Mic too sensitive?

As many others have said and Ty points out here: Buy once, cry once.

However, if you simply cannot afford a more expensive mic and don't have the time to save for one, another contester that I've just started to look into is the Neumann KM185 (the non-modular version of the KM150). It goes for around 900.

Of course, nothing is better than going to a store or rental place to see what you like. The thing to have in mind though is that many lower priced microphones today can sound very good for their cost, but as you go higher you get more carefully built and tested mics that will most likely last you a very long time. That way, the cost over time for a more expensive mic can actually be equal to or lower than a cheaper one, and as Ty said you get better sound every second you use it...
 
I understand if I'm making the ultimate project then I would want the ultimate equipment. The fact is I'm fine purchasing something that is not the ultimate. Something that would serve my needs now. If for some reason I'm still doing this (recording my own sound) or professionally doing this (audio recording) a few years from now then buying a better mic now would make sense. But I'm not. I'm aiming to make specific types of projects now at a reasonable cost and taking into account the entire production costs from start to finish, of which audio is only a portion. I could purchase an Alexa, IMAX camera or Red Epic if I needed the ultimate right now and be recording the best quality now. I think what most of us are looking at is trying to figure out where each threshold is for their needs. For professional audio people they of course have very high standards for the best quality audio. Where does that quality level need to be for real projects not seen in full theaters and how much will the audience hear the difference?
 
Where does that quality level need to be for real projects not seen in full theaters and how much will the audience hear the difference?
Click to expand...
In all honesty, the audience will probably not notice if you used a 300 dollar mic or a 2000 dollar one, as long as they are in a good position. The mk012 have often been compared to a schoeps cmc641 when in a good close position. The difference with more expensive mics, besides a subtle improvement in sound, is that they are better built, and can work better then cheaper ones in less than optimal conditions. They might reject surrounding sounds a little better, sound more natural off-axis, and work at a little greater distance.

Ok, considering you want something that is good for now, and maybe invest more if needed in the future, I would recommend the mk012 hyper for use on a stand, and an AT4053b for use on a boom (with an invision shockmount and foam windshield or baby ball gag).
 
Although there have been issues in the past with Oktava mics, IMHO, the amount of issues were blown out of proportion by internet legend. The worst issue creating the legend was Guitar Center selling knockoff models. A real Russian Oktava isn't a perfect mic, but they are a relative bargain, and in the last several years, the weirdness has all but disappeared, but the internet legends live on. The AT4053b is a nice improvement for roughly double the cost.

Grant
 
"In all honesty, the audience will probably not notice if you used a 300 dollar mic or a 2000 dollar one, as long as they are in a good position."


Really! REALLY!!! Come on! If sound recordists all over the planet could get by with Oktava, they would.

To anyone reading this, you have been listening to the Schoeps cmc641 for decades in almost every movie you attended. You have not been listening to an Oktava. The reason you have been listening to a Schoeps cmc641 is that professional sound mixers, postproduction and producers hear the difference.

I have personally had shooters and editors call me from the edit bay to say how much they appreciated the sound of the Schoeps I use.

Does your audience know it's a Schoeps? Of, course not. They also have no idea which prime lenses you use or which camera or lights. Regardless, professionals know it makes a difference and so does the audience.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Technique trumps equipment, though both can be important.

Better equipment means better quality only if technique is equivalent.

Using good equipment with poor technique will generally be worse than using poor equipment with good technique.
 
tyreeford said:
"In all honesty, the audience will probably not notice if you used a 300 dollar mic or a 2000 dollar one, as long as they are in a good position."


Really! REALLY!!! Come on! If sound recordists all over the planet could get by with Oktava, they would.
Click to expand...

First you learn to place the mic correctly. After you can not find any better places for the mics it is time to buy better microphones...

Not the other way around.
 
I disagree.

If you have crap microphones, nothing you point them at sounds good.

If you have good microphones, you have a much better chance of getting it right.

Having said that, it is incumbent upon the operator to understand what he or she is hearing to get the best out of the mic.

I know people whose brains are simply not wired for sound. You could give them the best mics in the world and they could get good sound with them and no amount of experience will improve them. Their brains just don't work that way. And some of them own a lot of recording gear.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Really! REALLY!!! Come on! If sound recordists all over the planet could get by with Oktava, they would.
Click to expand...
This is true of course, and I admit I was exaggerating (and maybe choosed the wrong words) to get across the point that followed it - that good technique would allow a cheaper mic to still sound good. I'm sorry if I'm spreading misleading information.

Would I choose a cmc641 before an mk012? Absolutely! I've heard them both, and the difference is there, plus the advantages pointed out in my previous post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top