Sennheiser 8040

[Albert Michaels]

Anyone here have experience with the Sennheiser 8040 as an interior mic?

I'm looking for a Schoeps alternative and wondering how it stacks up for those who have used both. I recently rented the 8040 and the 641 and preferred the sound of the 8040, but there's only so much testing one can do with a microphone rented for a day.

The 8040 seems like a win win with a decent suspension (more durable, cheaper, smaller, more neutral), but the Schoeps seems to be such a dominant mic, I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing.

 

[D Fuller]

I'm not an audio expert, but those I work with talk about the importance of the way the Schoeps handles off-axis sound. It makes for much more consistent sound from people who are moving, or from multiple people if you're actively booming them.

That's not to say anything against the 8040. i don't know that mic at all.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

Hi there,

The only issue I would raise is that the 8040 is a cardiod microphone so you are going to get a less present sound at the same distance than the MK41 which is a hypercardiod. That might be way it subjectively sounds better - it might seem to have a "fuller" sound. The MK41 is an exceptional mic. I have used it in some very difficult rooms and it has never let me down.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I've heard they sound very good but you need to use a good low cut/high pass filter with them b/c they have a very wide frequency response that extends far into the low end.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

We love our CMC641. An amazing microphone.

Stephen

 

[Tom Visser]

I use an 8050 on a boom for nearly all interior shots and quite a bit for exteriors too. The 8040 would be pretty wide for a boom mic. It might be a good choice if your working on a sound stage or other area that has "really controlled" isolation from noise pollution. You'll definitely pick up more room sound, so could be a bit splashy if you have a lot of hard surfaces. As a sound mixer, I'm actually not that concerned with picking up off-axis sounds too much, as the better solution is another take, more rehearsals, until the boom op gets it, or a 2nd operator. What is wonderful about the Schoeps is the fact that off-axis sounds fall off more or less with consistent sound power in the important frequency range for dialogue, so that the filtering effect of moving about the axis is minimized... not so much that it is good at capturing off axis sounds. In my experience, the Sennheiser mics share a similar character, but do lack a bit of the high frequency sheen that Schoeps is famous for, arguably recovered in post with a bit of EQ. In my experience, I "feel" that the Schoeps is a bit wider than the 8050 in general, but not nearly as wide as the 8040, which is another polar pattern altogether. The absolute noise floor of the 8050 is lower, one of the quietest mics out there, not saying anything negative about the Schoeps, as it is a quite high performance mic too. Both mics happen to have digital preamp bodies available for them, if you ever wish to experiment with AES42 (Sound Devices 788t recorders or Zaxom TRX942 wireless boom interfaces handle this new digital "standard").

I would love to use a Schoeps MK41 cap, but when spending my own money, went with the 8050, and don't feel that my decision compromised performance at all.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

Listen to Tom. If you are going to go Sennheiser, definitely get the 8050. It is much more suitable for film work unless you have some special application in mind that would require a cardioid pattern. As for brand choice, at this level of performance it does not matter whether you choose the Schoeps or the Sennheiser.

 

[Peter Moretti]

It's funny. I had heard that the 8040 was closer in pattern to Schoeps MK41 than the 8050 is. Essentially, the 8040 is a rather tight cardioid pattern.

I'm kind of facing the same ?, but for documentary work. What would you recommend for untreated rooms, e.g. a living room with normal height ceilings?

I already have an MKH-60, but it seems to pick up a tad of room reflection.

Thanks much.

 

[Albert Michaels]

It's funny. I had heard that the 8040 was closer in pattern to Schoeps MK41 than the 8050 is. Essentially, the 8040 is a rather tight cardioid pattern.

I had initially heard the same thing, but the more research I did, the more I began to question it. Now I'm rethinking my mic-buyin' strategy.

Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm really confused by all the options and I don't have much experience with the high end mics, but I know I need to make an investment.

 

[Tom Visser]

It's funny. I had heard that the 8040 was closer in pattern to Schoeps MK41 than the 8050 is. Essentially, the 8040 is a rather tight cardioid pattern.

I'm kind of facing the same ?, but for documentary work. What would you recommend for untreated rooms, e.g. a living room with normal height ceilings?

I already have an MKH-60, but it seems to pick up a tad of room reflection.

Thanks much.

I think the performance of the MK41 off axis evolved into a "wide cardioid" reputation, when this is not in fact the case. The important off axis characteristic is how it more evenly falls off in power in the frequency range that happens to be associated with dialogue... a bit wider than some hyper / super cardioid mics, yes, but not "wide" as in cardioid wide.

The MKH-60 is a somewhat unusual shotgun mic. I have one and also love it, but for a shotgun, has an uncharacteristically wide pickup pattern, which can be to its benefit in some circumstances, but is certainly not a precision tool like the 416, NTG3, or CMIT type short guns. Its most notable feature is its extremely low self noise, especially compared to the 416. For ADR I like the 60 better than the 416. For ENG or noisy environments, I prefer the 416.

 

[Tom Visser]

I had initially heard the same thing, but the more research I did, the more I began to question it. Now I'm rethinking my mic-buyin' strategy.

Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm really confused by all the options and I don't have much experience with the high end mics, but I know I need to make an investment.

I would narrow it down to the 641 or one of the Sennheiser "50" mics... the MKH 50 is really more of the standard than the relative newcomer, 8050. The 50 has slightly less self noise (does it really matter at these levels - both are excellent and head and shoulders above most of the competitors) and an on board filter. If you use the 8050, make sure you are happy with the low cut filters on your preamp. The 8050 is so compact, that is a nice feature in my eyes, and can get in really tight spots. The 641 has some cool swivel head options too, and both mics can "remote" the capsule if you wish, with special extension cabling - probably more useful for music applications. I really don't think you can loose choosing either - your basically picking amongst the two top hypercardioid mics in the biz. The Schoeps can be sensitive to humidity, something that probably was another deciding factor besides price when I made the decision to go with the 8050. Its susceptibility to humidity related failures is probably overblown for most, but if you work in really humid places like Hawaii or the South East, something to consider.

 

[D Fuller]

I use an 8050 on a boom for nearly all interior shots and quite a bit for exteriors too. The 8040 would be pretty wide for a boom mic. It might be a good choice if your working on a sound stage or other area that has "really controlled" isolation from noise pollution. You'll definitely pick up more room sound, so could be a bit splashy if you have a lot of hard surfaces. As a sound mixer, I'm actually not that concerned with picking up off-axis sounds too much, as the better solution is another take, more rehearsals, until the boom op gets it, or a 2nd operator. What is wonderful about the Schoeps is the fact that off-axis sounds fall off more or less with consistent sound power in the important frequency range for dialogue, so that the filtering effect of moving about the axis is minimized... not so much that it is good at capturing off axis sounds. In my experience, the Sennheiser mics share a similar character, but do lack a bit of the high frequency sheen that Schoeps is famous for, arguably recovered in post with a bit of EQ. In my experience, I "feel" that the Schoeps is a bit wider than the 8050 in general, but not nearly as wide as the 8040, which is another polar pattern altogether. The absolute noise floor of the 8050 is lower, one of the quietest mics out there, not saying anything negative about the Schoeps, as it is a quite high performance mic too. Both mics happen to have digital preamp bodies available for them, if you ever wish to experiment with AES42 (Sound Devices 788t recorders or Zaxom TRX942 wireless boom interfaces handle this new digital "standard").

I would love to use a Schoeps MK41 cap, but when spending my own money, went with the 8050, and don't feel that my decision compromised performance at all.

@Tom What you describe as characteristic of the Schoeps is exactly what my audio recordists have told me, only I couldn't articulate it as clearly.

@Albert: if cost is an issue, you can sometimes find the Schoeps used for reasonable prices at good dealers.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I would narrow it down to the 641 or one of the Sennheiser "50" mics... the MKH 50 is really more of the standard than the relative newcomer, 8050. The 50 has slightly less self noise (does it really matter at these levels - both are excellent and head and shoulders above most of the competitors) and an on board filter. If you use the 8050, make sure you are happy with the low cut filters on your preamp. The 8050 is so compact, that is a nice feature in my eyes, and can get in really tight spots. The 641 has some cool swivel head options too, and both mics can "remote" the capsule if you wish, with special extension cabling - probably more useful for music applications. I really don't think you can loose choosing either - your basically picking amongst the two top hypercardioid mics in the biz. The Schoeps can be sensitive to humidity, something that probably was another deciding factor besides price when I made the decision to go with the 8050. Its susceptibility to humidity related failures is probably overblown for most, but if you work in really humid places like Hawaii or the South East, something to consider.

Tom,

I can see how you would want a mic like an 8050 when micing one person. Or if it's more than one person but the talent are follwing lines that the boom operator can follow. (Although, to be honest, I've never seen a boom operator with a script in his hands while booming.)

So in the case of needing to overhead mic a two shot with a single mic, wouldn't a cardiod be preferred?

I'm really asking this ?, I don't know the answer, but would love to hear poeple's perspictive on it.

Thanks much!

 

[Tom Visser]

Tom,

I can see how you would want a mic like an 8050 when micing one person. Or if it's more than one person but the talent are follwing lines that the boom operator can follow. (Although, to be honest, I've never seen a boom operator with a script in his hands while booming.)

So in the case of needing to overhead mic a two shot with a single mic, wouldn't a cardiod be preferred?

I'm really asking this ?, I don't know the answer, but would love to hear poeple's perspictive on it.

Thanks much!

I think I can see where your going with this... you want to know if it is possible to cover multiple people with a wider mic like a cardioid. My answer is that I feel this is sloppy planning, perhaps with the goal achieved through luck or really great technique. Taking a step back, one measure of gauging the sound department's success on a shoot, is by the number of lines that need to be ADR'd in post. As a location mixer, the last thing that I want to do is to jeopardize production sound because of a microphone selection or condoning my boom op (or myself in many instances) attempting to cover two people in a standoffish / wide angle position. It is typical for good ops to bounce between the actors delivering lines. A well prepared mixer will have sides printed out and during rehearsals, the ops should have studies the sides and either follow closely during rehearsals or perform actual dry runs (good for finding lighting / shadow issues too).

My general SOP...

establishing, wide, some medium shots - bounce the boom between the actors as lines are delivered.

for closeups or mediums where there is a defined reverse or over the shoulder situation, focus on the primary subject. I'll really push the frame line with the mic to get as close as possible. In post, the editors can select the other person's dialogue from another take, their reverse, especially if there is no lip synch to deal with.

In addition to my 8050, I also used to own a pair of 8040s. I ended up selling them because I didn't use them enough to justify keeping them, but I was thinking along the lines that you suggested, having a wider mic for such situations. I found I just never ran into those situations. If I worked on a sound stage, had lots of time to put down carpets, sound blankets, and treat for room sounds, maybe I would have considered it more and gotten more use out of them, but for typical conditions, it simply did not happen.

You really want the directivity of a hyper/super/or lobar shotgun mic for most production situations. If you have sound coverage issues, your likely going to fall back on radio mics before you'll break out the cardioid mics.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Tom,

Do you think the 8050 would pickup less room reflections than the 60? Sometimes when I'm using the 60 in an untreated room, there is somewhat of an echo to the sound. Nothing too terrible, but it's something I'm trying to eliminate.

Thanks again .

 

[Tom Visser]

Tom,

Do you think the 8050 would pickup less room reflections than the 60? Sometimes when I'm using the 60 in an untreated room, there is somewhat of an echo to the sound. Nothing too terrible, but it's something I'm trying to eliminate.

Thanks again .

First, if you have a reverberant room, its going to most likely sound like a reverberant room no matter what mic you use. Some things to note...

1) super/hyper/lobar mics have a rear 180 pickup to them, due to the design of the mic. If you have a reflective ceiling surface, you should attempt to put sound blankets or some sort of acoustic absorptive material up there to help tame reflections that leak into the back 180 of such mics. Carpet under the feet of you talent will also help (addressing the other, primary pole of the mic).

2) getting the mic closer to the mouth and make sure it is actually aimed at the mouth/chin/neck/chest area will help. The mic should be nearly in the shot, possibly even visible on the monitor outside of the frame lines if your really concerned about it. Laziness or fear of reprisal may win over and ops sometimes don't push it, but if sound is important, as a director, you should encourage the op to really go for it (or tell the mixer, if chain of command is important), even if it means boom in the shot moments here and there.

3) the MKH60 is a pretty wide short shotgun. It is not as surgical as the other short shotguns that are popular. Quiet, lovely tone, but not that directional. I feel that the 8050 is actually tighter than the 60, except maybe for exteriors and distance micing. I use my 8050 for exteriors quite often too, especially on close and mediums. For interiors, the 8050 would help your echo situation, but not necessarily "fix" it. In fact, I think that most people's fist professional production mic should be a hyper/super-cardioid and not an interference tube shotgun, unless your doing primarily ENG.

 

[Adam C Lubkin]

Any experience with the digital preamp module on the Schoeps? How does it compare to the cmc5 and cmc6?

 

[Marc Wielage]

Not a lot of location recorders support AES digital yet. I'm not convinced going all digital is necessary, especially when you look at the noise levels in most locations, plus the huge expense of digital microphones.

The Schoeps digital Super-CMIT is causing some attention, but again, it's a $4000 microphone -- twice as expensive as the regular CMIT. Good locations and a great post crew can still achieve very good results.

BTW, the CMC6 is generally regarded as a better preamp than the older 5, mainly for resistance to RFI.

 

[Peter Moretti]

... the MKH60 is a pretty wide short shotgun. It is not as surgical as the other short shotguns that are popular. Quiet, lovely tone, but not that directional. I feel that the 8050 is actually tighter than the 60, except maybe for exteriors and distance micing. I use my 8050 for exteriors quite often too, especially on close and mediums. ...

I've "toyed" with the idea of getting a 70, but that's a two grand experiment. It's probably more of a rental mic.

 

[Tom Visser]

I've "toyed" with the idea of getting a 70, but that's a two grand experiment. It's probably more of a rental mic.

Keep an eye out for the new MKH 8070 and 8060 that are supposedly being developed. I do wish that in a addition to this, they would finally release the 8030 already. Every time I ponder an M-S rig, I get Schoeps envy.