Quantcast
Beyer MC930 vs. JZ BT-201 vs. Schoeps MK21 on acoustic guitar - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Beyer MC930 vs. JZ BT-201 vs. Schoeps MK21 on acoustic guitar
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathieujm ➑️
... for sure I would prefer the Beyer box to be smaller (I don't care about wood...)
The box for a stereo pair is quite small and even has shock mounts inside. I think they use the same box for single mics.

Beyer puts the money into the microphone. You can find matched pairs for $799 (e.g. at Sonic Circus where I bought two matched pairs, 4 very usable mics for the price of one Schoeps).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathieujm ➑️
That's fine. It is just new to see Ivo pressing any mid-grade gear. He's always been on a quest for the best sonics with cost not a factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathieujm ➑️
I don't remember a viola sound thru the KM184 similar to the sample with the Jz. Ok, the 184 is a little bright but it has a lot more cohesion in the sound ...
Fair point. I'd have to hear them side by side to conclude the same thing with confidence. The KM184's brightness alone makes it not as good as the Beyer for most of my applications.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️
As for the quality control, I tried one of the first prototypes and the present final products are well improved and settled comparing to them. Since I had some conversations with them regarding some minor prototype issues, I know they are quite hard working to improve everything to the perfect quality ... But these things are not easy ...
Ivo, thanks for clarifying. I'm just adjusting to your posts regarding mid-grade gear since it is new for me to see you making price a factor in any of your assessments.

RE quality: Consistency is the only thing I care about. If a mic is crap or perfect doesn't matter as long as we know it before buying. Variation is the #1 enemy of quality. Nagra, Schoeps and few select others stand out as superior and it's not only because they make quality stuff. It is also because you can trust that anything you buy from them will be just as good as any they make. I agree with you that "these things are not easy."
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
That's fine. It is just new to see Ivo pressing any mid-grade gear. He's always been on a quest for the best sonics with cost not a factor.
This will be always like this ...I will use only the equipment that sounds the very best to me for my own music (that for me is the most important thing of what I do) - without any compromise ... But there may be rare situations I may need more mics than my Schoeps collection consists of ... (some occasional choir etc. recordings that I do as a kind of small hobby) And till the time I will get the subvention for making "anti-crisis" music heh I simply cannot afford to get another 2-3 pairs of Schoeps (as much as I would love to) - just because once or twice a year I will record some local group ... So I looked for some additional lower cost mics that can supply the occasional extra needs (if any) .... JZ, Beyers, SE, even Behringer B5 (not bad at all !!) etc. were the candidates I wanted to try ... But I am not really "pressing" anything here, your words surprise me ... If I really want, I would use quite different language and would not show the things in their nakedness - with all their strong and weak sides ...

Hmm, there is one Czech proverb but I don't know the English equivalent, something like "for making good to others, becoming a beggar" I should have thought twice before fulfilling the repeated specific requests of making and posting further comparisons between these mics ...
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
d_fu's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️
Yes, Beyer box is very big - so is the sound: I never seen any mics with so high output ...
Seems you've not tried a Josephson... heh
66 mV/Pa for the 617 (with an MTG capsule), where the 930 has 30 or so. Tested it together with a KM 131 yesterday (samples soon), had to set about 12 dB more gain for the Neumanns.
The old MKH 20/40/40 etc. are about as sensitive as the Beyers, by the way.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️
This will be always like this ...I will use only the equipment that sounds the very best to me for my own music (that for me is the most important thing of what I do) - without any compromise ... But there may be rare situations I may need more mics than my Schoeps collection consists of ... (some occasional choir etc. recordings that I do as a kind of small hobby) And till the time I will get the subvention for making "anti-crisis" music heh I simply cannot afford to get another 2-3 pairs of Schoeps (as much as I would love to). So I looked for some additional lower cost mics that can supply the occasional extra needs (if any) .... JZ, Beyers, SE, even Behringer B5 (not bad at all !!) etc. were the candidates I wanted to try ... But I am not really "pressing" anything here, your words surprise me ... If I really want, I would use quite different language and would not show the things in their nakedeness - with all their strong and weak sides ...

Hmm, there is one Czech proverb but I don't know the English equivalent, something like "for making good to others, becoming a beggar" I should have thought twice before fulfilling the repeated specific requests of making and posting further comparisons between these mics ...
Again, thanks for clarifying.

"Pressing" may be the wrong word. "Considering" may be better, though it seems you've moved beyond that to recommending.

