AT4053b v AKG CK93

J

Joel G

New member
Hi everyone,

Well, I'm really confused. I've read and posted to several forums, but there seems to be a slight lack of consensus. I'm hoping this may help sort it out :).

I have a DSLR rig, shooting educational videos in an indoor set. Right now, I have an ME66 microphone, recording to a Zoom H4n pocket recorder. I have learned the hard way, as many forums point out, that the ME66 (or any other shotgun mic) is not ideal for indoor use.

So, I am looking for a mic suited to indoors. The AT4053b and CK93 are right now tied. (My budget is <$800, but I want a mic that will last me for the years to come, both in quality and durability. Ths rules out some of the cheaper mics, such Oktiva.)

I've heard good and bad about both mics. I was leaning toward the CK93, largely because of its modular design, but I read on this forum that the CK93 can be susceptible to humidity. In addition, people seem to think the other Blue Line capsules were not the best, meaning that the modular design is not as significant. People seemed to think that the AT4053b is the most tried and true alternative.

I'm planning on selling my ME66, and re-invest in one of these hypercardioids. Thus, I want the microphone that will be optimized for indoors, but also able to do some outdoors until I can save up for another shotgun mic.

Has anyone done a comparison between the two microphones -- 4053b and CK93? I searched for a shoot out between them, but could not find one comparing both at the same time.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance,

Joel
 
Can't comment on the AKG. The 4053 seems very durable, and if you didn't know, it is also modular and AT has a couple of other caps for it. The hyper capped 4053b is pretty directional, so if you need a wider pattern for your indoor shoot, you might consider a different caps. Recently, I queried the board about the quality of the omnis caps, but didn't really get much response. I have both the Oktava and 4053b and the 4053b is a pretty nice improvement in sound quality, mostly on the "richness" of the lower end. I wouldn't avoid the Oktava for the sake of quality, they are fine in that regard, in my experience. For a while, there were some Chinese knockoffs which sullied up the Oktava reputation for quality, but I think those have mostly disappeared. If you check the Sound Room Site, they have a page on how to tell if a Oktava is genuine or not. Regardless of which mic you purchase, include a Baby Ball Gag in your budget; you'll need this for any hand held booming.

Grant
 
Thanks, Grant. I wouldn't mind going with the Oktava -- it is certainly cheaper! However, I want a microphone that I will be satisfied with (in terms of audio quality) for years to come. If you were deciding between the Oktava and the 4053b, which one would you opt for? Do you think the AT's quality is appreciably better, to justify the extra $200?

By the way, most of my videos will be posted to the web. But a few will be shown on large-scale speaker systems, such as in churches or for events.
 
The Okatavas are decent mics, but I would never reach for the Oktava if I had a 4053b available. I have kept the Oktavas for spares, I have omni and hyper caps, and if I needed a multiple channels. Mostly they sit.

Grant
 
Well, I can't speak to the CK93, but the AT4053b is a modular system like the CK93. While I haven't used the omni cap, the hyper and cardioid caps sound very good. I've also never had a problem with humidity affecting the mic, even though I live in Florida and regularly operate in 80% and above humidity.
 
What your going to find at this level is that "quality" is not really an issue. Different mics sound different and you will find a lot of posts on the web talking about "quality" when really they are talking about the users preference. I'm sure you found that with the ME66. Some call it brittle and noisy and others call it "clear". Some of that depends on how many hours you spent with an iPod plugged into your brain but a lot has to do with preference.
Oktava's have common ancestor with Schoeps and they have some of the same issues. They are both pretty sensitive to handling noise, they both can pick up low end subsonic stuff that can kill you. A low roll off helps a lot and you have to treat them with respect. A lot of other mics are much more immune to handling noise. You can get great results from both (actually any of them in this range). The Oktava's are cheaper because they really haven't done any R&D on these since the thirties and they are made in a very low labor rate area. They used (may still) have some QA issues out of the factory but if you buy from The Sound Room they test them independently so you should not have to worry about it even if it hasn't improved. You do have to watch out buying from anybody else because a brit who originally started importing them claimed he owned the name (Russia and the US don't have a copyright treaty) and started selling cheap Chinese knock offs under the same name. There are ways to tell them apart but the most sure one requires opening up the mic so don't count on a seller agreeing to that.

In your boat I would add some points to a modular system that has a shotgun capsule that will fit because your probably not going to be using them at the same time and the capsule will save you some cash over buying a second mic.

Of course the flip side is you could buy an Oktava and a shot gun for what some of the others cost.

Remember to figure in a decent shock mount and some good wind protection (even indoors).

I have used both an Oktava Hyper and Cardioid outside. They work fine if you can get close enough. It's a wider pattern (than a shotgun) so if you can't get close your going to pick up a lot of ambience. If it's quiet that can be OK but if your on the street it can be a pretty serious draw back.
Remember shotguns are not telephoto lenses they don't pick up any more of what you want than a hyper will at the same distance. But because of the tighter pattern you will pick up a lot less of what you don't want. If you think of what yo want as "signal" and what you don't want as "noise". Shotguns are not any more sensitive but have a much higher signal to noise ratio. If you can pick the locations and the shots you can use just about any pattern and get good results.
 
The AT4053b is a bit better sounding, but also it's other caps are good sounding. The AKG's other caps are not as good as the Hyper cap, so the value of a modular mic is lost on the AKG. Also there have been issues reported with more susceptibility with humidity with the AKG.

AT4053b all the way baby...
 
There is a user, cant totally remember his name. MattenSSL? He did this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbzNgmrCBQs

He has both mics and is the one who told me about the humidity thing and the alternate caps not being worth it on the AKG. Anyone know his user name here? He hasn't been around in the last year or two...
 
chadfish (and any one else)-

what is the difference between the at4053a and the at4053b?

thanks

rob
smalltalk productions
 
Not sure. I think they are pretty close, but they just updated the "a" and called it "b". Just google "AT4053a vs AT4053b forum" and see what comes up.
 
Chadfish said:
There is a user, cant totally remember his name. MattenSSL? He did this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbzNgmrCBQs

He has both mics and is the one who told me about the humidity thing and the alternate caps not being worth it on the AKG. Anyone know his user name here? He hasn't been around in the last year or two...
Click to expand...

MatinSL as in Mat in Saint Lewis.

Haven't seen him post in awhile. He made some custom cables for me, wish I had bought more!
 
Joel G said:
Now I'm leaning toward the 4053b.

Chadfish, does the 4053b tend to overemphasize bass? (Found your video: http://vimeo.com/21091547) Maybe it's my earphones...
Click to expand...

I think the mic sound great in those examples! You hear the full spectrum of the voice. I have lots of videos where I was using the AT4053b where it sounds perfect to me. Most of my mic shootouts and reviews are done with the AT4053b, when I'm not featuring a particular mic. It's my default on-cam mic. I used to think I liked the brightness of the Rose NT3, but now it's just clear to me that it's highlighting sibilance, and sounding brittle.
 
Listening again...

Listening again...

Listening to the clip again, I think you're right. Comparing it to the 1996 Hamlet film (which is shot in very reflective rooms), the 4053b captures a similarly full and rich sound. I guess I'm too used to lower end microphones!

Thanks for your feedback. I'm off to put in my order for the 4053b.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top