There isn’t any omni I like more than Schoeps. There are a few other brands I also admire for different reasons.

And though I’ve used Schoeps for years, I was truly, deeply shocked at how much I loved their figure-8 capsules—not just for side applications. . .but also in circumstances where I would have expected to prefer omni.

Yes, “the versatility is worth so much.”


Interesting how things work out sometimes,

Ray H.

Please do share with us those circumstances in which you preferred MK 8 over MK 2. I appreciate it.

Interesting opinions, I love MKH30, it also looks perfectly symetrical, I wonder how MK8 can work for MS with its response not being identical on both sides...?

there are two or three individuals here on gs who are making a big fuzz about the asymmetry shown in schoeps's graphs (in which they are applying less smoothing and averaging than some of their competitors) and even pretend that they can here a difference between the front and the rear side - makes me wonder how? - while at the same time they rave about old ribbon mics used in blumlein configuration...

anyway, the schoeps double-m/s plugin (and possibly also the new digital preamp?) takes the minor asymmetry into account!



p.s. the mk-4(v)/mk-8 combo is my main microphone system (that has been used the most of all stereo systems, closely followed by ortf/ mstc-64) for decades...

Ah, cool. I don't remember such debates here, I only noticed the graph when I was checking the fig8 SDCs... but I already have (and like) the Sennheiser MKH40/30 combo... I don't desire "better" or different... I am sure the mk-4/mk8 must be a fine combination, too.

Using old ribbon mics in blumlein would make sense to me only if one desires to mimic some film noire soundtrack sound and such.

My weird intuition (after all I don't think we can quantify everything logically, especially not about sound) tells me that a pair of M221 could be a good tool for me, while my pragmatic self tells me to get a used pair of MKH20s, workhorse omnis that won't disappoint, while my "get a Schoeps already" alter ego tells me to order a pair of CMC6/MK2H - similar gut feeling as for the MKH20s, just an intuition that I could use a different type of sound from the one I already have in MKH40/30 - for variety.

I don't think the final decision will have anything to do with logic and reason.

It's not perfect but it's more perfect than an RCA. Although I am not an MS fan on the whole, I would not worry about using it for MS. I have used it for Blumlein and Blumlein-like methods in rooms with slap echo problems from the sides.

It's pretty amazing that anyone can make a figure-8 that small and still have it be as symmetric as it is. Nobody else has done that. Check how tight the null is too... nobody else has done a small diaphragm figure-8 with any sort of decent null (although the Sennheiser is not horrible).
--scott

None of these are bad options. The MKH20 is the quietest of the set, the M221 is the most omni of the set, the Schoeps is the most versatile of the set. You won't be unhappy with any of them.
--scott

Really? The MKH30 (which, given context, is I assume 'the Sennheiser') doesn't have 'any sort of decent null' and just qualifies as 'not horrible'? Nor the MKH 8030? I have both, and the nulls appear decent to me. And, from heavy use of the MKH 8030 in particular, I have no reason to doubt the published polar patterns.

Cheers,

Roland

KM88? KM56?

Compare the null of the MKH30 with a ribbon like the M130 and see the difference!

I haven't used the MKH8030 but I didn't think it was any different mechanically than the MKH30.
--scott

Hi Scott. Your comparison was with the MK8: do you really think the nulls are in a different league from those of the MKH30 and MKH8030? And, by implication, that the published polar patterns for these mics are incorrect.
Cheers,
Roland

I do think they are much better. The published patterns are all smoothed and I wouldn't call them incorrect so much as too averaged to be informative. The MK8 nulls are as good as many ribbons which shocked me when I realized it.
--scott

Hm, I would think that by their very nature all single membrane/ribbon fig8 mics should have very deep and silent nulls. The Schoeps Mk8 deviates a little from this ideal because of its a-symmetrical construction that obviously blocks and bends the highest frequencies a bit, but other than that all should have the same deep nulls. Interestingly, I find the localisation cues of an MS setup with with MKH30 more precise than with Mk8, in both cases tested with a similar brand center mic (MKH20 resp. Mk2). This would suggest a more even frequency response from the MKH30 than from the Mk8 over their entire pickup angle, and perfectly deep nulls. For that reason I mostly use Mk8 for pure fig8 uses instead of in MS-applications. The tonal/timbral differences between MKH30 and Mk8 are big enough to let them both have their own use niches, where they are hardly exchangeable for each other.

Hmm: look at the MKH 8030 polar pattern - you can see the lack of smoothing! I really find it hard to understand the physics as to why the MK8 nulls should be so much better, not least as the 8030's are so impressive (and, yes, I do have ribbon mics). And it is interesting to hear that Earcatcher has another experienced take that is quite different to yours.

Cheers,

Roland

It does not make any sense to me either so I completely understand.
--scott

imo graphs of all fig8's, no matter what type or manufacturer (or how much measurements got smoothed and averaged), are misleading (at best):

put a fig8 in a loud (test) situation and what you'll experience is mostly hf attenuation, which is VERY far from 'null' though (and of course the lower you go, the worse things get)!

Conventional ribbon mics have figure-eight patterns due to basic physics. That said, I wouldn't have picked the m130 as the poster child for that behavior because it's actually a double ribbon with a crossover. My AEA N8's have good, but rather narrow nulls.

Dual-diaphragm condensers can't match that performance, because their front and back sensitivities and tuning will always vary slightly, plus the inter-chamber coupling is frequency-dependent. That's why their other polar patterns vary with frequency, this effect being somewhat lessened with 414's and others in the C12 lineage. I frequently use 414's as the side mic in an M/S array with various other microphones -- even DPA omni's.

The MKH 30 behaves differently, because it is a single diaphragm with two outer "backplates". This, combined with a frequency response and noise floor that's far superior to any ribbon mic, make mine the "best" figure-eight in my locker. I've often used a pair with their nulls aimed at the FOH speakers to extract hall ambience in concerts where some elements are amplified. They are also excellent in a Hammasaki Square, which is why I own four of them.

David

With the null aimed at the source all you hear is room reflection. The graphs are showing a response as found in the anechoic chamber (which is the only reliable reference space to measure microphones), where all reflections are being killed. They are a perfectly correct indicator to show how the mic functions.

Wasn’t there an anechoic orchestral record released in the 1970’s…. I’m pretty sure it was Japanese in origin, maybe JVC or Sanken ? Probably not even released to the general public, more of interest to AES types (and nerds like us ������ !). They must have found a sufficiently large chamber to enclose all the players…

I recall a HiFi review magazine of the time describing the sound as awful…alien…unfamiliar…yet weirdly instructive !

lol - if you think so...

And then - there's DPA4041... I wonder if one could pull off such a "trick" with M221 or MK2H or MKH20...

I don’t see any trick there, 4041 are quite bright microphones on axis, it’s logical to point them up to avoid being “blessed” with many string and nails noises from the guitar playing.

I meant "trick" as a minimalist, two mic recording that sounds as good as this... having the players of such calibre of course... it was also more or less rhetorical question... since I believe - yes... just a brainstorm - a thought if a larger diaphragm omni is prehaps "meatier" and more suitable for such jazzy style acoustic recordings (which I might do quite a few of). Anyway... just posting it here for the niceness (to me) of the video.

I’ve been recording exclusive with 1” omnis for the last three years and have researched a lot lately about the different 1” available capsules, and I’m
not sure I would say they sound meatier. I do think they tend to render a slightly more impactful bass and the high frequencies are captured differently, as the high frequencies overtones are not picked up the same way as a smaller sized diaphragm, so they tend to give a velvety and refined highs. Even with an obviously bright microphone such as the 4041, the highs have this characteristic.

"More impactful bass and velvety highs" could be expressed as "meatier", too. More body, less "contrast"...

Which ones if I may ask?

Yes, there are anechoic orchestra tracks on the DENON AUDIO TEST CD. They are unlistenable, in part because there's no room and in part because the band is not very tight because none of them can hear one another.
--scott

Mmm, yes and no, I’m not sure about that, and probably those who have worked a lot with 1” omnis would agree with me, they kind of work as an extremely good dynamics compressor only in very high frequencies, but that does not mean they are meatier, depending on the model and use they could be in fact bright, but at the same time fit in my description, I know it sounds weird what I’m saying I’ve been using Sonodore LDM54 and lately Bruel & Kjaer 4145 capsules. I’ve also used Gefell MK102 capsules and Gefell M296 microphones.

Once you start considering larger diameter omni's, you might as well experiment with the multi-pattern LDC's that are already in your locker. The ones with the best patterns are probably going to be your 414's; the newer OC818's are even better. For something entirely different, put up a pair of C37's with their rear vanes closed. (Josephson makes modern versions of that capsule, used in his C715, Manley's Reference Silver, and Mojave's MA-37). As long as you're going old-school, consider Neumann M50's as well. Their gradually narrowing polar pattern is why all the SDC makers started offering diffraction balls. (You can kind of emulate that effect by recording both sides of a pair of Austrian Audio OC818's and using their polar designer app.)

David

Here's the insert from the Denon Anechoic Orchestral CD.

A pair of OC818's sounds nothing like a pair of true LDC pressure omnis, such as the previously mentioned LDM-54's. Here's an example of cello and double bass, recorded in a real location with LDM-54 (ECA), amplified with Lake People F355 (class A version) and ran through my analog chain with only very minor settings. We come into the piece somewhere halfway the second movement and go out of it halfway the third. Of course, this is just an AAC compressed sample, pulled from the original 96kHz file.