Hyper (AT4053) vs. Super (MKH-416)?

N

nyvideo

Active member
Has anyone worked with both the Audio-Technica AT4053b and the Sennheiser MKH-416? I'm looking to upgrade from my Rode NTG-2 for (mainly) indoor narrative stuff and I was looking at the T4053b. However, someone I know raved about the MKH-416 with a "If you're gonna spend the money for the Audio-Technica you may as well spend a little more and get the Sennheiser."

Of course this guy has more discretionary money than I so to him it's not a big deal to spend more than 50% more for the Sennheiser on a Super-/Hyper- cardioid microphone.

I was just wondering what others' experiences might offer.

Thanks.
 
A supercardioid and a hypercardioid aren't the same thing. They have different uses. A super (a shotgun) is better for outdoors; a hyper is better for indoors.
 
They are different microphones for different purposes. The AT4053b is at its best on a boom or stand for indoor dialog recording, while the shotgun is a better choice for outdoors where distances are greater and room reflections are less of an issue.

"Someone you know" might just as well have advised you that a telephoto lens is better than a wide angle lens because it magnifies the subject more. :) In reality, you are looking to choose the appropriate tool for the job at hand.

- Greg
 
There seems to be a lot of mis-information here.

The MKH 416 is definitely NOT a super-cardioid microphone.

First we really need to define the differences between a super-cardioid and a hyper-cardioid microphone:-

Hyper-Cardioid
The hyper-cardioid microphone has it’s angle of maximum rejection at 109.5°.
It is optimised for the maximum directivity coefficient of 4.0.
Rejection at 90° is -12dB
Rejection at 180° is -6dB

Super-Cardioid
The super-cardioid microphone has it’s angle of maximum rejection at 125.3°.
It is optimised for the maximum front to rear index and has a directivity coefficient of 3.73.
Rejection at 90° is -8.7dB
Rejection at 180° is -11.6dB

Sennheiser Super-Cardioid
The Sennheiser super-cardioid microphone has it’s angle of maximum rejection at 120°.
It is optimised for equal attenuation at 90° and 180°, it has a directivity coefficient of 3.86.
Rejection at 90o° is -9.5dB Rejection at 180° is also -9.5dB The attenuation at 90° is equal to the attenuation at 180° (the 180° signal being out-of-phase of course), this means that the attention is concentrated on the sound coming to the front of the microphone.

The disadvantage of the hyper-cardioid is that sounds from the rear can be too high due to the lack of rear attenuation, and the disadvantage of the standard super-cardioid is that its side rejection is not enough.

Please note that these are the theoretical figures which may differ slightly in practice.

The MKH 416 is a gun (or lobar) interference tube microphone. The basic capsule is a super-cardioid, but it has an interference tube on the front which makes it very much more directional at higher frequencies.

The AT is a standard hyper-cardioid mic.

The 416 is the industry standard gun mic. and is much more directional at high frequencies (though, personally, I would get the new MKH 8060 if buying new nowadays as it's much better).
 
Thanks to all of you for the information. Clearly I was mistaken in my assumption that these two microphones were designed for the exact same tasks. My goal is to find a good microphone for mostly indoor booming. I think the AT is worth a try.

(I know that there are a lot of strong opinions on all online forums in general and this one is no different. However, I’ve always felt that the knowledgeable folks here rarely state their opinions as dogma. Thank you again for your supportive and informative responses.)
 
If it's any help:

http://youtu.be/uRH3_2optDE

Starting about 0:40 the speaker is the AT4053b recorded directly into a Canon XF100 (uncompressed Linear PCM audio). No EQ in post. Considering it was recorded in a back corner of the large, live room that is shown in the video, I find the reverb/echo/self-noise etc. to be pretty well controlled. But then again, I'm just an amateur doing stuff like this pro bono for non-profits in retirement :-) The mic was on a stationary mic stand with boom arm holding the mic about 12-15" above her mouth, just out of frame. Keep in mind this was after YT compression, too. I never shoot anything outside, so the 4053 was a no-brainer. I got it last summer when they were still $499 new at B&H.
 
Here are some test examples I did. I love my AT 4053b, and thing it's the cat's pajamas for the price.

 
That was a funny comparison. Thanks for posting.

Although... I would have liked to hear what the song sounded like with the hypercardioids.
 
Unless you have a lot of reflections.......Hyper and Super Cardioid patterns indoors may not be the best choices for interior use. Cardioid patterns in close booming in interiors is a good choice also.
 
"Hyper and Super Cardioid patterns indoors may not be the best choices for interior use. "

Hyper is the perfect pattern for indoor use Doc. That's why we keep suggesting it. You get no phase issues from reflections like with a shotgun, and you still get great side rejection. What's not to like?
 
Specifically, interference tube shotgun mics are generally not good for rooms with early reflections. ( from close-by walls, floors, ceilings)
 
Rick R said:
Specifically, interference tube shotgun mics are generally not good for rooms with early reflections. ( from close-by walls, floors, ceilings)
Click to expand...

Yes - it's due to the comb'filter effect of the tube.

However, modern interference tube mics, such as the new Sennheiser MKH 8060, are much better in this respect and the product manager says these are fine for indoor use.
 
I've been searching the web for help with improving my audio recording quality when I came across this thread. For the past 2-3 years, I've been recording testimonial style interviews for charities. I've done perhaps 50+. However, I was never satisfied with the noise level in my audio. I began with a sony lav (ecm-44b) plugged into a Zoom h4n (xlr) and did that for several years. Tried every variation of h4n settings from auto gain to compressors/limiters and manual gain but never got what seemed to be "satisfying" results. I bought a sony nx70 camcorder last fall and tried plugging the lav into its xlr input and that seemed a "little" better. I recently did a lot of research on the AT4053b and the use of pre-amps and decided to invest in the 4053b and an Apogee Duet. No joy. With the mic boomed on a stand 10-12 inches above and slightly in front of the speaker's head in various controlled indoor rooms (or even my home office), the noise results are unsatisfying. There is always a noticeable hiss in the audio. My videos are often shown in a church sanctuary with a lot of dynamic range required. I would really like to achieve an audio recording with a good dynamic range and a minimum of "noise". I'm well read and studied on this but definitely not an audio pro (obviously). Any help would be humbly welcomed and appreciated.

Below are recent examples. The first 4 are of 2 different men who are miced with the ecm44b lav and boomed with the AT4053b. They are input into the apogee xlrs and recorded originally into a 24-bit aifc file via quicktime. The last file is a female speaker with the 4053 on a boom pole and directly into the nx70 xlr with manual gain.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18311399/4053b+Apogee.wav
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18311399/ECM44b+Apogee.wav
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18311399/2_4053b+Apogee.wav
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18311399/2_ECM44b+Apogee.wav
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18311399/4053b+NX70.wav

Thanks again,

~ Chris
 
Well the last one is miced from quite a distance. I don't hear a lot of "noise" but you are getting some "air" (the sound of the room, Ac etc) in there.

The only way I know to minimize that in an uncontrolled field environment is to get close. You can also use a dynamic mic if that is possible. Sounds like you may be doing audio only recordings in which case I would go for a dynamic as close as you can get. That will kill most of the environment. If your filming it's harder. This however is the kind of "noise" that is pretty removable with noise reduction applications. What I hear anyway is pretty steady state and not stepping on the main vocal.
 
Captain Jack. Why didn't you get a proper preamp for video production? Something like a SoundDevices MixPre is the right tool for the job. But anyway, listening to the last file it sounds like you have the mic a bit far away, and the camera's audio recording level too low. The sony lav into the Apogee sounds loud enough, but you are picking up the self noise of the lav. Try a Rode lav, or a Sanken COS11d. But back to preamps. A good clean preamp like the MixPre-D boosts your level cleanly so you can turn down the gain on your zoom or your camera. Ideally you keep your zoom or camera audio levels at 50-60%. Beyond that you start adding noise from the devices pres. You may want to try turning up you Apogee's output, and turning down the Zoom.
 
CaptJackRyan said:
There is always a noticeable hiss in the audio.
Click to expand...

This is most often preamp noise, usually from the weakest link in the recording chain. This is why you see recommendations to use a decent field mixer, like the SD MixPre D. Use the preamps in the field mixer to boost the signal going into your recorder, and turn down the gain on your recorder to compensate for the increased signal coming from the mixer. Most of the time this simple procedure reduces hiss to acceptable levels.
 
Thanks for all the responses and recommendations. I have to admit some surprise that the Apogee is not more highly regarded given its excellent reputation and the strong reviews I read about the SNR of their DSPs. I realize now after looking at the SD MixPre D on B&H that it would be about the same price and definitely seems better suited for the video production work I'm doing. I may not be too far out to return the Apogee and substitute the SD if its really going to be an improvement over the DUET 2 and a change in my (poor?) technique.

With regard to the AT4053b, is it an ideal mic for interior recording on an overhead boom? The MKH-416 was recommended to me but I opted for the AT4053b after reading that it was better suited to interior dialogue recording.

Kind regards to all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top