MKH 416 Blew my hair away

E

enterdcable

Well-known member
I was this ---> :o<--- close to buying the ME66/67 combo. Instead of taking a leap of faith after reading "reviews" I decided to do what my boss used to always tell me. "Do the damn tests yourself. That's the only way to really know." So I went out and rented one ME66, ME67 and MKH-416.

The results: sell that stupid chrosziel, gaff tape your filters onto the Leica and buy that MKH-416 unless of course if you're shooting silent films.

So I guess my question is: has any of you guys tested anything else out that competes with the Sennheiser MKH 416?
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

What does much better mean? I tested the MKH416 indoors in a huge empty room and in a smaller office (I wasn't allowed to leave the premise with the mic). Indoors boomed at about 5 ft. capturing dialogue between two people was AMAZING. Rich natural sounding that left my mouth agape. However, I've yet to test it out outside.

Does anyone know how the MKH416 sounds tested outside (with softie, boom, etc, whole nine yards) sounds like in relatively noisy/ windy conditions?

Also, Dan, this Schoeps CMC5/MK41 is much better? Indoor/ outdoor? Voice reproduction natural? Do you have any links where I can hear audio samples? Much appreciated.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Dan_Lahav

The link rocked. Now I'm so straddled. Schoeps MK41 did seem better and it was introduced after Sennheiser's MKH416 to replace it.... SO I suppose....

But the mkh 416 is a boom mic. You can boom it usuing the standard kit. But what of the Schoeps? Have you had any problems booming with it? Does it pick up a lot of pole noise? Does it work well outside? (The website audio tests were indoors).

Looks as though now I be looking into the Schoeps MK41...

Cheers, thanks again!
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Don't be confused. They're two different mics and normally it will be crystal clear which one to use.

The Schoeps is primarily an indoor mic and the 416 is primarily an outdoor mic.

The reason the Schoeps sounds like it does is that it has a perfectly flat frequency response and a perfectly nested polar pattern. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about? Go to the Schoeps site and you'll see that for all frequencies it's a "bubble of pickup" that's nearly the same regardless of frequency. That means that sound doesn't change as it hits the mic from different angles. Okay now go to a 416 .pdf and you'll see that, for a shotgun, it's ALSO very flat frequency and has a tightly nested polar pattern. That's why that mic sounds as good as IT does. I've used both and there are times that I prefer the Schoeps and times that I prefer the 416. 2 different mics.

To say that the Schoeps sounds way better is a loaded statement. Sounds way better where? In an acoustically controlled interior? I love the Schoeps mics, but if you get in a crowd and want to hear one voice better then the others... you'll need a 416. People say the 416 is a "tractor beam" for sound... The trick of it is that it does that while sounding better then pretty much anything else CHEAPER then the 416. I've successfully used a 416 in about 80% of my interiors as well. If you've got the budget for BOTH then great... but if you take a poll of the pros on this board or on RAMPS and tell 'em, "I can only get ONE mic and I'm choosing between the Schoeps and the 416"... I'll wager that 90% of your responses will say "416". Try it.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Oleg always brag about the Sanken CS-3. I haven't got the luck to use it yet, but should be pretty cool also.

Yup, the MKH-416 is a cool little black little thing. It's an amazing mic.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Thanks Matt inSTL, taubkin, Dan,

All this information had been exactly what I had been looking for *thanks Matt for clarifying that last bit of information*.

I sat down and actually read the manual and I see the differences now between flat mics, mics with certain cardioid and supercardioid and even lboe mics. I see the pattern they pick up sound etc.

The MK41/CMC5 does make sense that it would be used inside the confines of a studio steup in a recording room/ sound stage or something.

I will be shooting indooors, but it will usually be in uncontrolled environments as well as outdoors. Although I am a little worried on how it will sound (echo and bounce feedback to the mic) indoors in a tiny room with bad accoustics but that's the inherent flaw I see that all boom/ shotgun mics have.

The best solution as stated would then be:
a. get a really good indoor mic then a really good outdoor mic
b. be prepared to use the MKH-416 until Christmas.

I think due to monetary reason I'd have to go with plan B (largely due to your help Matt)- thanks!
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

with decent wind protection, the mk41 sounds great outdoors. i've done many many tests with it. the only place that didnt live up to my standards was a windy day on the beach for the mk41
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Don't forget the use of soundblankets to shape up lousy acoustics. They are sometimes more important than an expensive mic.

Cheers!
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

If you are only going to get one mic to use for almost everything, then get the 416, or the Sanken CS-3e....or the Sanken CS-1. The schoeps is great, but has problems with high humidity, and may not be so great if you have an inexperienced person booming. Ultimately, it would be great to have both, but that can be cost prohibitive.

If you get the 416, I'm sure you'll be happy. You already like the sound, plus that thing is really rugged. You can drop it, hammer with it, stir paint with it, and it still works. That's why pretty much everyone in the professional community has one, and why all the rental houses rent that mic more than any other mic out there.

-Dave
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Dan Lahav, CMC5 sounds like great advice but I think I might go ahead with Dave Fisk's recommendation with the MKH 416 because I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes to sound I don't think I'll be able to afford a good sound/boom man.

We probably wouldn't be able to use the CMC5 to it's full potential and I want to mix paint with my mic. JK. But being in a film production- things are a vital plus if they are rugged.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Oh thanks by the way, Dave Fisk, it's the reassurance I need to drop a grand- though I'm quite williing to because if a movie is 50% visual and 50% sound and if the DVX is 3000, it's simple arithmetic ain't it? I understand the full importance of sound. I've been using the AT series and I'm ready to take my productions to the next level. (my producer is meeting Robert Evans wish me luck!)
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

the 416 is a great mic. it's definately an asset to a filmmakers toolbox. If i could afford one, i would add it to my collection as well.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

If you understand the full importance of sound, you should definitely understand how important it is to have a qualified boom operator and a qualified sound mixer.

You'll probably get much better sound from a mediocre microphone being run by quality people, than you will from an expensive mic run by amateurs.

Bad sound is the #2 thing that kills indie films (bad acting being #1). Rent a mic and spend the money you save on at least one qualified, skilled audio person, it'll make a world of difference.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Thanks Barry. What I meant by amateurs was friends in the music industry who do recordings themsellves and have done sound for friend's moviese and such and understand completely how sound works (they record their own music) but are not boom/sound operators.

I was planning on using the mic as a line in using the best 25 ft and another shorter balanced XLR- thus foregoing the mixier, and wouldn't need to have a hired person to mix the sound levels professionally, monitoring voice levels while recording...

But are you saying I should? With film- this IS A MUST!! I know, I call him right after my cameraman. So I shouldn't just rely recording sound on the dvx? I thought it sounded great from the tests I did and from other's opinions but should I be running it through a mixer?

Thanks.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Recording into the DVX is okay. I'm talking about having professional sound people operating the equipment. Sound is the most overlooked part, and frequently people will assign anyone who has nothing to do to be the boom operator, because "anyone can hold a boom, right?" Which is why so many indie productions sound terrible. A great boom op is worth their money, that's for sure.

So if you're spending dough and treating the project like it's important, then you definitely owe it to yourself to get a qualified boom operator. Solid audio crew will do as much for, or more for, your production than having top-of-the-line gear.
 
Re: MKH 416 Blew my hair away

Although they're not paid, they are very good when it comes to sound, I will be heeding your advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top