Sennheiser MKH 50 vs Rode NTG3 - OUTDOORS

[Throwback]

penultimate is sort of a word that has fallen out of use

Not here, James: still part of my and many others' lexicons! Just wasn't sure what you were driving at as evidently not a literal usage. Not sure where I would rank the CK93 exactly with other sub-£500 hypercardiods: certainly considerably above the Oktava MK-012 hypercardioid (in terms of sound, build quality, and handling noise [which is very low]), but can't offer any direct experience vs the Audix SCX1-HC or Audio Technica 4053b.

Cheers,


Roland

 

[Paul F]

James, that was a nice review of the microphones. But you still left me wondering. I am in the market for the MKH 50 or MKH 8050. I keep changing my mind. On the one hand, I get the impression from what I read, that overall, the 50 has the preferred sound because the 8050 has a horseshoe frequency response (too much bass and high end). Some people complaining quite a bit about this. The big plus for the 8050 is the clearance indoors as you said.

I get the impression that many complaints or comments are more on the minor inconvenience side so I have a hard time evaluating how much emphasis to put on any one comment pro or con.

Do you (and everyone else) have any comments about the 8050's boomyness on the low end? Other thoughts? I'd get the 8050 for sure for the clearance because this has been an issue for me but I don't want to be disappointed with its response.

I know, I know. Get both and decide for myself. I may do that.

 

[Guest]

Not here, James: still part of my and many others' lexicons! Just wasn't sure what you were driving at as evidently not a literal usage. Not sure where I would rank the CK93 exactly with other sub-£500 hypercardiods: certainly considerably above the Oktava MK-012 hypercardioid (in terms of sound, build quality, and handling noise [which is very low]), but can't offer any direct experience vs the Audix SCX1-HC or Audio Technica 4053b.

Cheers,


Roland

the AT4053b was just so solid, i never bothered with testing the Audix or AKG, but they may very well be equal or better. but i think AT hits a level of quality that doesn’t leave me searching for too much more in that price range or lower.

 

[Guest]

James, that was a nice review of the microphones. But you still left me wondering. I am in the market for the MKH 50 or MKH 8050. I keep changing my mind. On the one hand, I get the impression from what I read, that overall, the 50 has the preferred sound because the 8050 has a horseshoe frequency response (too much bass and high end). Some people complaining quite a bit about this. The big plus for the 8050 is the clearance indoors as you said.

I get the impression that many complaints or comments are more on the minor inconvenience side so I have a hard time evaluating how much emphasis to put on any one comment pro or con.

Do you (and everyone else) have any comments about the 8050's boomyness on the low end? Other thoughts? I'd get the 8050 for sure for the clearance because this has been an issue for me but I don't want to be disappointed with its response.

I know, I know. Get both and decide for myself. I may do that.

unfortunately it is a complete matter of taste. i don’t feel the sound is so scooped that it can be EQ’d back to something more neutral. there were definitely times when i was hearing the 8050 along with the mkh50 and mk41 that i really couldn’t tell what i prefered.

if you dislike scoops and peaks, then you may be a DPA man. in any case, the MKH still sounds natural and flat-ish. it is no where near that smiley face scoop on home entertainment systems EQ settings. it is just slightly more exciting. and i feel for speech that can be a good thing. it cuts through foam and deadcats. and with the low cut, it can take care of proximity boominess.

to me, i think i prefered the slightly darker sound of the MKH50, and on the other side, i prefered the silky siblance of the schoeps.

but i do prefer the MKH8050 over the AT4053b and the like. but i really haven’t used it extensively. just tested it two afternoons, and then listened to the A/B at home later on. i feel choosing between the schoeps/DPA/sennheiser options was picking from the best of leica and zeiss. it just didn’t feel like there was a wrong one in the bunch.

the smaller SDC of the 8000 series is supposedly giving it faster response? idk, it did feel fast and sound articulate. it reminded me of the neuman KM185 but fuller sounding?

overall, i didn’t prefer the 8000 in the brief couple hours i had with it, but i also couldn’t find a reason to dislike it. it is clean! the size of it almost swayed me. i was looking for a small footprint for an on camera mic that can double as an interview boom mic. the 50 having the built in switches at no extra cost was sort of the pocket book decision to keep me with the ole 50.

sound is so subtle and all about nuance, i feel there really is only testing and comparing for yourself.

DPA has a shorter lead time for ordering than sennheiser or schoeps from Audio Department in Burbank, CA. if that matters.

 

[Jim Feeley]

DPA mics sound nice (and the shotguns/hypers match their lavs well), but the strike me as a bit fragile. I haven't done any abuse tests, though.

