Low Cost Small Condenser Options

MattinSTL said:
Yes.

No worries.

I'm tempted to start a new thead with the oktava vs. schoeps in it... but I'll get it posted here anyway... just to prove my earlier point.

90% of us here are using these for location dialog... don't LOOK for things to worry about. If you are doing binaural recordings of music or xy (or ortf) stereo recordings of strings... then I'd consider some mods... and I'm not KNOCKING the mods... I'm just saying that for this community... I'd like to hear how easy it is for you guys to pick the stock octava from a schoeps mk41.

This audio is/will be dated... but screw it... I'm firing up the HD and finding it. BRB.

OK... I'm back... here you go Which is which? <click that... and I'm sorry for the 1K beeps between clips!

So... which is which? Is it SOSO, or OSOS, or SOOS, or OSSO? As you try to figure that out... think about my earlier points... (once again I'm putting my time and/or money where my mouth is)... and for the record, yes I can definitely hear the differences, but the Schoeps is $1500... so... what do YOU hear? Do you think the mods will turn that $250 mic into a $1500 location dialog mic of Schoeps caliber? If it's this hard to easily distinguish the difference in a $250 stock Oktava and a $1500 cmc6 w/ mk41... well... whatever... again, while it sounds like I'm knocking the mods... I just don't want people to think the reason their last location sound gig didn't sound better was the stock mic's fault... instead use a little more discipline or a better boom op and keep the mic consistently on the frame line... THEN you'll hear what you were missing.
Click to expand...

I liked samples 2 & 3, -- 3 being the best of all 4 IMO.

Also, I have three Oktava's MK 012s which I use for production sound and I've used in my studio as well along side my U87, 414, NTV, etc... they do just fine up there with the LDCs for studio work. The MK 012s are a very nice value for the money; IMO the best value out there currently. It's good to hear they have improved the quality on build & circuit. The faults I find with them are some quality issues (connection pin to module and a few others) and their sensitivity --- which is actually a valued attribute in the correct situation. I don't have the Schoeps yet but I do like what I heard.
 
Last edited:
My guess would be the same as the file is named OSOS. But that might be influenced by the fact that 2 & 4 are slightly hotter than 1 & 3. Though my very first impression was OSSO. If I remember correctly (it was years ago so???) the Schoeps were about 5dB hotter than the Oktava's that I tested. Maybe differences would be more apparent in an uncompressed file but they are VERY close.
 
If you couldn't hear the difference in the clips, may I suggest new headphones or speakers, or possibly a battery for your hearing aid?

One pair had a low cut filter, the other didn't. And one was significantly brighter than the other. Normalizing that took those variables out of the equation. Two and Four still sounded better.
 
Anyone can tell me where the Shure sm89 compare? I know it's a supercardoid but it does not seem to be a popular choice. I had it for free and I now have an Oktava. Of course i will test and see for myself but I'd like your opinion.
 
OK, I listened once again, but this time instead of my laptop's built-in speakers ;) I put on my Grado SR225 reference headphones.

I still like samples 2 & 3 best. Sample 2 has a touch better mid definition over sample 1 to my old ears and sample 3 is hotter, more full bodied [sounds like close proximity miking compared to sample 4] and 3 reduces the lispy "esses" compared to sample 4. Sample 3 sounds like something I would want to work with in post.

The best part of the comparison is that the Oktava is very comparable to the expensive Schoeps. That says plenty.
 
Neither has a low cut filter... both are flat... and actually there are no tricks... it is exactly as named... OSOS... I just thought I'd throw in some phony mystery to suggest a double-blind test.

The Oktava has a lower-mid-bass bloom... which slightly muddies the sound (SLIGHTLY) and the Schoeps has a more crisp presence... especially cleaner above 1K... but then the Schoeps also has more sibilance unless you're running through an extremely high-end recording chain... If you're running directly into a mid-low-end recorder, such as HD-P2 or Marantz... or ESPECIALLY directly into a DVX/HVX/etc. then the Oktava will sound like it has LESS sibilance due to the Schoeps higher sensitivity in the 8K and up range...

Overall I'd take a Schoeps on location... but let's face it... your last indi-shoot didn't suffer poor location audio due to the mic you used. (speaking to ANYBODY... not to SOMEbody)...
 
1240361636.jpg


There is a low cut filter on the Schoeps, whether they say it or not. Or your recording equipment added it. It would be hard with the pictures, but the edges are sharper also with less noise in the voids. That is very audible on my system...1 and 3 have a background noise missing in 2 and 4.

You can see your 1k tones.

P.S.
Dan Brockett has both the Oktava and the Schoeps on his shotgun test in the sticky on this forum.
 
Last edited:
remember one thing here..
the schoeps/oktava comparison is one thing 6 inches of their heads in a perfect spot.

Try it again off axis, then try it again 2 ft out...then try it again with very quiet dialog..then try it again with....

I think you get my point.




Edit:
i just listened to those clips..
and as someone who uses a schoeps every day of his professional life..
the schoeps I heard on that clip is NOT the quality im used to recording.
I didnt take the time to read all the specs of what you recorded to or what mixer you went through...etc..

