The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Anyone using Schoeps MK22 for main pair?
Old 8th January 2018
  #31
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdonahue View Post
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
Hi Mark, I always appreciate your input on this forum. And thank you for this list -- interesting to consider that. If you can find a moment, I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts specifically on why the Mk22 is not always a good choice in your/Soundmirror's experience, and conversely, what the situations are when you do typically find them a better choice than the other options you mentioned...

Many thanks again,
Luke
Old 8th January 2018
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukedamrosch View Post
Hi Mark, I always appreciate your input on this forum. And thank you for this list -- interesting to consider that. If you can find a moment, I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts specifically on why the Mk22 is not always a good choice in your/Soundmirror's experience, and conversely, what the situations are when you do typically find them a better choice than the other options you mentioned...

Many thanks again,
Luke
My all-time favorite string spot is the MK21. It just sounds right. It blends well and never jumps out of the picture. If I need something a little more directional, I'll go to the MK5, as they have a similar character. If the strings are a little bright, I'll switch to the MK4 (Which is think is on the dull side for string spots...) To my ear, the MK22 lacks "weight" for massed strings. Sorry I can't be more empirical.
All the best,
-mark
Old 11th January 2018
  #33
Gear Addict
 

Thanks Mark! I really appreciate it.
Old 14th January 2018
  #34
Lives for gear
 

mk4/mk8/mk21/ortf/xy

i get to work with (small to medium) orchestras playing along with electronic/amplified instruments or jazz bands; i therefore prefer narrower pickup patterns on spot (and even section) mics and use mostly mk4's.

main is often ortf or mk 21 if l/c/r.

i used mk22's on (front and) rear ambi (wide a/b) switched to mk 2's and 'felt' (not heard/compared side by side) the room getting wider, but had to engage a slightly higher hipass (and switched front amby to shotguns pointing into the audience); so no more mk22's - good mic though, but not for my needs
Old 29th January 2018
  #35


Out of curiosity for how well they would work in a chamber setting, I just recorded a concert with the 22's. With the unique pattern, i opted for somewhere in between ORTF and NOS. About 100 degrees at approx 22 cm. Spots were used minimally. TLM107 in wide cardioid and a C617set on the harp. Worked alright I think.
Old 29th January 2018
  #36
Absolutely lovely, Daniel! I can't judge the stereo image on cans, but the full sound without any MK-4ish "pushyness" is exactly why I love those capsules. What spot were you using on the lower strings?

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Old 29th January 2018
  #37
Gear Addict
 

Very nice, and thank you for sharing! This is just the sort of real-world example I was hoping to hear...

I agree with David's comments above as well as Earcatcher's earlier opinion that the Mk22 seems to share a sonic smoothness family with the Mk2 and Mk8. Indeed, the overall texture of your recording reminds me of the natural and unstrained quality I am familiar with from using Mk2, but with the reduced ambience one would expect from directionals.

Thanks again!
Old 29th January 2018
  #38
Quote:
What spot were you using on the lower strings?
TLM107. Same as the high strings. A rather versatile and unobtrusive sounding mic IMO.
Old 6th November 2018
  #39
Gear Maniac
 

Has anyone used mk22 in an XY setup for small room/ensemble or solo spot pickup?
Old 7th November 2018
  #40
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Mark, (or anyone) could you point me to a GS thread that compares Mk4s and Mk5. I always, hmm, assumed that they sounded similar. I have both but have never directly compared them. I'll take the 5s if I am tight on space and not certain if I need ORTF or spaced A-B. If I know I need spaced A-B, I'll take Mk21s or Mk2Ss and If I know I need ORTF, I'll take Mk4s (if I don't take the DPAs which I mostly like better).

If I know I need ORTF, is there any reason to pick the Mk5s over the Mk4s?

D.
Old 7th November 2018
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumleymusic View Post
Out of curiosity for how well they would work in a chamber setting, I just recorded a concert with the 22's. With the unique pattern, i opted for somewhere in between ORTF and NOS. About 100 degrees at approx 22 cm. Spots were used minimally. TLM107 in wide cardioid and a C617set on the harp. Worked alright I think.
really nice! super clean, clear, wide stereo image, interesting room
Old 7th November 2018
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
Mark, (or anyone) could you point me to a GS thread that compares Mk4s and Mk5. I always, hmm, assumed that they sounded similar. I have both but have never directly compared them. I'll take the 5s if I am tight on space and not certain if I need ORTF or spaced A-B. If I know I need spaced A-B, I'll take Mk21s or Mk2Ss and If I know I need ORTF, I'll take Mk4s (if I don't take the DPAs which I mostly like better).

If I know I need ORTF, is there any reason to pick the Mk5s over the Mk4s?