Really, on a budget if you're looking for something decent and reliable (ie- not crazy handling noise or super-low output), I'd go with an AT4053b or Audix scx1-hc (which is or was a MBHO capsule with a preamp audix designed; and that's all cool). Grossly, the Audix conveys less handling noise, and the AT has a wider pickup pattern (which is good, imo).

If you're interested in the Sennheiser 8000 series, also check out the 8040, which some (smart and experienced) people say has a pattern closer to that of the Schoeps MK41... I own a few Schoeps mics, so that's good to hear. It all kinda depends on what you're going for.

So there's been a good list of mics here. I have definite preferences, but it's getting down to taste. It's time to rent/borrow/visit some of these mics and see what you think when they're on a stand and handheld... Try a sit-down interview with someone moving around, booming an improvised conversation with two or three people, a thin voice and a rich voice, etc...

 

[Throwback]

I demoed that mic years and years ago. It was rather nice. But I recall it having a low output. Not a problem if you're using a mixer/recorder with clean preamps (such as those on Sound Devices, Zaxcom, and Sonosax gear), but could be an issue with not-as-good. That's something to double check... If the mic's specs (esp. sensitivity) look like they'll work for you, you'll probably like the mic.

The CK93 and other Blueline capsules have never seemed especially low in terms of output to me (and I've used the CK93 heavily over the years): for ref the specs are -40 dBV re 1 Volt/Pascal (10mV PA). That's the same as the Oktava MK012.

Cheers,

Roland

 

[Alex H.]

The AKG websites are very confusing, but suggest that most, if not all, of the Blueline series mics have been discontinued. That said, it's easy enough to find vendors of most of the Blueline capsules here in the UK/Europe: as well as CK93, the CK91 (cardioid), CK92 (omni) and CK98 (shotgun) are readily available. The CK94 (fig 8) has definitely been discontinued and has been hard to find new here for the last year or so.

Thanks, Roland. Here in the US it’s nearly impossible to find most Blue Line capsules, but as I said, B&H still stock the CK93 and the power supply module, so I guess they’re just moving through whatever stock is still on warehouse shelves. Right now, the capsule + power module are listed at $414, a bit below what I paid for mine. Though, I do keep my eyes out for other capsules from time to time. Their Fig8 intrigues me; any experience with that one? Is it quiet?

But I think it's just about for sure discontinued, though there is some product still in the channel. Last year Harman cut A LOT of jobs (in the hundreds) and closed AKG's headquarters, where their microphone and headphone division was based. Harman is continuing the brand, but it looks like it'll focus on broader consumer-ish products.

Well, that’s a shame to hear. AKG had some great mics over the years. As for output, between the CK93 and my MKH-8060, when I move from the 8060 to the CK93, I do have to boost the gain just a tad, but nothing extreme. No issues with pre-amp gain or noise, though I’m on Sound Devices.

 

[Andy9]

Great discussion. I've been using the AT4053b on camera for years and it's been excellent. But I'm looking to upgrade. I work in news / doc / corporate. Nearly every project uses the on-camera mic at some point so I'm happy to spend proper money for even small improvements.

I agree with the point made earlier that a lot of critical audio is recorded close to the source (wide lens vox pop, for example) and, even outside, a really nice hyper might work just as well as a shotgun given that the diaphragm will be a few inches closer. This is not something I can back up with experience it just sounds right to me.

That said, the bit of extra isolation you get from a shotgun could also be nice. And I'm most likely to use the on-camera audio when filming outside in noisy, out-of-control environments. I assume this points more towards getting a shotgun.

I'm trying to decide between the MKH50, the 8060 and the Sanken CS-M1. I realise these are all very different! I have no possibility of renting any of these mics. The only mic I can rent is a 416. I might give it a go just to get more familiarity with the pickup pattern of a shotgun.

I'm pretty sure that in terms of quality I will notice the difference upgrading from the 4053b to the MKH50. What about moving from the 4053b to the Sanken CS-M1? Will it blow me away? I can't find any audio comparisons online.

 

[Guest]

Great discussion. I've been using the AT4053b on camera for years and it's been excellent. But I'm looking to upgrade. I work in news / doc / corporate. Nearly every project uses the on-camera mic at some point so I'm happy to spend proper money for even small improvements.

I agree with the point made earlier that a lot of critical audio is recorded close to the source (wide lens vox pop, for example) and, even outside, a really nice hyper might work just as well as a shotgun given that the diaphragm will be a few inches closer. This is not something I can back up with experience it just sounds right to me.

