The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair? Condenser Microphones
Old 21st March 2017
  #1
Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair?

Hello all,

I am considering purchasing a pair of MK22 capsules sometime later this year for the CMC6 bodies I currently use with MK2 capsules. To this end, I have read most if not all of the threads here where the MK22's have been discussed.

Bearing in mind that they cannot be used for "true" ORTF, I am specifically wondering if anyone here has experience using a (main) pair of them in either the modified pseudo-ORTF configuration recommended by Schoeps (21cm spacing at 110 degrees) or some other technique like NOS, etc.

The only microphones I currently own with a roughly similar pattern are Line Audio CM3's, and I have had good results using these in some of the above orientations, which have been so thoroughly discussed here. Most of the discussion I have seen regarding the MK22 capsule, however, has focused on its use as a soloist spot microphone. Some of the comments I've seen from Plush and others regarding its tendency/strength in "spotlighting" seem potentially contradictory to its usefulness in a main pair, yet Schoeps themselves offer it with the modified-ORTF bar for seemingly just such a purpose...

I'd be very grateful to hear from anyone who can share their thoughts on this. Needless to say, example recordings would be even further appreciated!

Cheers,
Luke
Old 21st March 2017
  #2
Lives for gear
 
king2070lplaya's Avatar
I've used a pair before for student recitals, in an AB setup in a very reverberant concert hall. I thought they sounded great, but don't have as good of bass as the mk21 when employed similarly.

Everett Porter of Polyhymnia (formerly of Philips) has used a somewhat unconventional (although, he's such a killer and well-established engineer, anything he does could be considered "convention") anyways, an XY pair of mk22 between a wide pair of omnis in his orchestra setup.

You can see his application here:

5.1 Surround Terakoya Lab / サラウンド寺子屋塾: On the Surround Recording of Orchestra at the Funkhaus Berlin Nalepastrasse [Special report]

Old 21st March 2017
  #3
Thanks so much for linking that report, Kevin! It was a fascinating read.

To Luke's original question: I used a pair of MK22s last fall as the main pair in a hall where I've struggled in the past. For a hall its size, it is rather wide and not very deep. There is also a shallow balcony on three sides. The hall reverberance sounds rather confused, and my common approach of NOS cardioids plus hall mics doesn't work there at all. Using the Neumann app for coverage angle, I set up near-coincident pair of MK22 in row 2, and was pleasantly surprised by the result. This will be my default arrangement there in the future, since a variety of other approaches have faired badly.

OTOH, when a good hall allows a more distant placement, the MK22 pattern is a bit too wide. Then I find I prefer MK4, 4011, or MKH40 cardioids, with the decision made on tonality and definition. Also, I used to work in a hall with bad sidewall echoes, and what I finally learned to do was use MK41 hypercardiods (or the equivalent Josephson SDCs) with a much more distant placement and arranged to give a narrow stereo recording angle. Consequently, I'm reluctant to recommend on pattern over another without knowing where it will mostly be used.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

Last edited by David Rick; 21st March 2017 at 05:30 AM.. Reason: Missing sentence.
Old 21st March 2017
  #4
Kevin, thank you so much, as David said, for the extraordinarily well-documented report on that session. Extremely helpful, and makes me very curious to try such an XY configuration in the center of wider-spaced omni's.

I also appreciate your input from your own experiences with this capsule.

David -- many thanks, also, for your thoughts. I might have been clearer phrasing my original question as "in what situations have you found a main pair of mk22 to give better results than mk4 or cardioids and why?" -- so I'm glad to hear your report.

Your point about its pattern being potentially too wide in a better-sounding hall is also well taken. Have you used it much in smaller performance spaces? I heard a few comparison recordings made in a reasonably rigorous way, comparing mk21, mk4, and mk22. The venue was a very-far-from-ideal rock/pop club, but purely for the sake of rough analysis, I was very impressed by how much more natural and "unstrained" the mk22 felt when compared to the mk4, for instance. Although audience noise and some unflattering indications of the room's acoustics were a bit more present with the mk22 than the mk4 of course, it seemed to me that this organic quality (and the more extended low end) while maintaining reasonable directivity, portrayed the music in a very flattering way, especially in such a recording environment...

Thanks again to you both for your responses!
Luke
Old 21st March 2017
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Great article from the Japanese lab.
I especially like how it shows the recordist how to angle the omni flankers. Pointed out quite wide to include the side walls.

