer the Schoeps MS pair to all others, and I own a pair the KM120 (symmetric) and have heard many example recordings of the Sennheiser MS pair (which sound quite bland to me) is that it seems to have an image coherence and life in it that the others don't have. The image is more accurate and more solidly positioned, and I put this down to the capsules being able to be located closer together than the other arrays. I have heard some shocking MS combos including some with the KM86 (which I owned for awhile) with terrible off axis problems and an unstable and unconvincing image. I conclude that capsule proximity is one of the most important features in getting a great MS recording.

A simply solution would be to try to use two of your favorite cardioid microphones, say a pair of MKH8040 or MK4 and place both capsules as close as possible but facing back to back just like what it is in a double capsule microphone to roll your own favorite figure 8 microphone, the equivalent of MKH800 Twin.

But surely the diffraction issues due to soundfield obstacle up at 16kHz would be much worse than those reportedly with the MK8, if doing this?