That said, the bit of extra isolation you get from a shotgun could also be nice. And I'm most likely to use the on-camera audio when filming outside in noisy, out-of-control environments. I assume this points more towards getting a shotgun.

I'm trying to decide between the MKH50, the 8060 and the Sanken CS-M1. I realise these are all very different! I have no possibility of renting any of these mics. The only mic I can rent is a 416. I might give it a go just to get more familiarity with the pickup pattern of a shotgun.

I'm pretty sure that in terms of quality I will notice the difference upgrading from the 4053b to the MKH50. What about moving from the 4053b to the Sanken CS-M1? Will it blow me away? I can't find any audio comparisons online.

You're right though, choosing a mic is sometimes a choice between seemingly different types, and that just highlights how there is no one size fits all microphone.

With news, I often felt I was only capturing audio for the image, and being for broadcast, felt more obligated to use the shotguns, to get a more isolated and focus sound of whatever was center frame.

In documentary, I often had closer access to the subjects, and wanted to record conversations and allow some of the world to bleed in more naturally, so a hyper gave a better blend, where whoever the camera was pointed at got the lion's share of that audio, but someone else just off axis didn't sound all weird, just more quiet with out being completely cut off either.

I felt a difference going from the AT4053b to the Schoeps and Senny variants. Primarily the insanely quiet noise floor and the more natural off axis sound. you don't notice it at first, but over time, there is a bit of a relaxing of the OCD for me. Like when you suddenly realize you've been clenching your teeth, and can finally relax them, haha. but less extreme, as I feel the AT4053b is actually quite good.

 

[Guest]

When I heard how natural the MKH40 sounded on voice though..... I nearly went with that, but it just didn't have the same sort of isolation/reach. But damn, I really like the way that mic sounds on voice. It doesn't have the romanticized sound of an old Neumann, but it is a very realistic sound that isn't boring. Like when you hear it, you feel like whatever was recorded is really there at playback. But unfortunately, a subjects voice can get drowned out by the ambient sounds and a voice can also end up getting lost. Not an issue for an interview in a location that was chosen for being quiet.

At one point I may have thought it might be cool to shoot a documentary on a 16mm or 21mm and get in close and use the MKH40 in that situation, but now after the pandemic, we may start needing to consider the short shogun and 85mm or 100mm setups.

 

[Alex H.]

I felt a difference going from the AT4053b to the Schoeps and Senny variants. Primarily the insanely quiet noise floor and the more natural off axis sound. you don't notice it at first, but over time, there is a bit of a relaxing of the OCD for me. Like when you suddenly realize you've been clenching your teeth, and can finally relax them, haha. but less extreme, as I feel the AT4053b is actually quite good.

The noise floors on the 4053b and the CK93 are comparable, 16dB and 17dB respectively, which isn’t terrible. By comparison, the MKH-8050 is rated at 12dB, which is very quiet. That said, everything I’ve gotten from the CK93 has been clean and I’ve never gotten any hate mail from post. Quite the opposite, actually.

Not comparable as far as pattern and application, but I’ve had a Shure VP88 (MS stereo) since the 90s and, while it’s a great mic as far as frequency response, it’s got a lousy 26dB self noise rating. For loud sources where gain can be pulled way back (high SPL sound effects), it’s great. But not so good for quieter noise sources. Anything above about 20dB is just a bit too much, really, but lower is better.

 

[Jim Feeley]

Great discussion. I've been using the AT4053b on camera for years and it's been excellent. But I'm looking to upgrade. ...

I'm trying to decide between the MKH50, the 8060 and the Sanken CS-M1. I realise these are all very different! I have no possibility of renting any of these mics. The only mic I can rent is a 416. I might give it a go just to get more familiarity with the pickup pattern of a shotgun.

I'm pretty sure that in terms of quality I will notice the difference upgrading from the 4053b to the MKH50. What about moving from the 4053b to the Sanken CS-M1? Will it blow me away? I can't find any audio comparisons online.

If you're basically happy with the 4053, rather than replace it with a similar mic, why not get a different/longer mic, so then you'll have a couple to use. Basically, the 4053 for "indoors" and something like a short shotgun for "outdoors." Yes, you'll miss out on the wonderfulness of a Schoeps MK41 (AKA Schoeps 641) and the almost-but-not-quite-as wonderfulness of the MKH50 2vrolijk_08: I kid. it's really a matter of taste and use, but I'm on Team Schoeps), but you'll be better able to cover more situations.

So maybe keep the 4053 and add an AT4073b (or perhaps a pre-RoHS used AT4073a... I have one I don't use much, but it's pretty good and matches the 4053), a Sanken CS-M1, or on a budget, something from Rode or Deity. I'm looking at "lower cost" mics since I'm trying to factor in you won't have the cash from selling your 4053.

I've only messed around with the CS-M1 at trade shows, but it seems pretty intriguing (and I have a Sanken CS-3e that I like a whole lot)... The vibe is it's really directional and has good "reach", which is great in noisy environments and city streets, but if used on camera, I'd think you'd want to keep the talent/character centered (or at least keep the mic pointed at them) And you might find the narrow pickup non optimal if you're trying to cover a conversation between two people with an on-camera CS-M1... But if you also have a 4053, you can switch to what the situation calls for. I'm probably going to buy a CS-M1, btw (Been saying that for a while, but considering 2020, I've held off. Perhaps this year). And the CS-M1 is small enough that you can carry it in your pocket without provoking Mae Westisms from those around you. ;-)

Just a thought... Two mics are better than one...

 

[Alex H.]

If you're basically happy with the 4053, rather than replace it with a similar mic, why not get a different/longer mic, so then you'll have a couple to use. Basically, the 4053 for "indoors" and something like a short shotgun for "outdoors."

Personally, I wouldn’t put a $1500 or $2000 mic on a camera. The on-camera mic is in a precarious place, subject to quite a bit of abuse and damage. It also seems a shotgun is the better choice on-camera for the vast majority of the time, simply because a cardioid (or variant thereof) is wide enough to pick up more of the camera/operator noise.

I’d think something like the AT875r, an inexpensive shotgun that sounds remarkably good for its price point, would be a better bet.

 

[Jim Feeley]

Well the CS-M1 is $900, so it's under your threshold. ;-) And yes, something directional is typically more useful on camera. But the CS-M1 I think is about as directional as the CS-3e, i.e., REALLY directional with a sharp shoulder.

And it depends on how you're working. I've been hanging with a couple very good verite/direct/observed doc makers who use on-camera mics more often than I would. They use Schoeps MK41 and MK4s on camera surprisingly often. Their idea is they can cover a conversation between a couple/few people without having to swing the camera to each person as they speak; the wider pattern lets them frame as they want (and they're really thoughtful about framing). Sounds reasonable to me, though I don't work that way.

If you just want to get some audio man, and you're with a sound person or also using lavs and your OK with OK (ie- professionally OK) sound, then ya an inexpensive mic like the 875 is a reasonable choice.

I can't recall how this thread started...Or rather, what it moved to. But I was responding to the person (who I think I didn't imagine) who asked about replacing an AT4053 with a MKH50. My main point was, the 4053 is pretty good so consider expanding your mic choices rather. than upgrading. That'll cover more situations.

 

[Guest]

Personally, I wouldn’t put a $1500 or $2000 mic on a camera. The on-camera mic is in a precarious place, subject to quite a bit of abuse and damage. It also seems a shotgun is the better choice on-camera for the vast majority of the time, simply because a cardioid (or variant thereof) is wide enough to pick up more of the camera/operator noise.

I’d think something like the AT875r, an inexpensive shotgun that sounds remarkably good for its price point, would be a better bet.

If you have the money, a nice mic on the camera is great. Often times camera operators are close enough to get great audio from the on board mic. Awesome for one man bands and maybe more personal documentaries, where might just be a solo indie shooter.

I don't bang the camera around, so I don't bang the mic. Certainly not as bad as watching a boom pole fall over with a mic attached, which I've seen too many times in the low budget world.

The short shotgun is likely still the de facto all in one for camera people, but I think there are a variety of shooters that have an ear, and a $1200 mic is a small fraction of what a camera setup costs.

My personal philosophy was to start with good mics and then slowly build a camera kit. I think I spent $20K on mics and maybe $300(hundred) on my first video camera.

 

[Guest]

I can't recall how this thread started...Or rather, what it moved to. But I was responding to the person (who I think I didn't imagine) who asked about replacing an AT4053 with a MKH50. My main point was, the 4053 is pretty good so consider expanding your mic choices rather. than upgrading. That'll cover more situations.

I agree with this. The AT4053 is right there. Only the Sennheisers and the Schoeps are just that tiny bit better. I never felt hindered by the AT. And if one is being pragmatic about it, then getting a CS-m1 or something to flesh out the mic closet would certainly offer some options.