The Funkhaus is such a great and cool place. It's setting is fantastic. Somewhat decayed but excellent sound.

I use MK22 as a spot mic. This is what it was designed for.
Old 21st March 2017
  #6
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
MK22 sounds better to me than MK4 - more velvet and musical. But for a main pair I think MK21 is better
Old 21st March 2017
  #7
99 percent of the time, I'll use them as solo spots. I have used them as main pairs when double booked and running low on mics. Maybe a dozen times or so on large groups. The results? Ok. I prefer them in a DIN or NOS setup rather than ORTF. They do make excellent main pair mics in a small room for audition materials and soloists. I could see how the mk4 and mk21 capsules would work better in a large ensemble setup or a large room.
Old 22nd March 2017
  #8
Thanks everyone for your further thoughts on this. I appreciate all the opinions informed by real-world usage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumleymusic View Post
They do make excellent main pair mics in a small room for audition materials and soloists. I could see how the mk4 and mk21 capsules would work better in a large ensemble setup or a large room.
Interesting to hear this, and in fact that is one situation in which I would probably be most likely to use them as a main pair. I have a pair of MK2 for larger ensembles and/or better acoustics, so the issue of having something which is directional yet as flattering as possible for smaller venues is the primary application I'm looking at.

Whether I end up getting a pair of MK22 or MK4/something else, they probably will end up being used as spots most of the time, but if they can double or even excel as mains for certain situations, so much the better!
Old 30th December 2017
  #9
Hope everyone will forgive me bumping this thread after the better part of a year -- just curious if anyone else who missed it the first time around would care to chime in?

Over the past several months, I've had a number of experiences in my own work, as well as conversations with other engineers in the Boston area which continue to pique my interest in these somewhat sweeter-sounding "cardioid-like" patterns. I realize the MK22's intended use is quite specifically for soloist spot duties, but as before, I'd be very curious to hear anyone's thoughts who has tried them as mains -- especially in comparison, for example, to MK21 or other well-known wide cardioids.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!
Luke
Old 31st December 2017
  #10
Immersive "square" arrays

Expanding the topic to wide cardioids in general, I am seeing these deployed increasingly for primary pickup in widely spaced 5 channel arrangements for immersive audio. Three LCR front mics are deployed in a manner reminiscent of the famous Bell Labs "stereo" demo from Carnegie Hall in 1940. The remaining two mics face rear and complete a square. (Some engineers push the center mic farther forward in the manner of a Decca tree.) To these primary mics are added four height microphones, typically hypercardioids tilted upwards, at the corners of the square, plus whatever spots are deemed necessary.

The LCR "front line" is usually deployed fairly close to the ensemble, which usually necessitates a wider pick-up pattern than cardioids. In Sennheiser's version of this idea, MKH800 Twins are used, allowing the directivity to be adjusted in post.

I heard a number of such recordings at AES this past fall, and they had a wonderful sense of the listener being immersed in a real acoustic space, without the need to sit in the sweet spot. (Playback rendering utilized Auro 3D, Ambeo, or a similar engine, and the demo rooms had many more speakers than there were recorded channels.) Detailed localization could only be judged in the front rows. When I sat there, I noticed a bunch of contradictory localization cues leading to confused imaging. This exactly what one expects from spaced LCR mic arrangements, unless they are specifically designed for low crosstalk like an OCT tree. But farther back, it all congealed into a kind of delicious sonic mush, with the only clear directional cues coming from spots rendered as "objects".

It makes me want to do some experiments of my own, adding height channels to an array with better front imaging. But this means the wide cardioids probably won't be used unless I deploy them as outriggers.

Turning back to stereo, I continue to use a MK-22 pair in my "problem" hall with good results. I'm thinking of adding another brand of wide cardioids capsules for days when all my Schoeps bodies are tied up in other uses. Depending on what the latest so-called "tax reform" does to my equipment budget, these could be DPA 4015's or Sennheiser MKH 8090's. Alas, I think MKH800 Twins are not in the cards this year.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Old 31st December 2017
  #11
It is kind of a rare microphone. So you probably heard from everyone who owns one in the USA at least.

When my first pair were stolen, the replacements were the last pair available in North America. You can special order them, but it takes several weeks.