I'm glad to know where you are coming from -- that you are now considering gear also based on cost. That may be a good turn as few of us have unlimited cash.

Hopefully, too, you realize that you can't be fully independent while representing gear. Even if your motives are pure as the driven snow it will be hard for others to read your posts as before. I will continue to value your opinions --your ears, methods and clips are always valuable-- but I'll weigh them with the new knowledge that you have financial loyalty to some brands.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Lives for gear
 
videoteque's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
And till the time I will get the subvention for making "anti-crisis" music
Come on! Barak didn't called you yet?? He told me he's giving you 1% of anti-crisis money for you to buy as many Schoeps as you want!!!hehheh
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️
I should have thought twice before fulfilling the repeated specific requests of making and posting further comparisons between these mics ...
Not at all Ivo - it was good you posted the samples. If you should have done anything differently in this case, it should be to let the users of the forum know that you had a relationship with jz mics.

I found the jz samples interesting. The Sub-card seems to have some strong points but the omni doesn't sound linear to my ears. Somethings odd [relatively speaking] is going on in the treble and it lacks the full frequency response of omni's. Sounds like jz didn't get these right.
I wonder about their off axis response too, is it as smooth as the Beyer MC-930..?
***
Anyhow thanks for the samples, I really appreciated the dry "no makeup" samples!

[and if you have a secret advertising agreement with Schoeps, please speak up now []

Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mljung ➑️

[and if you have a secret advertising agreement with Schoeps, please speak up now []

Sure, I openly proclaim I get one free capsule for each prasing post I make here )
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Very nice samples Ivo (as always :-). I like the Schoeps samples best (of course). In comparison both the Beyer and JZ sound a little hyped in the high end and less natural (incl. the stereo image) to me.

I own a pair of MK21 and a pair of MC930 myself. I usually prefer the Schoeps but for some sources (e.g. a punchy steelstring guitar) the MC930 works very well. For the money the Beyers are great (I payed 555€ for my pair) but since I have a Neumann KM140 I didn't use them anymore (I use the KM140 e.g. toghether with a Schoeps MK8 in M/S if I want to record in stereo). I had a Schoeps MK4 here and compared it side by side with the KM140 and I liked the KM140 much more so I sold the MK4.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Hijack alert! Please forgive this brief diversion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzjoe ➑️
...I had a Schoeps MK4 here and compared it side by side with the KM140 and I liked the KM140 much more so I sold the MK4.
I know capsules can change on a KM140 system, but for sonics and specs do you know any main differences between KM184 and a KM140?

I need to look into these. Is the KM140 is less bright? If so, I imagine it is more useful than a 184.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
The box for a stereo pair is quite small and even has shock mounts inside. I think they use the same box for single mics.
I have a pair and I think the box could be really smaller... But probably as Ivo said, people should not consider they could have a big sound if the box was smaller heh

Thanks Ivo for these clarifications. So forget my demand for a viola sample with the MC-930

JMM
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️
Sure, I openly proclaim I get one free capsule for each prasing post I make here )
Thanks for the info - much appreciated heh(:

BTW: I agree that the Schoeps samples were more convincing compared to both MC-930 and the JZ's.
I found the flute was quite nice through jz's sub-card if one were looking for a more present sound.
Ivo since you sell these, do you know if one can buy a single body [or a stereo-pair] with the sub-cardioid only, instead of the cardioid..?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
d_fu's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
I need to look into these. Is the KM140 is less bright? If so, I imagine it is more useful than a 184.
Theoretically, there's no difference, the published graphs are quite the same. I somehow did find the 184 a bit brighter, you can hear something here.
Eventually I found I wasn't using the 184 much, so I sold it, but kept the 140 (just a nice small mic that will predictably do a good job practically anywhere you put it).

I don't know the 930, but I'm a great fan of its predecessor (MC-803, and the 805 hyper)...
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
Hijack alert! Please forgive this brief diversion...

I know capsules can change on a KM140 system, but for sonics and specs do you know any main differences between KM184 and a KM140?