Many shooters want to reduce variables, and swapping out the mic, or carrying around an extra mic jostling around in the bag is just another thing sometimes. So, I guess it depends on the shooter. If clean audio is super important, I try to work with a sound person. When I shoot alone I know a MKH50 will get me through any sort of interview. And when I do a self funded small project, then I get to define how it sounds, and I like hearing the world. A short shotgun forces an edit cut, because you can only hear one person as a time, but a hyper allows a dialogue to play out in a "oner". But we're getting into really personal shooting preferences here, and I'm not really giving advice anymore, but just chatting.

 

[Guest]

The noise floors on the 4053b and the CK93 are comparable, 16dB and 17dB respectively, which isn’t terrible. By comparison, the MKH-8050 is rated at 12dB, which is very quiet. That said, everything I’ve gotten from the CK93 has been clean and I’ve never gotten any hate mail from post. Quite the opposite, actually.

Not comparable as far as pattern and application, but I’ve had a Shure VP88 (MS stereo) since the 90s and, while it’s a great mic as far as frequency response, it’s got a lousy 26dB self noise rating. For loud sources where gain can be pulled way back (high SPL sound effects), it’s great. But not so good for quieter noise sources. Anything above about 20dB is just a bit too much, really, but lower is better.

There are some mics that are just noisy. The AT4053b is certainly a clean mic. I just meant that the MKH series mics are dead silent. That adding the better off axis sound, and it makes a big difference to some people.

 

[Guest]

If you're basically happy with the 4053, rather than replace it with a similar mic, why not get a different/longer mic, so then you'll have a couple to use. Basically, the 4053 for "indoors" and something like a short shotgun for "outdoors." Yes, you'll miss out on the wonderfulness of a Schoeps MK41 (AKA Schoeps 641) and the almost-but-not-quite-as wonderfulness of the MKH50 2vrolijk_08: I kid. it's really a matter of taste and use, but I'm on Team Schoeps),

The MK41 is certainly a unicorn. The CMIT 5u series of short shotguns is great too. Though, the MK41 still takes the win, for me. To be honest, sometimes the MK41 is a bit on the sibilant side for me, and yet, it doesn't actually bother me, as other mics might. Sounds like it has that "tape bump" in the frequency pattern. Though it does it so well, and survives on into the digital realm without being annoying or harsh. The speaker sound very much right there, and gets attention.

Last year, when I was testing the SDC hypers, I was at war with myself, because the MKH50 is so much more practical, but I really feel like the Schoeps has a sound that just works so well for spoken word, across so many voice types in a variety of situations. The consolation is that the 50 also sounds great. I actually wish there was a mic that sounded like the MKH40, but with the reach and directionality of the 50. I know that is a weird thing to say, because that is sort of what the 50 is, but still, something very transparent about the 40 that I also love.

 

[Guest]

It also seems a shotgun is the better choice on-camera for the vast majority of the time, simply because a cardioid (or variant thereof) is wide enough to pick up more of the camera/operator noise.

Oh, quick note to this specifically, as it really depends on the shooting style. A lot of operators are in an easy rig, and a shotgun actually picks up the operator more than a hyper or cardioid. As cameras have become more compact, there is not only less room for a shotgun, but also the operators tend to be directly behind the camera. And as you know, the rear lobe of a shotgun picks up quite a bit more than a hyper or cardioid.

For shoulder mount operating, I find the hyper to be less obtrusive and shorter, so less likely to bump into something or get in the way of the operator. The pocket of where the operator is in shoulder mount config is the most isolated spot on the hyper polar pattern, so again, it may even pick up less of the operator than a short shotgun.

That being said, I think the majority of the shooters today are likely best served with a short shotgun. Whether it be scratch audio, or needing to get something more isolated, as I mentioned in a previous post. But I still prefer the more natural vibe of a hyper, and feel it masks operator noise and less likely to brush into something when operating. Not to mention a good hyper is often cheaper than a good shotgun.

 

[Guest]

Not here, James: still part of my and many others' lexicons! Just wasn't sure what you were driving at as evidently not a literal usage. Not sure where I would rank the CK93 exactly with other sub-£500 hypercardiods: certainly considerably above the Oktava MK-012 hypercardioid (in terms of sound, build quality, and handling noise [which is very low]), but can't offer any direct experience vs the Audix SCX1-HC or Audio Technica 4053b.

Cheers,


Roland

Feels like the Oktava's were always getting slighted as being noisy. Personally, I have never used one. Always wondered whether they also had some charm to their sound that perhaps over came some of the higher noise floor. Or was the noise over exaggerated? I do feel their popularity made the price go up too high by the time I was looking into them.