I still use them for small room audition materials in Pseudo ORTF to NOS patterns. Though I have to say for spot mics on Vocal or Strings, you would be hard pressed to find their equal.
Old 31st December 2017
  #12
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukedamrosch View Post
Hope everyone will forgive me bumping this thread after the better part of a year -- just curious if anyone else who missed it the first time around would care to chime in?

Over the past several months, I've had a number of experiences in my own work, as well as conversations with other engineers in the Boston area which continue to pique my interest in these somewhat sweeter-sounding "cardioid-like" patterns. I realize the MK22's intended use is quite specifically for soloist spot duties, but as before, I'd be very curious to hear anyone's thoughts who has tried them as mains -- especially in comparison, for example, to MK21 or other well-known wide cardioids.
One of the main reasons why I'm a big Schoeps fan is because I find their products do "what it says on the tin" . . . and as such you can count on an excellent continuity across similar products, with the sonic differences being precisely what you'd expect from their technical differences.

That said . . . even if Schoeps was responding to certain market needs for a "spot mic" application when they developed/introduced the MK22 . . . that doesn't mean that the MK22 needs to be (or should be) thought of as a "spot mic product". I don't own the MK22 capsules, but in use I recall finding them to be right in-between a MK4 and a MK21, which I have both of in the CCM versions. For a main pair, referencing the CCM4s in ORTF . . . substituting the CCM21s requires them to be spaced wider to get a similar recording angle, and I think subjectively the logic holds up that the results are in the "A-B direction" from ORTF . . . that is, warmer and wider, and a bit less distinct in the middle.

Whether or not the MK22s make sense as a main pair depends of course on what you're after . . . is it that you're wanting to continue working with near-coincident techniques, but would prefer a wider/more-diffuse image, and having less low-frequency rolloff is what you mean by "sweeter-sounding"? If so, then I'd personally probably skip the 22s and go straight to the 21s, but perhaps I'm biased because it's what I have.

On the other hand, if you're basically happy image-wise with your current near-coincident techniques, but thinking that you'll need to get a wider polar-pattern to get something sweeter-sounding than the CM3s . . . then I'd suggest you look at just some MK4/CCM4s? I don't own CM3s, but I'd say it's probably a mistake to assume that they're wholly representative of what SDC cardioids have to offer in the "sweetness" category. The MK4 is a very, very nice cardioid capsule that's extremely useful -- they're not at all "spot-lightey" . . . to me they're just as smooth as the CCM21, just "cardioidy-er", if you will. It might be a good idea to rent or borrow a pair to try in your usual i.e. standard ORTF as a reference point.
Old 31st December 2017
  #13
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
Alas, I think MKH800 Twins are not in the cards this year.
But, are they in the omnis? (Sorry, bad pun . . . )
Old 1st January 2018
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Bruce Watson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
Expanding the topic to wide cardioids in general, I am seeing these deployed increasingly for primary pickup in widely spaced 5 channel arrangements for immersive audio. Three LCR front mics are deployed in a manner reminiscent of the famous Bell Labs "stereo" demo from Carnegie Hall in 1940. The remaining two mics face rear and complete a square. (Some engineers push the center mic farther forward in the manner of a Decca tree.) To these primary mics are added four height microphones, typically hypercardioids tilted upwards, at the corners of the square, plus whatever spots are deemed necessary.
Morten Lindberg has been doing something similar. Click on the third picture down the right hand side of the webpage (titled: "2L Session - Remote galaxy mic array") for a pretty good look at his Aero rig:

Merging Technologies | Use Case | Morten Lindberg - 2L - Norway

Three across the front, two sides, two rears, and four heights, 11 channels. And thousands of dollars of Grace Design stereo bars.

That said, I've got a few of Mr. Lindberg's blu-rays (5.1, I don't have the height speakers [yet]) -- it's really quite a nicely enveloping sound, very different from his stereo mix (the ones I have shipped with an SADC stereo CD also). Much more enveloping, but at a cost of some loss of clarity through blurring perhaps. Makes me think the blurring might be from the distance between the front of the array and the back. IDK.

Last edited by Bruce Watson; 1st January 2018 at 03:32 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 1st January 2018
  #15
Much appreciate the input, all!

