Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Recent Mic Review

N

Neil Uchitel

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
audio.slappo.com
In case you guys haven't seen this, it's a pretty helpful review of 11 microphones used for location work with a budget range of $260 to $2000. He's not an audio professional, but a working producer with a great appreciation for audio and some impressive technical knowledge. It's a great place to start when considering a microphone.

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html

When listening to the sound samples, use good headphones or professional speakers. Laptop or computer speakers don't have the frequency range to replicate the sound properly.

Cheers,
 
The two microphones that I would add for initial consideration is the 416, for a couple of reasons... it is quite popular (for a good reason) and due to its popularity, can be easily found on the second hand market. It doesn't have the high end boutique appeal of some of the other mics, but it is a workhorse and never lets you down.

The other mic, and I think that I noticed you are a fan too, is the Sennheiser MKH 8050, which I happen to also own (along with an MKH-60). It is a cheaper and more compact interpretation of the MKH-50. I'm not sure, but the MKH-50 may be one of the highest output and lowest self-noise mics on that list. The reviewer seemed to notice a presence of "more everything", that "exciting" sound he called it. I would attribute this simply being part of this mic's intrinsic characteristics and excellent signal to noise (self or room) performance. He also called it "compressed". It should be noted that when using a hyper/super cardioid non-shotgun, the mic element is likely going to be closer to the subject, as the length of the physical interference tube is not factored in. Low levels will be captured with higher gain. Factor that in with its excellent low-self noise and high output levels, it explains why you might get more consistent levels during a take. It may not sound as "natural" as the Schoeps, but the job of a location mixer is not necessarily to get a "natural sound", but a clean sound that can be used for the remixers to lay down ADR, foley, and SFX, or to mix and manipulate in room tone as appropriate in post so that the end result is natural.
 
Hey Tom,

The 416 is definitely a standard mic found in a lot of places, esp. post production VO booths. I have one. But, it is definitely "colored" in its sound. I think it's too thin, esp outdoors. I also have a KMR81i which I definitely like, but it is a bit bright.

For the benefit of the Red audience (and as a post guy who does an occasional stint of production sound), I'd say that the best production sound should be as clean as possible, and then, as "accurate" as possible. A very good shotgun with substantial off-axis noise rejection should be of primary concern for the cleanest audio. Supercardiod or hypercardioid only, unless you are recording a large group of people. In post, I can't get rid of white/band noise without massive artifacting, making it basically useless. So, if someone is shooting anywhere close to street noise, water, an airport or in a really reverberant space (like a loft, where it seems a lot of low budget stuff is shot), then anything that doesn't have substantial directional isolation will result in generally unusable audio.

If I didn't already have a Schoeps, I'd get the 8050. It's an outstanding mic. For SFX recording, it has a great bottom end too. He didn't get into DPA mics either, which are also outstanding, but are also $$$$.
 
Another awesome shotgun mic is the Schoeps CMIT5U. I don't know why I keep forgetting to mention that one. It has a slightly different coloration than the MK41, but has a that great natural Schoeps sound, great EQ options on the mic itself, and is unusually light for a large shotgun. It's also $2k. I hadn't used it in a while and used it the other day it on a reshoot of some footage that I wasn't involved with originally. Afterwards, the editor told me it seamlessly blended right in with the existing sound from the original shoot.
 
When I started my career over 20 years back I worked as an ENG Team with my Betacam Ikegami and of course a sound package. I owned a SQN mixer, two Tram lavaliers, a Sennheiser ME80 and a Sennheiser MKH 416. I never liked the sound of the two Sennheiser mics. The ME80 sounded to dull for me whereas the MKH 416 was too thin, sounding a bit like through a Coke can. I then bought an old, used Sennheiser 421 which was ugly but at least had the most natural sound.

The years passed by and I didn't care much about location sound, entirely leaving this to the sound guys. 5 years ago I re-discovered the beauty of great location sound because I had to do a documentary and the soundman was a seasoned feature pro. The sound turned out to be much better than I expected. I found out why: The Schoeps MK41 was in the dead cat. This mic was a revelation for me. I know own one.

Hans
 
My Choice = Sanken CS-1
 
There's a number of 'short' shotgun microphones available for (quality) production sound be it Neumanns, Sankens, Schoeps (never tried out the Sennheiser 421 though), but I suppose the reason that the Sennheiser 416 is/has been used in more productions than any other microphone ever is not that it sounds 'thin'. Pretty much every sitcom i.e. uses 416s on their Fisher booms (even up on the catwalks). How thin does that sound?

I do own a fairly extensive collection of microphones and come back to the 416 (when a shotgun mic is asked for) again and again. Replacing it or any other shotgun with a Schoeps 41 in such situations is not something I would do. It can be done of course, but that comes with a price very few people or productions are willing to pay.

Additionally, when selecting a microphone, there's also the issue of dependability. One could say here that nothing beats a 416.

Regarding the CMIT, it certainly is a nice microphone. And the minute it came on the market all those references saying something like 'shotgun microphones by design produce mediocre audio and therefore Schoeps won't manufacture them' vanished from Schoeps' website ;-)
 
Last edited:
Schoeps CMC641 and CMIT-5U here, as well. They cut together quite well. More usefully perhaps, we found that the Sonotrim lavs cut amazingly well with both Schoeps boom mics, as well. I was really shocked at how well they all play together.

Stephen
 
Yes, its Schoeps Mk41 all the way.

Interestingly though, I still reach for the Senn 416 in outdoor or tough situations. That mic just wont go away.
 
I've been wrestling with the choice between the the CMIT and CMC641 for a while now as I can only afford one. I know they are different types of mics, the review was very good but those who have real world experience with both let me know what your choice would be fi you had to chose 1 of them.It would be my only mic so that means I would do interiors, exteriors etc..
 
Jamon, if you really only can afford one, then.....don't buy Schoeps or buy used. If you take sound seriously, you're going to need (at least) a short shotgun and a hyper-cardiod for interiors.
Also something that needs to be mentioned again and again: proper technique beats 'brands' any time of the day. If your microphone is in the wrong place it so doesn't matter if it's a Schoeps or the latest Chinese wonder mike. Don't want to preach to the choir, but just in case, a camera mounted microphone is pretty much always in the wrong place.
To what lavs cut 'seemlessly' with the 'Schoeps' or any other condensor microphone: NONE of them do. Or if you want, ALL of them do.
There are so many variables when using lavs and boom mics together that generalizations like this don't make sense.
Besides, the 'wireless system' one uses too has quite an influence on the 'sound'.
 
Jamon,

Either one is fantastic, but the CMC641 is the more preferred mic of the two, in part because the off axis coloration is very limited (meaning, it sounds the same even when off mic). The pattern is a slight bit wider than the CMIT, but that could be good if you are recording more than 1 person at a time, or you're not exactly pointing at the speaker's mouth. The CMIT is a bit brighter, but since it's a shotgun, it's got better off-axis attenuation, is light as a feather and has some neat on-board options. I prefer the 41 myself, and if I could only have one mic in the world, I'd have that one. But, that's also because I mostly use it for gathering SFX. Getting dialog is secondary for me. If you're never going to gather SFX and are going to be in more "extreme" conditions of dialog recording (lots of background noise, single subjects only), I might say get the CMIT. But, it is a more specialized mic. It just depends upon what subject matter you're going to be shooting most of the time.
 
Jamon Lewis said:
I've been wrestling with the choice between the the CMIT and CMC641 for a while now as I can only afford one. I know they are different types of mics, the review was very good but those who have real world experience with both let me know what your choice would be fi you had to chose 1 of them.It would be my only mic so that means I would do interiors, exteriors etc..
Click to expand...

Neither get a CCM41 its much smaller. Same as the 641 tough but as big as the capsule alone. The electronics are exactly the same spec.

But before the polar pattern is considered, bear in mind that the first rule of recording is, Its more important what a microphone isn't pointing at rather than what it is looking at.

In other words you can usually get a microphone in to more than one acceptable position to record audio at good perspective from the desired source and use the polar pattern to exclude unwanted sounds.

Hyper carioid mics with a well controlled polar pattern are good at this.
 
I boomed a Neumann KMR81 for a sound pro some years back on an indie feature. The review is not kidding when it talks about exceptional off axis rejection. Loved the sound of that mic. I've recorded concerts with a pair of Neumann something or others a long time ago too. Very fond of Neumanns in general but could never afford to buy a set.
 
Neil Uchitel said:
Stephen, that's very interesting to know. I was thinking about getting some DPA lavs, but maybe I'll consider the Sonotrims.
Click to expand...

I had to decide between DPAs and VoiceTechnologies and chose the VoiceTechs. The reason: smaller but equally rich and a tad less expensive.

Hans
 
Neil Uchitel said:
Jamon,

Either one is fantastic, but the CMC641 is the more preferred mic of the two, in part because the off axis coloration is very limited (meaning, it sounds the same even when off mic). The pattern is a slight bit wider than the CMIT, but that could be good if you are recording more than 1 person at a time, or you're not exactly pointing at the speaker's mouth. The CMIT is a bit brighter, but since it's a shotgun, it's got better off-axis attenuation, is light as a feather and has some neat on-board options. I prefer the 41 myself, and if I could only have one mic in the world, I'd have that one. But, that's also because I mostly use it for gathering SFX. Getting dialog is secondary for me. If you're never going to gather SFX and are going to be in more "extreme" conditions of dialog recording (lots of background noise, single subjects only), I might say get the CMIT. But, it is a more specialized mic. It just depends upon what subject matter you're going to be shooting most of the time.
Click to expand...


Thanks great info...I'll be (having someone) recording dialog and using it myself for interviews and documentaries.


Karl Lohninger said:
Jamon, if you really only can afford one, then.....don't buy Schoeps or buy used. If you take sound seriously, you're going to need (at least) a short shotgun and a hyper-cardiod for interiors.
Also something that needs to be mentioned again and again: proper technique beats 'brands' any time of the day. If your microphone is in the wrong place it so doesn't matter if it's a Schoeps or the latest Chinese wonder mike. Don't want to preach to the choir, but just in case, a camera mounted microphone is pretty much always in the wrong place.
To what lavs cut 'seemlessly' with the 'Schoeps' or any other condensor microphone: NONE of them do. Or if you want, ALL of them do.
There are so many variables when using lavs and boom mics together that generalizations like this don't make sense.
Besides, the 'wireless system' one uses too has quite an influence on the 'sound'.
Click to expand...


Im fanatic about sound, I've gotten great sound with a rode ntg-1, a sound devices pre amp and a cheap recorder so I know and am anal about getting sound....Thanks but im getting one of them :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top