D.
The MK5 is possibly my favorite Schoeps capsule (Along with the MK21) and is clearly the most versatile. The MK5 has a bit more top when compared to the MK4. I most often use them as Outriggers in Omni and as string, Clarinet and Bassoon spots in Cardoid.
In general I find that the 5 is a more usable cardoid than an MK4 because of the lift. As an Omni it sits in a nice place between the MK2 and MK2S.
As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark
Old 7th November 2018
  #43
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Thanks, Mark. I'll explore that. It's my busy season and not a lot of over-sight so perfect timing.

D.
Old 7th November 2018
  #44
Gear Addict
 

The MK5 has about 2db worse self-noise specs in omni mode than the pure omni capsules. I'm not sure why that is.

I think the MK2H is still the ideal all-round omni capsule for multiple use cases (near and far). The MK5 starts the HF lift much lower in frequency, which could sound a touch harsh on some sources, as the MK2S can (which also starts the lift at a lower frequency, but boosts even more).

What I'm wondering is if anyone has tried the MK5 in an "in-between" setting. I know Schoeps says they can't guarantee what the results will be, so they recommend against it, but it still intruiges me. I wonder if there is a subcardioid pattern lurking in there as well if you get the setting in the right spot. That would really make the capsule versatile.
Old 9th November 2018
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Positioning for an "in-between" pattern is unreliable on MK5. Why should it work?

It doesn't work.
Old 9th November 2018
  #46
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Positioning for an "in-between" pattern is unreliable on MK5. Why should it work?

It doesn't work.
A sub-cardioid and a half closed-off omni are certainly not the same thing.

D.
Old 9th November 2018
  #47
Right, i think there’s some confusion maybe in what’s happening to the MK5; it’s not like an electrical switch like a dual-cap, multipattern mic has, it’s a physical piece moving to open and close the back of the capsule and change the polar pattern.
Old 11th November 2018
  #48
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NathanBarley View Post
Has anyone used mk22 in an XY setup for small room/ensemble or solo spot pickup?
I think examples of XY for overall pickup will be few and far between here, but I know from my previous browsing that there are a number of very good examples out there of mk22 as spots in a variety of contexts -- certainly many more than in a main pair role. Indeed, this was part of my motivation for starting the thread...
Old 11th November 2018
  #49
MK22 is generally not suitable as a fully-coincident (xy) pair because a wide-cardioid pattern does not produce enough level change with angle to get a full stereo width. You need to add some interaural time difference to obtain a full soundstage on playback, which calls for a near-coincident array having somewhat wider spacing than one would use with cardioids.
Old 11th November 2018
  #50
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
A sub-cardioid and a half closed-off omni are certainly not the same thing.
Are you sure?
How does one create a sub-cardioid interference pattern then, if not by rear-venting an amount somewhere between that of an omni (none) and cardioid (a lot)?
Not saying you're wrong, I just don't know, and would like some more information before writing off the possibility entirely.
Old 11th November 2018
  #51
Gear Addict
 

It is entirely possible to design a mechanically adjustable omni and cardioid microphone which also gives you perfect patterns anywhere in between depending where the backdoor you move it to. However, it is easily said than done because it is very difficult and complicated to design the backdoor mechanism that will track the dispersion pattern as well as frequency flatness throughout the entire range. It is not just a backdoor adjustment you need you also would need the perfect back acoustic chamber that will adjust its properties as you move the backdoor. I could imagine that by the time it is all done the back of the cartridge will have a mechanism as complicated as a Swiss watch.
Old 23rd November 2018
  #52
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumleymusic View Post
Out of curiosity for how well they would work in a chamber setting, I just recorded a concert with the 22's. With the unique pattern, i opted for somewhere in between ORTF and NOS. About 100 degrees at approx 22 cm. Spots were used minimally. TLM107 in wide cardioid and a C617set on the harp. Worked alright I think.
Just listened to this (lovely) recording again... it strikes me that, in this case at least, the mental image produced by the mk22's is much more "mk2 minus ambience and lowest octave" rather than "optimal combination of directionality (MK 4) and warm sound characteristics (MK 21)" as per Schoeps official brief on the capsule. As others pointed out earlier in this thread, there seems to be a "family resemblance" in the smooth/open/unstrained presentation.

Daniel, as one of the very few people who seem to ever employ the mk22 in a main array role, I'd be curious to hear another example if you might have one.
Old 23rd November 2018
  #53
Quote:
Daniel, as one of the very few people who seem to ever employ the MK22 in a main array role, I'd be curious to hear another example if you might have one.
To tell you the truth, it is a rarity. Mostly i will use it as a stereo pair on student audition materials and that wouldn't be appropriate to post here. I tend to prefer ORTF with MKH8040 or Josephson omnis as a main pair. Better low end on both.

With the same group as the previous video i did another concert with just the Schoeps as mains and a Josephson piano spot. Not quite as polished as the last one. There is a selection here.