Bruce -- Thanks for the article. Great, and seriously gear-lust-inducing, documentation. In that same photo you mention, looks like there are no less than five 4041's on the bottom of the array

David -- If you wouldn't mind expanding a bit more about why the MK22 pair is successful for you in this problem space compared to, say, regular cards or subcards, I'd be curious to hear. I really don't mean to belabor this, it's just that (as rumleymusic points out) there are very few people with hands-on experience that someone in my position can query!

kirkus -- It's mostly the fact that I almost always prefer the smoother sound of subcardioids, even if you, say, highpass them to approximate a cardioid's low end. I suspect it has more to do with improved evenness in off-axis response over the whole spectrum. The idea that the MK22 is a compromise capsule in this regard -- i.e. more directional than a MK21 but with at least some of its smoothness -- is what's especially interesting to me. Thanks for your thoughts!
Old 1st January 2018
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
You may want to read this Schoeps page closely: Microphone capsule MK 22 - Application - SCHOEPS.de

To me the Mk22 sounds least "etched out" of all Schoeps capsules, which makes it sit very well in a mix where the mains are more sharply drawing, but at a distance. The natural loss of detail at a distance is thus non-compensated for in the Mk22. Mk22's at a distance will sound a bit overly smooth, although if you want to smooth out grating strings they can be very helpful.

Mk4's have a much sharper draw than Mk22's. In a way that makes the Mk4's more problematic to use as spots than Mk22's. The Mk22's are not just a wider version of the Mk4's, but they also solve a problem that existed for a long time when Mk4's were used as spots.

To my ear there is a strong sonic familiarity line running through the capsules Mk2, Mk22 and Mk8. Mk2H, Mk21, Mk4 and Mk41 are all in a sharper drawing group.
Old 1st January 2018
  #17
Thanks Earcatcher, this is very helpful -- especially your closing comparison. I am a huge fan of the Mk2, which is my primary stereo capture whenever acoustics/material allow. That smoothness is exactly what I'm after, so I'm glad to hear you find the Mk22 in the same sonic family as the Mk2 and Mk8.
Old 5th January 2018
  #18
Deleted User
Guest
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
You may want to read this Schoeps page closely: Microphone capsule MK 22 - Application - SCHOEPS.de

To me the Mk22 sounds least "etched out" of all Schoeps capsules, which makes it sit very well in a mix where the mains are more sharply drawing, but at a distance. The natural loss of detail at a distance is thus non-compensated for in the Mk22. Mk22's at a distance will sound a bit overly smooth, although if you want to smooth out grating strings they can be very helpful.

Mk4's have a much sharper draw than Mk22's. In a way that makes the Mk4's more problematic to use as spots than Mk22's. The Mk22's are not just a wider version of the Mk4's, but they also solve a problem that existed for a long time when Mk4's were used as spots.

To my ear there is a strong sonic familiarity line running through the capsules Mk2, Mk22 and Mk8. Mk2H, Mk21, Mk4 and Mk41 are all in a sharper drawing group.
If this is what you hear, in technical terms it would mean that the mk22 is a free field cardioid, and the mk4 is a diffuse field compensated cardioid.
Old 5th January 2018
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adorno View Post
If this is what you hear, in technical terms it would mean that the mk22 is a free field cardioid, and the mk4 is a diffuse field compensated cardioid.
I don't think it's just a frequency response thing, but also how transients are depicted and what phase behaviour the different groups have. I should add that the BLM3 also belongs to the Mk22 group, IMO.
Old 7th January 2018
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
I don't think it's just a frequency response thing, but also how transients are depicted and what phase behaviour the different groups have. I should add that the BLM3 also belongs to the Mk22 group, IMO.
Regardless of what the exact reason(s) may be for the perception of these "families" among their capsules, this observation reminds me how much I wish it was common practice for manufacturers to reveal their microphones' full frequency response at a variety of off-axis angles of sound incidence. Obviously this is something which is known and measured by any serious manufacturer internally, but I assume many would hesitate to share this information particularly if it reflects poorly on their products, since they have presumably devoted the most effort to making on-axis response as linear as possible -- both for usage reasons and advertising reasons.

There is a tantalizing glimpse, if I recall correctly it's in one of the videos of Jorg Wuttke lecturing which is on YouTube, where he briefly shows a measurement diagram made by Schoeps overlaying several frequency responses of a specific Mk4 capsule being tested -- on axis, 45-degrees off-axis, 90-degrees off-axis, 180-degrees... something like that. Very interesting...
Old 7th January 2018
  #21
Gear Maniac
 

Two things that effect microphone off axis response the most; 1, the microphone housing. Whenever you put a tube around a microphone that makes the diaphragm recessed into the tube the off axis response will be awful. The DPA 4006 used naked gives you the smoothest off axis response comparing to any other attachments come with the mic you screw on. 2, The diameter of the capsule. The smaller it gets the better the off axis response it will be. Both above statements are based on law of physics and are applicable to all acoustic transducer, microphones or speakers.

