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
Sennheiser V Schoeps? Condenser Microphones
Old 5 days ago
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Interesting information. I always use MKH 30 with 40, but has anyone tried MKH 30 with Schoeps cardiod?
Old 5 days ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
Interesting information. I always use MKH 30 with 40, but has anyone tried MKH 30 with Schoeps cardiod?
This is tonally and phase-wise not a very good match. As a rule of thumb one can state that Schoeps mics work best with Mk8 and Sennheiser mics with MKH30. Outside of that it is a matter of finding the best match.
Old 5 days ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
By all means keep worshipping the MK8, whether you refuse to, or unable to hear the deficiency.
I am not a worshipper. I have 3 x MKH30's, 2 x KM120's and only 1 x MK8, as well as some ribbons. But I have heard and made some excellent CD's and recordings with the Schoeps MS pair. To be honest, I have never even bothered to test the HF response of the MK8 in detail, and have no motivation to do so, the core sound is quite excellent.

This aspect of the MK8 is jumped on so quickly in these threads that anyone would think it was a major defect. Clearly it is not for most practitioners.

Here is an excellent CD recorded from a single Schoeps MS pair, as an example.
Falling Through Time
Old 5 days ago
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
“near-perfect” does not equal to perfect
perfect is perfectly annoying
Old 5 days ago
  #35
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt View Post
I am not a worshipper. I have 3 x MKH30's, 2 x KM120's and only 1 x MK8, as well as some ribbons. But I have heard and made some excellent CD's and recordings with the Schoeps MS pair. To be honest, I have never even bothered to test the HF response of the MK8 in detail, and have no motivation to do so, the core sound is quite excellent.

This aspect of the MK8 is jumped on so quickly in these threads that anyone would think it was a major defect. Clearly it is not for most practitioners
Here is an excellent CD recorded from a single Schoeps MS pair, as an example.
Falling Through Time
I never said you can't make good sounding recordings with MK8. The sound quality is fine. Only when you try to do MS with it, the image will never be right. Unfortunately, you can't correct it in post. You made it very clear you are a "denier" of the issue therefore I wouldn't expect you to do your own HF test on MK8. I did mine and Schoeps did theirs's and published it as such.
Old 5 days ago
  #36
Gear Addict
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
This endless thread.
It's garbage. Buy both or either or neither.
They're both excellent and sound different and do different things.
Which is better, a philip's head or a flat head?
Yannick said it right at the start.
Attached Thumbnails
Sennheiser V Schoeps?-i-hope-youre-happy.jpg  
Old 5 days ago
  #37
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
I date lots of "girls." Sometimes I find one more interesting than another. Right now I am going steady with DPA although all those other "girls" are hanging around. Love all of them.

Obviously, no M/S with DPA but I did put Mk21s on a J-disk two nights ago. So there's that.

D.
Old 5 days ago
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
I date lots of "girls." Sometimes I find one more interesting than another. Right now I am going steady with DPA although all those other "girls" are hanging around. Love all of them.

Obviously, no M/S with DPA but I did put Mk21s on a J-disk two nights ago. So there's that.

D.
So you want your girls presented on a disk? Me-too!
Old 5 days ago
  #39
Lives for gear
Was it ever established how symmetric the fig 8 response of the CM180 mic from B9 Audio is ?

Specs on page 7 >>> B9_Brochure_180912_web.pdf - Google Drive

Last edited by studer58; 5 days ago at 02:27 PM..
Old 5 days ago
  #40
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippoorwill View Post
This endless thread...
Which is better, a philip's head or a flat head?
Yannick said it right at the start.
Now that you live in Canada, you should know that the Robertson Screw is the superior fastener. But as to mics, ideally at least one of every flavour in my mic locker please (I wish...)
Old 4 days ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
But as to mics, ideally at least one of every flavour in my mic locker please (I wish...)
Yep, every one of them is better at something, even if it is only to stir a martini. Best regards to 007 who only wants his martinis "shaken, not stirred".

D.
Old 4 days ago
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
Yep, every one of them is better at something, even if it is only to stir a martini. Best regards to 007 who only wants his martinis "shaken, not stirred".D.
A 007 mic can probably spray tear gas.
Old 4 days ago
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by aracu View Post
A 007 mic can probably spray tear gas.
Bidirectionally. But sadly, slightly asymmetricaly.
Old 4 days ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
wallyburger's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by whippoorwill View Post
This endless thread.
It's garbage. Buy both or either or neither.
They're both excellent and sound different and do different things.
Which is better, a philip's head or a flat head?
Yannick said it right at the start.
Microphones, I think, if you are a a jobbing engineer are one of those things that you literally can't have too many of, and the number you have is only limited by how much money you have. I'm not a jobbing engineer though, and I only really need mic's that are good at my own little area.
Old 4 days ago
  #45
Gear Addict
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallyburger View Post
Microphones, I think, if you are a a jobbing engineer are one of those things that you literally can't have too many of, and the number you have is only limited by how much money you have. I'm not a jobbing engineer though, and I only really need mic's that are good at my own little area.
Sorry, that comment was not aimed at you, but at what the thread was becoming.

Here's the paradox as I see it, Schoeps are better at a distance and are fairly detailed, Sennheiser are nicer close up and are extremely (and slightly more) detailed. YMMV.
Old 3 days ago
  #46
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by whippoorwill View Post
Which is better, a philip's head or a flat head?
The one which matches the screw I’m trying to remove
Old 3 days ago
  #47
Here for the gear
 

Earcatcher, thanks for posting those photos. On my screen they display at larger-than-actual size; the capsule's actual outer diameter is 20 mm, or about 0.79 inch.

So, let's see: Half a wavelength at 16 kHz is about 10.7 mm (~0.4 inch), while a quarter-wavelength is about 5.4 mm (~0.21 inch). The only non-symmetrical features visible in the photos--which are anyway the parts farthest from the diaphragm and backplate--are less than a quarter-wavelength in size at 16 kHz. Sound waves thus flow around them like pebbles on the surface of a stream. They're not in the sonic equation to any significant degree.

Just from common sense, no one could design a professional-quality microphone capsule without being aware of the relationship between its physical dimensions and the frequencies and wavelengths that it's supposed to pick up.

Dseetoo, you wrote:

> ... I wouldn't expect you to do your own HF test on MK8. I did mine and Schoeps did theirs's and published it as such.

Midrange and upper-midrange frequencies are what mainly determine stereo localization, so they're the most important range for accurate M/S or Blumlein stereo recording. Schoeps' published measurements show a 1 dB front/back discrepancy as typical of the MK 8 at 16 kHz; below that frequency, the maximum discrepancy is distinctly less than 1 dB.

That wouldn't justify your harsh negative remarks nor the magisterial certainty of your opinions. So I wonder what your measurement results were, and how exactly you heard what you claim to have heard. Please let us know, because you really make it seem as if you found a more drastic front/back difference than any properly functioning figure-8 capsule should have. For example, if you found like a 2 dB or greater front/back difference at frequencies such as 1, 2, or 4 kHz (which some mikes called "figure-8" actually have), I wouldn't want to use them for M/S recording, either.

But what you're saying just doesn't make sense to me; I've used both generations of the MK 8 as the "S" microphone for numerous classical M/S recordings, and have never heard (nor seen in the waveform display of my audio software, where any such problem should be easily seen) the problem that you're describing.

--best regards
Old 3 days ago
  #48
Gear Addict
 

I heard the discrepancy in front and back of MK8 from day one of my short-lived ownership of MK8. I heard this simply by talking into it myself.(you have to flip phase if you do this yourself) I phoned Jerry Bruck, my dealer of Schoeps product about it and he was not 100% convinced of my claim at first. So, I went to his place and we did a test which went like this; I was in one room listening to the microphone feed via headphones, he was in a different room talking to the MK8, he would turn the microphone front and back randomly, but assign a test number each time he would turn/not turn the mic, just to make sure I was not guessing. I identified the front and back 100% accurately with total confidence and assurance. The difference was just too obvious to my ears to miss. By the way, we did this test with more than one MK8s. Jerry was convinced at the end, at least he was convinced I could hear the difference readily. I sold my MK8s, the only Schoeps products I ever sold and I have more Schoeps products than I care to admit.

The easiest way to see the difference is to play some pink noise through a speaker, connect MK8 to a spectrum display, point the front to the speaker, look at the spectrum display, then turn the mic 180 degree and look at the spectrum display again. Don’t move the mic in any other way during this test.

A real-world MS test could be done this way; use two MK8 and a M mic of your choice. Put three mics together, but have two MK8s pointing 180 degree away from each other, meaning one front pointed to the left and the other pointed to the right. Decode the two MS setup accordingly and compare the result. Ideally, they should sound exactly the same image-wise but they won’t.

If you take apart a MK8 capsule and look at it, you should see a very different acoustic pathway front and back. There is nothing in the front but a chamber of sort in the back. The opening apertures are also very different front and back. Once you see it you would understand why it is not acoustically symmetrical, because physically it is not.

MK8 sounds perfectly beautiful by itself and is very usable microphone in Blumlein, AB, ORTF, spot setups. But, because it is asymmetrical, used in MS, the decoded stereo image always sounds wrong to me. Worse yet, since it uses decoding technique, you can’t fix the stereo image in post, either. Mathematically, it is just not possible as far as I know. (With my third grade of math, that is.)

I am not being harsh or unfairly negative toward MK8, I am just stating the fact. What I can hear and care about is not necessary what everybody else can, and vice versa. Maybe I am hyper-sensitive on stereo image, who knows. But, it matters to me.


All the best,

Da-Hong
Old 3 days ago
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
In order to improve the quality of the conversation I took two pics of the Mk8 capsule: front and back. Fire away.
In my pictures it may seem that the cap on the front side of the capsule has a hole in the center, but I should state that this is not an opening that would allow sound to pass through to the membrane. It is a closed cavity. The sound on both sides enters through the opening around the sides of the cap/backplate and these openings are pretty similar on both sides. This is a current model Mk8.
Old 3 days ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
I heard the discrepancy in front and back of MK8 from day one of my short-lived ownership of MK8. I heard this simply by talking into it myself.(you have to flip phase if you do this yourself) I phoned Jerry Bruck, my dealer of Schoeps product about it and he was not 100% convinced of my claim at first. So, I went to his place and we did a test which went like this; I was in one room listening to the microphone feed via headphones, he was in a different room talking to the MK8, he would turn the microphone front and back randomly, but assign a test number each time he would turn/not turn the mic, just to make sure I was not guessing. I identified the front and back 100% accurately with total confidence and assurance. The difference was just too obvious to my ears to miss. By the way, we did this test with more than one MK8s. Jerry was convinced at the end, at least he was convinced I could hear the difference readily. I sold my MK8s, the only Schoeps products I ever sold and I have more Schoeps products than I care to admit.

The easiest way to see the difference is to play some pink noise through a speaker, connect MK8 to a spectrum display, point the front to the speaker, look at the spectrum display, then turn the mic 180 degree and look at the spectrum display again. Don’t move the mic in any other way during this test.

A real-world MS test could be done this way; use two MK8 and a M mic of your choice. Put three mics together, but have two MK8s pointing 180 degree away from each other, meaning one front pointed to the left and the other pointed to the right. Decode the two MS setup accordingly and compare the result. Ideally, they should sound exactly the same image-wise but they won’t.

If you take apart a MK8 capsule and look at it, you should see a very different acoustic pathway front and back. There is nothing in the front but a chamber of sort in the back. The opening apertures are also very different front and back. Once you see it you would understand why it is not acoustically symmetrical, because physically it is not.

MK8 sounds perfectly beautiful by itself and is very usable microphone in Blumlein, AB, ORTF, spot setups. But, because it is asymmetrical, used in MS, the decoded stereo image always sounds wrong to me. Worse yet, since it uses decoding technique, you can’t fix the stereo image in post, either. Mathematically, it is just not possible as far as I know. (With my third grade of math, that is.)

I am not being harsh or unfairly negative toward MK8, I am just stating the fact. What I can hear and care about is not necessary what everybody else can, and vice versa. Maybe I am hyper-sensitive on stereo image, who knows. But, it matters to me.


All the best,

Da-Hong
The Schoeps 8 excels as a side MS mic.
Old 1 day ago
  #51
Here for the gear
 

Da-Hong, many thanks for your reply putting your experiences out into the open. I'm intrigued by what you wrote, and I don't doubt that you really did hear something. I'm not persuaded that it was what you think it was--but thanks to what you wrote, we can all see why you feel persuaded, and I appreciate that.

Just one follow-up question if I may: In your experiment at Jerry's apartment, where was he (with the microphone)? His main room is large by Manhattan standards, but has normal reverberance. The smaller, adjacent room where he keeps a lot of old equipment is drier, but not "dead" by any means. And the passageways around his main room are narrow and have obvious resonances in the vocal range.

The reason I'm asking is that ideally the person with the microphone should have been in an anechoic space. Anywhere else you will have room sound including multiple reflections of the person's speaking voice, mixed with some random-phase material. To someone who is professionally sensitive to foreground/background relationships in sound, the differing cancellations and reinforcements certainly could be audible, even (perhaps especially!) without conscious effort on your part. This isn't one of my own strong suits (I'm more of a frequency response guy), but I've known other engineers who hear this kind of thing right away. (R.I.P. Frank Haber)

Also, there is a smallish minority of listeners who can identify absolute polarity with some accuracy; you may be one of them. (Are you, to your knowledge?) I'm assuming that in your tests with Jerry, he didn't flip the polarity at the preamp each time he turned the mike around--and if he had, that in itself would have been a dead giveaway, unless he muted between all the samples.

With all due respect, I don't think that anyone can know what your results would have been under better test conditions. So all I can really say is thank you for the report, and as soon as I can, I will try the experiment that I can perhaps duplicate (the pink noise experiment).

--best regards

As a P.S. for any armchair readers, here's why such special care is needed when doing front-vs.-back listening tests on bidirectional microphones. If you speak into the front of the microphone while listening to the amplified signal over headphones, you will hear (along with the amplified signal from the microphone) a lot of sound that reaches your inner ear via bone conduction, plus some leakage into your headphones from the room. This mixture causes constructive and destructive interference which will differ greatly at different frequencies. Any listener can hear this effect, not just experienced or special listeners. -- Now, if you leave everything alone but rotate the mike so that you're speaking into the back of the capsule, the frequencies that initially were reduced by cancellation will be reinforced, while the ones that were initially reinforced will now be reduced. Thus the two sides of the microphone will always sound different even if the microphone itself is perfectly symmetrical.

If your preamp lets you flip the polarity of the signal, by all means do so when you're turning the mike around, though for your eardrums' sake, mute the headphone amplifier first. Or it may be simpler just to record your test samples on both sides of the mike. Jot down which samples were which, but don't listen while recording; listen only to the playback. (Better yet, use something other than your own voice as the test source.)

Last edited by DSatz; 1 day ago at 08:38 PM..
Old 1 day ago
  #52
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSatz View Post
Da-Hong, many thanks for your reply putting your experiences out into the open. I'm intrigued by what you wrote, and I don't doubt that you really did hear something. I'm not persuaded that it was what you think it was--but thanks to what you wrote, we can all see why you feel persuaded, and I appreciate that.

Just one follow-up question if I may: In your experiment at Jerry's apartment, where was he (with the microphone)? His main room is large by Manhattan standards, but has normal reverberance. The smaller, adjacent room where he keeps a lot of old equipment is drier, but not "dead" by any means. And the passageways around his main room are narrow and have obvious resonances in the vocal range.

The reason I'm asking is that ideally the person with the microphone should have been in an anechoic space. Anywhere else you will have room sound including multiple reflections of the person's speaking voice, mixed with some random-phase material. To someone who is professionally sensitive to foreground/background relationships in sound, the differing cancellations and reinforcements certainly could be audible, even (perhaps especially!) without conscious effort on your part. This isn't one of my own strong suits (I'm more of a frequency response guy), but I've known other engineers who hear this kind of thing right away. (R.I.P. Frank Haber)

Also, there is a smallish minority of listeners who can identify absolute polarity with some accuracy; you may be one of them. (Are you, to your knowledge?) I'm assuming that in your tests with Jerry, he didn't flip the polarity at the preamp each time he turned the mike around--and if he had, that in itself would have been a dead giveaway, unless he muted between all the samples.

With all due respect, I don't think that anyone can know what your results would have been under better test conditions. So all I can really say is thank you for the report, and as soon as I can, I will try the experiment that I can perhaps duplicate (the pink noise experiment).

--best regards

As a P.S. for any armchair readers, here's why such special care is needed when doing front-vs.-back listening tests on bidirectional microphones. If you speak into the front of the microphone while listening to the amplified signal over headphones, you will hear (along with the amplified signal from the microphone) a lot of sound that reaches your inner ear via bone conduction, plus some leakage into your headphones from the room. This mixture causes constructive and destructive interference which will differ greatly at different frequencies. Any listener can hear this effect, not just experienced or special listeners. -- Now, if you leave everything alone but rotate the mike so that you're speaking into the back of the capsule, the frequencies that initially were reduced by cancellation will be reinforced, while the ones that were initially reinforced will now be reduced. Thus the two sides of the microphone will always sound different even if the microphone itself is perfectly symmetrical.

If your preamp lets you flip the polarity of the signal, by all means do so when you're turning the mike around, though for your eardrums' sake, mute the headphone amplifier first. Or it may be simpler just to record your test samples on both sides of the mike. Jot down which samples were which, but don't listen while recording; listen only to the playback. (Better yet, use something other than your own voice as the test source.)



When Jerry and I did this test, we made sure I couldn’t hear what he was saying to the mic through acoustic pathway. I was in the big reverberant room he was in the dry sounding smaller room. Both doors to the rooms were closed and I had a pair of closed-back headphones on. He was speaking in a normal conversational level, fairly close to the mic, within arm’s reach, so he could rotate the mic as he was speaking into it. Again, the difference was so obvious not only I identified them correctly every time he rotated/not rotated the mic I was able to identify front from back with absolute certainty. We did this with both my MK8s with same outcome.

With MK8, I could easily identify the front and back but I couldn’t do that with MKH30s, nor could I do that with a well-matched double-cardioid figure8. Why, you might ask? Because they are better matched front to back. There is nothing mysterious about this.

As far as the ability to hear absolute phase in a recording, I found it is easier to do so if the playback system has full bass response. It is also easier to do so if you can flip the playback phase to compare while you do this. Pure omni mic recording often is easier to identify than directional mics because it has better real bass in the recording. From time to time, I would be listening to an old analog transfer and I would ask myself why it sounded so weird and it would turn out to be the absolute phase being reversed. But who knows, maybe the recording could sound better if the absolute phase is reversed. The issue is more complicated if the playback system is a multi-way speaker. Often than not, the midrange driver in a speaker has to be wired out of phase from the woofer and tweeter due to the crossover design in order to have less phase cancellation at crossover points. The speaker would measure better by itself but the out of phase midrange driver can make the absolute phase issue very difficult to address.


All the best.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
gonzalo1004es / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
22
Rumi / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
45
sonare / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
67
fifthcircle / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
22
JSheltonLogic / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
20

Forum Jump
Forum Jump