I need to look into these. Is the KM140 is less bright? If so, I imagine it is more useful than a 184.
Don't know the KM184 but to me the KM140 is "warm" sounding mic but still very detailed and natural. On d fu's harpischord samples i like it much better than the KM184 (thank you for this!). A friend has two KM84 (but they sound different from each other). I didn't compare them side by side but to my ears the KM140 and the KM84 sound very similar (but not identical). Maybe the KM84 is a little more "coloured" (but in a very nice and musical way :-).
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Addict
 
mrsteaks's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mljung ➑️
I found the jz samples interesting. The Sub-card seems to have some strong points but the omni doesn't sound linear to my ears. Somethings odd [relatively speaking] is going on in the treble and it lacks the full frequency response of omni's. Sounds like jz didn't get these right.
You aren't the only one to notice this. I understand that there are problems with the JZ BT201 omni capsules (this comes from a JZ rep here in the US). I'm told that JZ "recalled" the omni caps and is in the process of correcting them. I have heard a JZ omni sample not posted here, and your observation on it's sound is almost exactly what I thought. Somethin' ain't right! Solid, clean bottom, but a scooped mid, hyped upper mid, and rolled off top. That said, it's good to know JZ is trying to make the 201 right before they widely release it.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
I realised one basic thing which I should have mentioned before and that explains slightly higher level of self noise perceivable with my JZ samples: Similarly like Beyers have quite higher ouptut level than Schoeps, Schoeps have higher output level than JZ. When making the samples, Forssell preamp was set to medium gain (to sustain the drum) and I have not changed that level for different mics, it remained the same all the time. Thus JZ results were quite soft and I had to make a substantial digital make-up to make it comparable to Schoeps. If the preamp was set to reasonably higher level (suitable for JZ), the self noise would not be audible ...
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
tnjazz's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Thanks for giving us a possible reason for the slightly higher self-noise, Ivo.

I was going to post as well to mention that the JZ mics are 5-6db lower in output than my Nevaton MK49 are at the same preamp settings, so this makes a lot of sense.

Yes I am a JZ dealer (US) but I did purchase (yes, purchase!) a set of them for my own personal use; that's how much I'm liking these mics.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnjazz ➑️
I was going to post as well to mention that the JZ mics are 5-6db lower in output than my Nevaton MK49 are at the same preamp settings, so this makes a lot of sense.
May I ask - how would you compare the Nevaton MK-49 to the JZ or other sdc's. Both in terms of noise and overall sound quality [I know it's slightly off topic, but I'm a little interested in the Nevaton sdc's]

//Mads
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
videoteque's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
I realised one basic thing which I should have mentioned before and that explains slightly higher level of self noise perceivable with my JZ samples
Thanks Ivo, I do really hope that's the reason!
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
tnjazz's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mljung ➑️
May I ask - how would you compare the Nevaton MK-49 to the JZ or other sdc's. Both in terms of noise and overall sound quality [I know it's slightly off topic, but I'm a little interested in the Nevaton sdc's]

//Mads
so as not to derail this thread off topic too far, let me just say I concur 1000% with mr. gefell's assertion in the other thread...
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnjazz ➑️
so as not to derail this thread off topic too far, let me just say I concur 1000% with mr. gefell's assertion in the other thread...
Hmm... I'll hope that you will comment about the jz's and the nevaton in the other thread then!

This ends the OT
Old 1st February 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
I realised one basic thing which I should have mentioned before and that explains slightly higher level of self noise perceivable with my JZ samples: Similarly like Beyers have quite higher ouptut level than Schoeps, Schoeps have higher output level than JZ. When making the samples, Forssell preamp was set to medium gain (to sustain the drum) and I have not changed that level for different mics, it remained the same all the time. Thus JZ results were quite soft and I had to make a substantial digital make-up to make it comparable to Schoeps. If the preamp was set to reasonably higher level (suitable for JZ), the self noise would not be audible ...
What is the reason why the preamplifier gain should change the ratio of the signal to the miccrophone self-noise, which is established at the microphone output and as such is depending on the microphone only?
The preamplifier gain may impact on the signal to preamplifier self-noise only.
Old 1st February 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Lives for gear
 
AdamJay's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest ➑️
What is the reason why the preamplifier gain should change the ratio of the signal to the miccrophone self-noise, which is established at the microphone output and as such is depending on the microphone only?
The preamplifier gain may impact on the signal to preamplifier self-noise only.
exactly... thumbsup
the JZ's are quiet, and boosting their level to meet those mics they are being compared to will also boost the noise. Be it a boost from a digital gain, or an analog preamplifier. Now, as the Forssell is a fantastic preamp, there may be "less" noise, but i think "not audible" is a stretch to say the least.

Also, perceived noise is still noise.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
tnjazz's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Here's a little rock/jazz snippet from a show I recorded last night in a small bar with the JZ omni capsules and a Grace V3 preamp.

4 world class players, no PA or mics involved. Mics were split about 4 feet at the lip of the "stage". No editing except MBIT+ dither to 16 bit from the original 24 bit file.

Again, file is in FLAC format so you will need a FLAC plugin to listen, unless your choice of players handles FLAC natively.

http://www.bigpurpledog.com/audio/JZomniV3sample.flac

Old 16th February 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
for my ear all samples sounds strange and i think the preamp does not give right power to mics in guitar recording ... about a month ago i heard these samples and liked MC930 more and got them ... I had money for Schoeps and even wanted to get exactly them but when i listened this test i liked exactly MC930 and undersood there was something wrong with Forssell preamp for guitar recording .... maybe this unit does not match for guitar....

I heard your tests of Forssell amp with other instruments VS other preamps .... and Forssell was too much deep in low frequency vs others but the guitar preamp should have more deepness in mid and high frequency because bass strings have much more amplitude of oscillations then first 3 string ... so first 3 strings need more deepness. Now i understand why DAV preamp go good for guitar - it have less deepness in bass and all strings sound in harmony
Old 16th February 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrafRay ➑️
for my ear all samples sounds strange and i think the preamp does not give right power to mics in guitar recording ... about a month ago i heard these samples and liked MC930 more and got them ... I had money for Schoeps and even wanted to get exactly them but when i listened this test i liked exactly MC930 and undersood there was something wrong with Forssell preamp for guitar recording .... maybe this unit does not match for guitar....

I heard your tests of Forssell amp with other instruments VS other preamps .... and Forssell was too much deep in low frequency vs others but the guitar preamp should have more deepness in mid and high frequency because bass strings have much more amplitude of oscillations then first 3 string ... so first 3 strings need more deepness. Now i understand why DAV preamp go good for guitar - it have less deepness in bass and all strings sound in harmony
Without hearing the real instrument in the real room, it is difficult, if not impossible to judge anything about capturing it ... The idea of "guitar preamp" sounds a bit weird to me. The guitar will (and should) sound according to how the particular instrument sounds and how the player plays it. A good microphones and preamp will be able to capture every nuance of it. Less good equipment will more or less deform the original sound and capture less details ...

Forssell preamp captures the full real sound in very balanced spectrum, it is like a big open window, nothing more and nothing less. DAV preamp is much less balanced - it has a kind of "sweet" sound but captures less 3D depth, rather weak transients and some parts of the spectrum are slightly exaggerated ... It is a good preamp, no doubt, but the sound leagues are not the same.

M930 sounds also a bit "exagerrated" in some ways, which may suit some purpose. But to me, Schoeps are again in different league. But to choose between mics based on some online posted samples, is quite courageous and slightly unusual ... also judging a preamp without trying it ...
Old 17th February 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
I agree ... here is some more examples of MC930 recording
http://grafray.com/files/alex_konst/...30_macki_2.mp3
It is Mackie interface recording
http://grafray.com/files/alex_konst/Cantate.mp3
It is DACS preamp with MC930

Recordings are from users of this forum

Here is an original of first linck
http://grafray.com/files/alex_konst/RepetNoel2008.mp3
Old 17th February 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrafRay ➑️
for my ear all samples sounds strange and i think the preamp does not give right power to mics in guitar recording ...
If you are talking about one of my preamps, then I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with the phantom power supply. The P48 phantom power supply in the SMP-2, FetCode, and JMP-6 mic preamps can power up to 12 microphone to full short circuit power (14 milliamps each).


Quote:
Originally Posted by GrafRay ➑️
and undersood there was something wrong with Forssell preamp for guitar recording .... maybe this unit does not match for guitar....
There are an awful lot of really good guitar player who would not agree with you on this.

I won't comment on the remainder of your text....

regards,
Old 17th February 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Great to see you in here Fred.

As a delighted SMP-2 user, THANKS for the killer preamp!
Old 17th February 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
It is great indeed to see you here, Fred. Another user of your pre (SMP-6).
GrafRay, do you know what are talking about at all? You just jumping from forum to forum and don't seem to find anything that suits you. Maybe something wrong with your mic setup?
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 5882 views: 1881276
Avatar for Funny Cat
Funny Cat 8 hours ago
replies: 122 views: 29716
Avatar for RKeefe1032
RKeefe1032 13th February 2017
replies: 37 views: 9929
Avatar for Joram
Joram 10th July 2012
replies: 107 views: 15066
Avatar for Jeezo
Jeezo 10th April 2020
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump