Hey Slutz! So does the MKH 8060 sound similar to the 416, but just better and more modern? Specifically I'd like to know, with its lobar polar pattern, does the MKH 8060 have any of that similar "in your face" quality as the 416?

Looking to pick up an additional mic for my VO booth, for specific tasks, and I've narrowed down my choice to either the MKH 8060 or MKH-50. Two flavors, yet in the same-ish ballpark. I've read up on the specs and know the differences, but I'd love to hear opinions from anyone with experience using either or both of these mics, especially in the context of close-up VO work.

Currently, I use a 416 to cut most of my daily workload, and I have a love/hate relationship with this nearly 40 year old technology. Originally designed for use with tape-based recording, I'm wondering if the new broadcast mic offerings from Sennheiser will still give me what I need for work and more with better fidelity, modern sonics and less noise.

The MKH-50 feels like less of a direct replacement for the 416 but would give me additional options for natural-sounding dialogue-y jobs (like when it's supposed to be some regular guy off the street giving that awesome testimonial for his amazing dentist in a radio commercial) and possibly also for some specific character voice work, along with maybe a different flavor for commercial work that doesn't have to compete with a music bed. My understanding is that the MKH-50's super-cardioid sounds a wee bit more natural than the 8060's hyper-c.

Ultimately, I'm interested in both, but I'd love to hear any opinions from those who have used either/both before I choose which one to get first. I know some folks don't think that shotguns are best for VO work, but for years the 416 has worked for me for my voice and what I do and a lot of my clients expect that sound. I'm just looking for a couple more paint brushes in my jar.

And, just to clarify, I'm not looking for LDC options. Thankfully, got that covered. Right now I'm looking for an SDC/shotgun to cover specific types of my own voice work. If the MKH 8060 can overlap what the 416 does, but do a better job with lower noise, then that's a plus. And for the purposes of this post, please let's limit it to opinions of the MKH 50 and MKH 8060 only. Thanks in advance!

I would say that the 416 technology was over 40 years old as the 416 was basically the phantom powered version of the older MKH 415.

The MKH 50 is a very different beastie, being a super-cardioid, rather tha n an interference tube mic.

The 8060 has the same directivity as the 416, but is a very much better mic. Far less distortion and a lot cleaner and quieter.

Personally, I would never buy a 416 nowadays and would go for the 8060 instead.

Thank you, John. I very much appreciate the input from you. Do you think that the 50 may sound too boxy/wooly in a small well-treated VO booth when used up close?

I'm guessing the 8060 would really overlap a lot of what I would cut on the 416 and the 50 would cover more of the ground between commercial reads that need to cut through music and the narrations or character voice jobs that work better for me on an LDC.

The MKH 40 series (which includes the MKH 50) are very natural and neutral in sound - the most natural voice sound I ever heard was from an MKH 40 - so the 50 will tell it as it is. The 8060 will have the same directivity as the 416, but will have lower noise and distortion and be more natural.

Personally, for speech I use a Gefell M 930 or a Sennheiser MD 421, depending on the situation.

I'm curious about the M930 and have read lots of good stuff about it. My hesitation is that I know it's similar (but smoother) than a TLM 103 and I had a 103 years ago and didn't really love it. I am using a TLM 107 for certain narrations and character voice work and really think it gels with my voice well. Just kinda exploring options for the stuff that straddles the gamut of work between what the 107 does for me and what the 416 is necessary for.

do you have access to the Scheops ?? i have a CMC4 / MK41 and love it for any voice !!! i also have a 416 and used to have a 415 before it was stolen .. the 415 if i remember was a Flat Response MIc .. the 416 had a little bump for dialog .. i always liked the 415 ... i like my microphones, like my women .. Flat !!! haha .. so not true !!!

All I can say is to suggest you borrow a demo M930 from the distributor in your country and give it a try to see if you like it.

Trying for yourself is the only way really.

Good advice. Thank you!

I'll take a look at the newer CMC641. I hadn't considered it.

So, FWIW, last night I was thinking about how the 416 was designed to hit magnetic tape. Today, I had a morning full of rather dry narrations about (yawn) how financial institutions can avoid financial risk. Now, normally, I wouldn't necessarily use the 416 on this job, but while pre-reading over the copy I inserted the UAD Ampex plug-in right before my DAW and really liked the result with the 416 so much that I cut all the narration with it. Smoother, warmer and that little bit of low end "tape bump" from the Ampex filled in kind of a notch of low-mid hollowness I felt like I was getting on my voice before.

So, long story short, while it doesn't make the 416 quieter, nor does it make it more modern-sounding, I found the Ampex plug in gives it just enough of a tape-like nuance that the recording sounded a lot more natural than just going straight to digital.