Given that said, I always wished Schoeps would make some capsules that are smaller than ½ inch. ¼ inch would be really nice if they can keep the noise down.
Old 7th January 2018
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
The DPA 4006 used naked gives you the smoothest off axis response comparing to any other attachments come with the mic you screw on.
Are you talking directivity (the most omni, same gain) or flat frequency response? I thought the cone gave the most omni response.


Quote:
Given that said, I always wished Schoeps would make some capsules that are smaller than ½ inch. ¼ inch would be really nice if they can keep the noise down.
They would if they could.
Old 7th January 2018
  #23
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt View Post
Are you talking directivity (the most omni, same gain) or flat frequency response? I thought the cone gave the most omni response.


The cone reduces the acoustic shadow by reflecting the sound from the back of the mic toward the diaphragm. You get more energy from behind the mic but the response will never be even because the acoustic energy will arrive at the diaphragm at least twice, once directly, the second time reflected from the cone. The time difference between the two is given but the frequencies are not so the response will be all over the places. Similar to what is going on with large diaphragm mics.



They would if they could.
You probably are right on that.
Old 8th January 2018
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
Given that said, I always wished Schoeps would make some capsules that are smaller than ½ inch. ¼ inch would be really nice if they can keep the noise down.
Mr. Seetoo, out of curiosity, may I ask if you have spent any time using and/or listening to the Mk22 capsule and, if so, what were your impressions?

Many thanks!
Old 8th January 2018
  #25
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
Two things that effect microphone off axis response the most; 1, the microphone housing. Whenever you put a tube around a microphone that makes the diaphragm recessed into the tube the off axis response will be awful. The DPA 4006 used naked gives you the smoothest off axis response comparing to any other attachments come with the mic you screw on. 2, The diameter of the capsule. The smaller it gets the better the off axis response it will be. Both above statements are based on law of physics and are applicable to all acoustic transducer, microphones or speakers.

Given that said, I always wished Schoeps would make some capsules that are smaller than ½ inch. ¼ inch would be really nice if they can keep the noise down.
The Sennheiser MKH RF omni mics (MKH20 and MKH8020) would appear to not worry about this overly much, perhaps because of the eq tailoring which goes on within the mic circuitry ?

The 8020 has a curious 'wave' edge to the top surface, and on shining a bright light into the grille I'd estimate the diaphragm lies about 5mm below this upper wave edge. However the freq response of the 8020 goes out to 70kHz, so I don't know how much effect the physical recessing or the eq has on ultimate directivity ?

Obviously there's a trade off between the desirable top-edge capsule flush mounting vs the need to have sufficient clearance between protective mesh and capsule diaphragm.... in the event of a nose-dive fall to the floor !

This review touches upon the extended response (try Google Translate if required): Sennheiser MKH 8020 Test :: Bonedo

.....and the attached pics show the wave edge of the MKH8020. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the MKH20 diaphragm also sits about 5mm below the tube upper edges...owners could confirm this for us ?
Attached Thumbnails
Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair?-sennheiser_mkh_8020.jpg   Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair?-sennheiser_mkh_jpg.jpg   Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair?-side-view.jpg  
Old 8th January 2018
  #26
Gear Addict
 

The EQ circuit is irrelevant to polar pattern.
The physical mic body and capsule size are very relevant.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Sennheiser RF mics not "worrying about" it. They have a tremendous dip in HF response at the rear, unlike a miniature mic like the 4060 which does not. Whether this is good or bad or indifferent is up to the user, not Sennheiser It's not their job to "worry" about it, it's ours. Often, this increase in HF directionality can be considered a good thing when recording orchestral music. It gives a more defined stereo image due to level differences in the high-end, and rejects more audience/hall noise.

Just compare the 4060 with the 8020 to see the effect a body and larger capsule has on the off-axis response:
Attached Thumbnails
Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair?-4060.jpg   Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair?-8020.jpg  
Old 8th January 2018
  #27
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
The Sennheiser MKH RF omni mics (MKH20 and MKH8020) would appear to not worry about this overly much, perhaps because of the eq tailoring which goes on within the mic circuitry ?