Old 23rd November 2018
  #54
Gear Addict
 

Thank you for sharing. Low end notwithstanding, I find this similarly "unstrained" presentation very attractive. When I get around to demo'ing a pair, I'm curious to hear them parallel and spaced a bit wider. Much appreciated.
Old 6 days ago
  #55
Here for the gear
 

Hi. I don't visit this forum very often, so I hope this can still be useful to someone. The MK 22 has actually become my "go to" main microphone for classical concert recording, both vocal and instrumental (or both).

I agree with the person who said that its directional pattern isn't sharp enough for coincident stereo recording--but then I prefer closely-spaced microphones over coincident setups anyway, because of the improved spaciousness. So I generally use active cables and the stereo bar that Schoeps makes specifically for MK 22 capsules (or CCM 22 microphones)--the "STC 22", which provides 21 cm spacing and a 110-degree angle between the capsules.

If you look at the polar response of most "forward-facing" small cardioids, you'll see that the response (say) at 90 degrees off-axis has a somewhat rising response above the midrange--which means that the diffuse-field response becomes somewhat brighter than the on-axis response. That's fine in a studio--but for two-microphone stereo recording in concert halls and (especially) many churches, not as much. The MK 22 doesn't have that rising off-axis response characteristic to any notable extent, nor does the MK 21 "wide cardioid". So it's not just the broader pattern and the fuller low-frequency response that makes these capsules sound warmer than the MK 4--it's also the lack of a certain added brightness from the sides.

Before the MK 22 became available, my favorite small cardioid was Schoeps' MK 6 three-pattern capsule (since discontinued); it, too, had off-axis response that rose somewhat at high frequencies, but distinctly less so than the MK 4, i.e. its diffuse-field response was flatter and more nearly parallel to its free-field response. The MK 41 V (side-addressed) supercardioid is even better in this respect, and I've come to prefer it over my former workhorse MK 41 capsules where a drier sound is called for.

--best regards
Old 6 days ago
  #56
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSatz View Post
Hi. I don't visit this forum very often, so I hope this can still be useful to someone. The MK 22 has actually become my "go to" main microphone for classical concert recording, both vocal and instrumental (or both).

I agree with the person who said that its directional pattern isn't sharp enough for coincident stereo recording--but then I prefer closely-spaced microphones over coincident setups anyway, because of the improved spaciousness. So I generally use active cables and the stereo bar that Schoeps makes specifically for MK 22 capsules (or CCM 22 microphones)--the "STC 22", which provides 21 cm spacing and a 110-degree angle between the capsules.

If you look at the polar response of most "forward-facing" small cardioids, you'll see that the response (say) at 90 degrees off-axis has a somewhat rising response above the midrange--which means that the diffuse-field response becomes somewhat brighter than the on-axis response. That's fine in a studio--but for two-microphone stereo recording in concert halls and (especially) many churches, not as much. The MK 22 doesn't have that rising off-axis response characteristic to any notable extent, nor does the MK 21 "wide cardioid". So it's not just the broader pattern and the fuller low-frequency response that makes these capsules sound warmer than the MK 4--it's also the lack of a certain added brightness from the sides.

Before the MK 22 became available, my favorite small cardioid was Schoeps' MK 6 three-pattern capsule (since discontinued); it, too, had off-axis response that rose somewhat at high frequencies, but distinctly less so than the MK 4, i.e. its diffuse-field response was flatter and more nearly parallel to its free-field response. The MK 41 V (side-addressed) supercardioid is even better in this respect, and I've come to prefer it over my former workhorse MK 41 capsules where a drier sound is called for.

--best regards
...maybe semantics but imo it's not that the more narrow patterns accent hf from the side, it's that the wider patterns have more attenuation.

(the mk4 is pretty close to an 'ideal' cardioid over a very wide frequency range)
Old 4 days ago
  #57
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSatz View Post
Hi. I don't visit this forum very often, so I hope this can still be useful to someone. The MK 22 has actually become my "go to" main microphone for classical concert recording, both vocal and instrumental (or both).
David, many thanks for sharing these thoughts! Your input is of great value to any sound engineering forum.

If/when you find time to post again, may I ask whether you typically apply a certain amount of high-frequency boost to the MK22's when used at a distance as a main array? If so, what seems to work well for you, generally speaking?

I would also be curious to hear if (for similar reasons) you find the MK22's less forgiving of placement in terms of distance from the source, compared to capsules with more "reach"/HF emphasis.
Old 4 days ago
  #58
Lives for gear
Just a Schoeps-related bit of news I saw today on the Gotham Audio site:

Schoeps is extending the warranty period for new MK Capsules, CMC amplifiers and complete microphones (e.g. CMIT series, CCM, CMH, etc.) from 2 to 10 years!

To receive the full warranty on any of these purchased after September 1st, 2019 , end-users must register the product within the first year of purchase. Registration and full details are available on the Schoeps website.
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