When I record through a schoeps it sounds WAY better than this.
And I could hear it that blatantly even through my computer speakers.
No offense meant Matt.
 
Last edited:
Dude... you have a $30K sound bag... that was two mics ran into a DVX.

The point is directed at THAT guy... not at a professional sound man with kit good enough to do location sound for summer blockbusters.

That's the problem with this place some times... there's so little consideration for the end user... it's everything told from a personal perspective. The title of the thread is LOW COST SMALL CONDENSER OPTIONS... then it quickly evolves into why you have to mod that Oktava to make it any good for a "low cost small condenser option"...

All I'm trying to do with all of this is provide a voice of reason directed at the very title of this thread.

So... no offense taken :)

The Schoeps you're hearing in that clip is a BRAND NEW cmc6 w/ mk41... a local friend (Joe Krass) was generous enough to provide his own mic for a bunch of these tests... He's a great guy that shares my interest in sound... the thing still smelled new when I ran this test... and it was up against my very experienced Oktavas.

Again... apples to oranges... but then again, that was the whole point. I'm very very familiar with the Schoeps... and the perfect onion polar pattern... this thread isn't about that... because if there's one thing I can sure guarantee you... it's that no matter how much you mod the electronics inside of the Oktava... you aren't going to change the polar pattern much. That is a function of many attributes of the Schoeps... mainly... the mk41 cap (in this case)... we are talking about SOUND.
 
MattinSTL said:
Dude... you have a $30K sound bag... that was two mics ran into a DVX.

The point is directed at THAT guy... not at a professional sound man with kit good enough to do location sound for summer blockbusters.

That's the problem with this place some times... there's so little consideration for the end user... it's everything told from a personal perspective. The title of the thread is LOW COST SMALL CONDENSER OPTIONS... then it quickly evolves into why you have to mod that Oktava to make it any good for a "low cost small condenser option"...

All I'm trying to do with all of this is provide a voice of reason directed at the very title of this thread.

So... no offense taken :)

The Schoeps you're hearing in that clip is a BRAND NEW cmc6 w/ mk41... a local friend (Joe Krass) was generous enough to provide his own mic for a bunch of these tests... He's a great guy that shares my interest in sound... the thing still smelled new when I ran this test... and it was up against my very experienced Oktavas.

Again... apples to oranges... but then again, that was the whole point. I'm very very familiar with the Schoeps... and the perfect onion polar pattern... this thread isn't about that... because if there's one thing I can sure guarantee you... it's that no matter how much you mod the electronics inside of the Oktava... you aren't going to change the polar pattern much. That is a function of many attributes of the Schoeps... mainly... the mk41 cap (in this case)... we are talking about SOUND.
Click to expand...
It's all good, and I do "try" (sometimes failing) here to remember the little guy..
Just wanted to throw my useless opinion out there like the rest :D
cheers mate.
 
Rippie...what mixer and recorder do you use?

The electronics in the mics count. The Oktava's compete is a price range filled with compromises. There are forums of people who modify low end mics. The Oktavas are only one of many; $80 dollar ribbon mics are popular upgrade candidates.

On a single cartridge cardioid Oktava, the Oktava mod upgrade is 30% of the price. With a full selection of capsules it is 25%. The Oktava remains inexpensive, just one more issue removed.

However, on camera recording is full of its own limitations. Just as in video, it is a complete end-to-end process were the spec sheets only tell a small part of the story (although a bigger one then they do for video in most cases).
 
Last edited:
DavidNJ said:
If you couldn't hear the difference in the clips, may I suggest new headphones or speakers, or possibly a battery for your hearing aid?

One pair had a low cut filter, the other didn't. And one was significantly brighter than the other. Normalizing that took those variables out of the equation. Two and Four still sounded better.
Click to expand...

Well idiot I got it right so I guess my battery was fresh. Just a FYI, mics are different, they sound different, capsules are different, transformers (or lack of same) are different. That's why they sound DIFFERENT. If you bothered to LISTEN instead of making pictures you would know that.
 
Oh, I hate to pile on but...

Matt, you should really return your Schoeps... I think the pictures have proven they're likely Chiniz knockoffs with permanent low-cut filters. And hang up your hat, too. If your ears aren't as good as the pictures, I'm not sure you should be recording. Other people depend on you. Either man up and use the pictures to choose your mics, or stop ruining peoples films with crappy sound as you likely have for a few years now.

And Noiz... sorry, but if you think different mics sound "different", then you're not applying the proper filters, and should also turn in the boompole. Mics don't sound different, just "good" or "bad". So if you're hung up on the different sound of different mics, and ignoring the clear pictures which show how good or bad the mic is and what filters you need to apply, then you're really not too good at this.

Anyway, you losers can carry your headphones around... I'm not gonna bother anymore! Anyone want a pair of HN-7506's with a leaky earpad? Don't you love the warm dribble down the side of your neck?
 
People have taken some of the issues here personally... and I want to stress that it's not about those personal issues... it's about the SCIENCE... of sound [values] :)

Here is what I want people to learn from this thread, if my own opinion + sound samples, are to be considered:

1) The stock Oktava MK012 w/ hyper cardioid cap is a great mic for entry level users. A mic which, in stock form, is good enough even for mid-level production, and back-up for high-level production.

2) The stock MK012 does not need modifications to it's internal components as the MK012 that you buy today, or HAVE bought for the past 4 or so years, is basically the Scott Dorsey hop-up direct from Oktava.

3) Having Mike mod your Oktava may be a good idea if you put your mics to more challenging uses beyond location sound on your indi-level projects. To put a firm number on it, if I spent over $5K (not counting gear) on my last indi-project... I MIGHT try out a mic mod... it isn't expensive, and I think it's unlikely that you're throwing money away even if the only thing to change inside is a single FET.

4) If you normally run your mics directly into your camera (note that I NEVER said ON-CAMERA... I'm talking about booming 30' of XLR back to cam) then you will most likely hear no difference in a stock Oktava vs. a modded one. It was my intention to show this by comparing what, by definition, is apples to apples, but anybody who knows sounds knows... is really apples to oranges. ($250 Oktava vs. $1500 Schoeps)

5) The Schoeps is THE mic for location sound... it is THE mic... due to a lot of factors that 95% of you guys on here will never come to appreciate. I only wanted to put that up to demonstrate the difference in WHAT YOU HEAR if you plug each of these mics directly into your DVX, HVX, HPX, etc. This was so I could support what I said earlier about the sense of urgency for modding this particular mic.

6) If you have dedicated sound gear, like even a mix-pre into a dedicated recorder (or better), then you will hear more of a difference in the Oktava vs. Schoeps... (at the time of audio capture)... and are more likely to hear any difference in a stock vs. modded Oktava.

Audio is all about the chain of signal flow! For instance, plug a pair of HD600 cans into your ipod and you'll think "hey these sound pretty good"... then plug them into a real amp and they sound amazing... same exact headphones... and this is true with mics going the other way with signal flow.If you have a sound devices recorder and you use Oktava mics, I would definitely give the mod a shot.

7) If it were ME... I'd damn sure open up the Oktava and take a before picture to see what was modded afterward. To do this you need an eyeglasses screwdriver... and you screw the tiny screws DOWN, not OUT... just enough to slip the metal tube off the body. This takes 20 seconds TOPS. Do NOT screw the screws all the way in... just until the metal sleeve is loose and you can slip it off... voila' 10 seconds (unless you're slow and it takes you 20).

8) Finally... I've ALWAYS agreed with the above sentiment regarding listening... and I trust my ears to determine what my heart wants when it comes to sound. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
The mics sound different filters or not. However, listening to one mic with a low cut and 6db gain is not apples to apples. If you listen to Dan's review, or look at the pictures, some of the same differences are there. However, they both sound better in Dan's review. Dan recorded using a PSC M4 to an HVX-200.

Noiz2, I'm rather surprised that you think your aging ears are the end all in audio evaluation. All those equalizers and filters really are a waste of time, aren't they? I was probably wrong in suggesting a battery for your hearing aid. We could make the graph a 3D relief to work with your Braille text of this forum. :)

Update:
Was writing as I worked so missed Matt's post. Fully agree that the stock Oktava's are very good. I would further add we don't really know what a back to back with current modified one sounds like since we don't have samples of a current modded one. The mods are pretty inexpensive though.

Matt, a question: have you ever used Oktava's optional low cut filter? Do you use the windcut filter on your camera? Are you using the Rode blimp (not for the test, in general)?

Update 2:
This is what Dan's Oktava (new January 2008) looked like, Matt's two Oktava samples are below.

1240407894.jpg
 
Last edited:
I do appreciate the science here (the images)... let me see if I can find an uncompressed wav file since the one I posted is 128kbps (which would explain the lack of visible resolution in the graphs... i.e. my recordings aren't that good compared to clean wav files)

The only clip I can find that's a wav file is from another old friend... "Beas"... who I haven't talked to in years. He used to be a regular over on a board called dvfreelancer.

The clip I posted was from about 2-3 years ago. I may have gained up the Oktava to match the Schoeps' output... and perhaps my buddy Joe had a low cut on, but I don't remember that being the case. I didn't use either mic in a blimp, at the most it would have been a bare BBG (no fur). About the gain difference... on that level, I'd have to say who cares, gain is free in all these cases. We are out of the dark ages of VX1000's that needed an me66 to get adequate SN... if anything, gaining up an Oktava to match a Schoeps would only introduce MORE noise and further disadvantage the Oktava in comparison.

I've never owned any of the Oktava low-cut caps... those are relatively new for the MK012.

Well... all things considered I agree that in this case it's probably better to LISTEN to Dan's tests.

And finally, yes I am using the Rode Blimp (along with all the other stuff like that I have, meaning, not especially over a BBG, but in addition to)...

Oh and 10s... what are you talking about? I'm totally happy in this discussion! Don't think I really CARE if a person buys an Oktava, or mod's their Oktava, or buys a Schoeps! Why would I care? I have a mortgage and gas bills and grass to cut... etc. I could care less how this discussion ENDS... I'm just trying to contribute what I think is worth considering. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top