The 8020 has a curious 'wave' edge to the top surface, and on shining a bright light into the grille I'd estimate the diaphragm lies about 5mm below this upper wave edge. However the freq response of the 8020 goes out to 70kHz, so I don't know how much effect the physical recessing or the eq has on ultimate directivity ?

Obviously there's a trade off between the desirable top-edge capsule flush mounting vs the need to have sufficient clearance between protective mesh and capsule diaphragm.... in the event of a nose-dive fall to the floor !

This review touches upon the extended response (try Google Translate if required): Sennheiser MKH 8020 Test :: Bonedo

.....and the attached pics show the wave edge of the MKH8020. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the MKH20 diaphragm also sits about 5mm below the tube upper edges...owners could confirm this for us ?




I can concur on your observation of the “wave” edge on 8020 mics. All MKH microphones are pretty beamy as the frequencies go up, more so than Schoeps capsules, with MKH30 and MKH800 being lesser offenders due to their side-addressing design which the capsules are not immediately surrounded by a tube. The published polar data agrees with my assumption. I have observed this MKH mic being beamier than Schoeps phenomenal both through practical use and lab testing. I found MKH 8020 can sound dull very quickly if it is not aimed at the sound source very carefully, more so than that of MK2, yet, on axis, 8020 can reach out to 60KHz easily, much further than any of the Schoeps capsules. I am not saying Schoeps do not become beamy at high frequencies, they do less. Schoeps MK2 capsule front protective bars also serve as an acoustic modifier that build up the high frequency. Without those bars, 20KHz would be around 2dBs lower. Those bars also re-direct high frequency towards the diagram, a bit like that of the cone attachment of DPA 4006 which minimizes beaminess somewhat.

The tube of the mic body that is slightly taller than (protruding) the surface of the capsule serves two purposes, 1, It is to protect the capsule, 2 If it is designed correctly it can help to boost/extend on axis high frequency response with its acoustic pressure buildup, but at the price of becoming beamier. There is no free lunch, alas.
Old 8th January 2018
  #28
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukedamrosch View Post
Mr. Seetoo, out of curiosity, may I ask if you have spent any time using and/or listening to the Mk22 capsule and, if so, what were your impressions?

Many thanks!

Hi Lukedamrosch,


In 2009, I did play with a pair of MK22 capsules when they first came out. They were setup like ORTF pair in a live concert, slightly wider perhaps, but not as spot mic when I had them for that day. I thought the inherent sound quality of MK22 is good, very similar to the rest of Colette series of microphones, clean, low distortion, beautiful presentation. They certainly sound different than MK21, flatter than mk21 to my ears. It reminds me of the sound I get when I bundle one MK4 and one MK2 together, open the faders half and half. I didn’t obtain them at the end because I usually don’t use cardioid microphones for my work, besides I have MK21’s already and I have access to MK4 and MK5 in case I really need Schoeps’ cardioids.


Best regards,

Da-Hong
Old 8th January 2018
  #29
We've got 10 of the MK22/CMC6 here at Soundmirror. When they first came out, everybody loved them for string spots. However, over the years I have gone back to my old tried and true choices.
In order:
  • MK21
  • MK5
  • MK4
  • mk22
I find that it is much like the MK2H. When it came out we all used it for a period of time, but now a days, they almost never leave the mic cabinet.
As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark
Old 8th January 2018
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
Hi Lukedamrosch,


In 2009, I did play with a pair of MK22 capsules when they first came out. They were setup like ORTF pair in a live concert, slightly wider perhaps, but not as spot mic when I had them for that day. I thought the inherent sound quality of MK22 is good, very similar to the rest of Colette series of microphones, clean, low distortion, beautiful presentation. They certainly sound different than MK21, flatter than mk21 to my ears. It reminds me of the sound I get when I bundle one MK4 and one MK2 together, open the faders half and half. I didn’t obtain them at the end because I usually don’t use cardioid microphones for my work, besides I have MK21’s already and I have access to MK4 and MK5 in case I really need Schoeps’ cardioids.


Best regards,

Da-Hong
Thank you very much for these thoughts, Da-Hong! Your comparison to a combination of Mk4 and Mk2 is good for me to keep in mind...
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump