Sennheiser MKH 50 vs Rode NTG3 - OUTDOORS

[Jim Feeley]

I prefer the sound of the Schoeps MK41 to that of the Sennheiser MKH50, but I could live with the 50's sound. But for me where the MK41 pulls ahead is its off-axis response: it's the same as the on-axis response, just with a lower level. That's the big win (and probably results in the big price). Improvising actors, super fidgety interviewees, splitting a mic between two people....

Not to be anodyne (did I already use that word here?), but it's great that there are several solid options these days.

 

[Paul F]

Dang blast it Jim! Now you have me looking at Schoeps.

Has anybody used the CMR amplifier on a boom? How do you suspend it? It's so short (nice!). The Schoeps brochure shows a MINIX CCM LL suspension, which is no longer available.

 

[Guest]

Dang blast it Jim! Now you have me looking at Schoeps.

Has anybody used the CMR amplifier on a boom? How do you suspend it? It's so short (nice!). The Schoeps brochure shows a MINIX CCM LL suspension, which is no longer available.

A big reason I am talking about the MKH50 as an on camera or "one" mic for a camera person, is:

- tighter pattern
- built in low cut and 10db pad
- bullet proof
- amazing humidity resistance
- RF immune
- incredibly low noise (camera often requires more level than a boom op would)
- better reach and directionality than other hypers
- fuller sound, so it retains a presence even at camera distances
- very natural sound with fast transients, not harsh or shallow, not overly romantic, but also not clinical,
- natural off axis sound, perhaps on par with the schoeps, however it is more directional, so it won't feel as smooth when panning off, imho
- when needed it can go out on a boom, or be handheld reporter style (not ideal, but works, vs a tiny MKKH8050), and do indoor and outdoor dedicated mic pickup well

although it is more directional then a schoeps 641, it is also less sibilant or "S"-y, and when it is an on camera mic, you aren't always picking up the human voice, so the more laid back and full sounding MKH50 is nice, because it isn't always so excited about everything "shoosh" and "wush" or babbling brook in your headphones. And personally, even though the 50 can be called "dark", at on camera distances, I think the distance thins out the darkness, and it ends up just sounding neutral, to my ears. The Schoep641 can sometimes feel a little less full. The differences might only matter to a camera person that will not be applying EQ. For a sound person, the choice is different. For me, the MKH50 has the properties of a short shotgun and a really nice hyper, all while having a sound that doesn't need EQ for anything. Like say you are filming someone opening a birthday present or a letter, or working in a garden and raking up dry leaves, that presence or hype that is amazing on an acoustic guitar in a mix might not be the same sound signature you want.

The DPA 4018 is another amazing microphone, but when I have it on camera, it is so flat sounding. I'd rather not EQ it if it is going straight to camera.


For a dedicated sound op that is just picking up voices at mostly optimal distances and aimed perfectly? Then there are any number of choices. And I think the Scheops is probably the best sounding straight out of the box for that specific purpose. However, an on camera mic has to accommodate more than the human voice, so then while the 641 still sounds amazing on everything, it is not always th preferred sound for everything, and you start to lose the value of the cost premium. ....so by that logic does that also mean the AT4053b is likely the better choice for on camera sound? ... not to me. I think the benefits of the MKH50's directionality, better off axis, and the better low noise, as well as just sounding better, make it still have some value over the Audio Technica. Also the Sennheiser is still better at humid climates and it is RF immune. So, it isn't even a vanity purchase in my mind. But it is certainly always a personal choice.

So, often these conversations I get in on this topic get a bit messy, as some are arguing from a sound person's perspective, and I am coming at it from a primarily on camera perspective, or as a "one" mic perspective. Again, I think the MKH50 has more reach than a 641, and sounds fuller and has more isolation, so if I only had one mic, maybe the 50 would be better outdoors booming in the Everglades than a 641. But sound person in Burbank? They'll have their own conclusions, naturally.

But in any case, I often want to add a schoeps 641 just because I love the sound, haha. It really does the human voice really well, and is forgiving booming indoors, and handles lively rooms better than a 50 does.

There are projects where I was a stereo mic on camera, and other projects where a shotgun makes more sense. So, as much as I like the 50 as a default, even for on camera work, there is no one does all. And with cameras getting so small, an MKH50 is starting to be bulky and heavy. So the MKH8000 modular series, or the mini colleges or a DPA compact, all starting to look like nicer overall options. Idk, I put up with the size of the MKH50 because it comes with the high pass filter and dB pad, while being cheaper than an MKH8050, and I slightly prefer the sound. Also, I still often use larger cameras.

 

[Guest]

I prefer the sound of the Schoeps MK41 to that of the Sennheiser MKH50, but I could live with the 50's sound. But for me where the MK41 pulls ahead is its off-axis response: it's the same as the on-axis response, just with a lower level. That's the big win (and probably results in the big price). Improvising actors, super fidgety interviewees, splitting a mic between two people....

Not to be anodyne (did I already use that word here?), but it's great that there are several solid options these days.

I totally agree.

But everyone that I know that has a Schoeps also has a back up, for when RF or humidty strike. So, in a shoot out for "The One", there are big points lost there.


If someone is choosing one microphone, spending $2,000 to then also need to have another mic as a back up, because the $2K mic miiiight not handle a heavy RF or humid environment, it certainly changes the choice, in particular when on a budget. Now, the humidity issue on the 641 is often not really an issue, however, I've spent too many years in jungle climates to feel I could rely on a Schoeps for everything. That said, if there were a way to get the schoeps characteristics into a bullet proof form, I wonder if it would ever quite be the same? A rose by any other name? But that would be the dream anyway.

 

[Guest]

@PaulF, from what you've said in the past, the Schoeps seems like an ideal mic for you. Hope you try it out. Let me know if you come down to Burbank and maybe Trew or Audio department ( http://www.audiodept.com/ ) can set up a demo between some of your top choices.

 

[Paul F]

Not a bad idea. I've been getting out now that I have the shots. When Sonora Pass opens, I'll come by. I've been waiting to drive over the Sierras and into the desert to Lone Pine to have a look at Mt. Whitney and the Alabama hills. That will take me a good way towards Los Angeles.

Coffee/beer and microphones. Sounds nice.

 

[Guest]

Not a bad idea. I've been getting out now that I have the shots. When Sonora Pass opens, I'll come by. I've been waiting to drive over the Sierras and into the desert to Lone Pine to have a look at Mt. Whitney and the Alabama hills. That will take me a good way towards Los Angeles.

Coffee/beer and microphones. Sounds nice.

That sounds like a plan!

Audio department has a Coffee spot within walking distance. Trew used to have this crummy yet fun coffee machine, makes an awful noise, and then an awful cup of coffee, but it also has caffeine which is nice some days! haha.

 

[Guest]

well, this has been my favourite thread in a long time! love talking mics and preamps, as sound is such an essential art. it captures spoken word, and it ads depth and texture to the visuals. but it in particular gets interesting with music. i was always fascinated how different a guitar could sound depending on the mic or the room.

 

[Jim Feeley]

But everyone that I know that has a Schoeps also has a back up, for when RF or humidty strike. So, in a shoot out for "The One", there are big points lost there.

I don't recall having humidity or RF issues with my Schoeps. Maybe I've just been lucky. I don't live in a humid environment (I'm in San Francisco Bay Area; I guess the fog is humid), but I bought my first Schoeps, a CMC541, from a retiring CBS News sound guy who flew and used the mic all over the world. I've used my Schoeps mics in the Louisiana bayou in August (ya, not the best scheduling; great food and music, uncomfortable heat and humidity), and a bunch of other humid, foggy, rainy locations in the US where we stepped in and out of the humidity without time for everything to adjust.

The way I understand it is humidity/condensation issues arise mainly if the capsule is removed from the CMC preamp, and then extra moisture, dust/dirt, and oil from skin gets in there (or just on the connecting threads). Maybe that's an issues for people recording music and switching caps and preamps around. Hasn't been for me.

As for RF, I built a couple cables with Neutrik EMC connectors that are designed to filter out RF. https://www.neutrik.com/en/neutrik/products/xlr-connectors/xlr-cable-connectors/emc-series
Those cables work fine, but my other cables (also Neutrik and Canare star quad) are also fine. And the newest CMC6 preamps (as well as upgrades/mods of earlier preamps by people like Pete Verrando http://cmc4upgrade.com/cmc4upgrade.com.html) are better. Perhaps the issue was earlier plug-in TX, crappy light ballasts, and more. But not a big issue for me.

And I always carry backup, just because it's the right thing to do. I hardly ever need any of it.

Anyway, whatever people use that they and their clients like is fine by me.

 

[Guest]

I don't recall having humidity or RF issues with my Schoeps. Maybe I've just been lucky. I don't live in a humid environment (I'm in San Francisco Bay Area; I guess the fog is humid), but I bought my first Schoeps, a CMC541, from a retiring CBS News sound guy who flew and used the mic all over the world. I've used my Schoeps mics in the Louisiana bayou in August (ya, not the best scheduling; great food and music, uncomfortable heat and humidity), and a bunch of other humid, foggy, rainy locations in the US where we stepped in and out of the humidity without time for everything to adjust.

The way I understand it is humidity/condensation issues arise mainly if the capsule is removed from the CMC preamp, and then extra moisture, dust/dirt, and oil from skin gets in there (or just on the connecting threads). Maybe that's an issues for people recording music and switching caps and preamps around. Hasn't been for me.

As for RF, I built a couple cables with Neutrik EMC connectors that are designed to filter out RF. https://www.neutrik.com/en/neutrik/products/xlr-connectors/xlr-cable-connectors/emc-series
Those cables work fine, but my other cables (also Neutrik and Canare star quad) are also fine. And the newest CMC6 preamps (as well as upgrades/mods of earlier preamps by people like Pete Verrando http://cmc4upgrade.com/cmc4upgrade.com.html) are better. Perhaps the issue was earlier plug-in TX, crappy light ballasts, and more. But not a big issue for me.

And I always carry backup, just because it's the right thing to do. I hardly ever need any of it.

Anyway, whatever people use that they and their clients like is fine by me.

Yeah, I should have been more careful, again, I was only meaning that the MKH50 is less susceptible to humidity by design, and I hope that I don't make it sound like the Schoeps is prone to humidity issues, in particular with care, I'd imagine it could be avoided entirely. Just that since, I have the mic as an on-camera mic, and it is the only good mic I have, I like the the peace of mind. The MKH series is built on the RF principle, and supposedly that gives it an advantage over almost all other mics for humidity resistance. It isn't like Schoeps is the only mic that is susceptible to moisture, ALL electronics are. (I've only really ever gotten the impression that Neumann's were susceptible to humidity)



While most of the humidity stories are anecdotal and what not, there are still personal accounts:

I have definitely had moisture problems with my Schoeps down in Georgia and Florida and it would be a concern for me if I spent a lot of time recording down there.




SFX

Since living in LA, I haven't thought about dehumidifiers, or those gel bead things in a while, but I used to be quite judicious about keeping those things in my case and making sure they were performing optimally. And I never experienced humidity issues on any of my gear. However, there was a time I was on the road for 6months, and I had the MKH50/60 with me, and I really wasn't kind to the 50. No dehumidifying gel pellet packs, left the mic on the camera, didn't put it away, went out in the rain, recorded near radio towers, in and out of air conditioning, and it just wouldn't quit, so it won my confidence in a way that most gear hasn't. (i’ve since never been so cruel to my gear, but inwas on the road for 6months, and wanted to think more about my experience than worry if i was kind to my camera, lens, and mic. that said, even then my gear tends to outlast some that seemingly baby their gear, as i don’t tend to stress the sensitive components, or use gear far outside its intended design. but occasionally doing the job is more important than a piece of gear and in those conditions i have damaged gear. )

The Schoeps has more than proven its reliability in the industry, so I don't know why so many people on the internet worry about it. sort of like they worry about getting an "indoor" mic. And unfortunately, I think I just perpetuated the myth of the schoeps being susceptible to humidity. It isn't just the Schoeps, it is all microphones. Just that the MKH series should give one a bit more resistance in extreme situations, but maybe that is only really a concern for a camera person, and less so for a dedicated sound person, who can take better care, and have multiple good mics.




in any case, the Schoeps has a reputation for being the best interior dialogue mic for film/tv for a reason. if it were easily prone to failure, it wouldn’t be an industry standard. And personally, even though I know many others love it too, sonit isn’t like i am noticing something no one else sees, I do really love the sound, even in blind tests. it isn’t just name brand or hype. it does sound better on average than other mics. So, maybe one day, I'll pick one up, if I am lucky. But all the more happy to bring on pro sound people, as I don't think an schoeps strapped to my camera will sound half as pro as an Audix on a boom pole.

 

[Guest]

Oh, found a good comparison... mics are in a room with a hum, not the best acoustics in the room either, so, this is not a comparison that puts these mics in the optimal environment, but some of the characteristic differences can still be heard, for example, at the 2+ft caparison the 50 shows better reach, and is a reason I think it performs well indoors and outdoors, as well as on camera. however, the 641 averages better across all types of voices, and it is better indoors, so seems the better choice for audio pros and boom poles:

http://brettainslie.blogspot.com/2015/08/mkh-50-or-mk41-beef-or-chicken.html

and then here one can hear the MKH60 indoors is not terrible. The 641 is best, and the MKH50 somewhere in between:

Like most people, I'm definitely able to hear some small differences and form preferences, but there was a time when the only mic available for an indoor interview was a short shotgun, and it worked, and the interview went to air.

Funny that with all the talk of how sweet and amazing a mic can be, then hearing these recordings, certainly splashes cold water on the discussion, haha. A bad room with a hum and a TV and paper pages rustling at each turn, certainly does't make any of these mics shine.

 

[Guest]

Two other threads worth checking out, if someone ends up on this thread in from the internets, here is some semi related content. This thread is more about having one good mic as a camera operator, but these other threads talk similar mics, but more from a one man band perspective, so not limited to one mic, etc:


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?362993-User-feedback-on-the-Audix-SCX1-HC

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?360579-Indoor-Mic-to-Compliment-Outdoor-MKH-8060-s



Good quote from Jim from a couple years ago, reiterates what he said in this thread:

Schoeps and humidity:
I haven't used mine in Brazil, but I have in late-summer New Orleans, Florida, and various other high-humidity (for the US) environments. Haven't had a problem... What I was told by some other mixers, and the practice I follow, is that if you keep the threads that connect the capsule and the preamp, as well as the XLR contacts really clean and dry, you won't have a problem. That's been my experience. But maybe there's some variance with humidity resistance in different Schoeps models (ie- perhaps the CMC5 preamp is better or worse at this). But since Joshua is in the Sennheiser camp, no really need jump to Schoeps.

Oz's comments about perhaps sticking with 8000-series mics over the MKH50 to maintain compatibility with mounts and stuff is good. Also, I'm not a super fan of the MKH50. I find the low end response that some people really like to just get in the way. And I find the pickup pattern more narrow and the shoulders more abrupt than I like. With the Schoeps, I can more easily split the mic between two people, have a bit of a cushion for an interviewee who keeps moving, and more easily follow improvising/"we don't need rehearsals" scenes in fiction narrative. And I think it's easier to boom with a Schoeps; more room for my own mistakes. THAT ALL SAID, clearly lots of people like the MKH50 and produce great tracks with it.

And again (semi-sorry I'm being redundant :smile: ) if you are considering the Sennheiser 8050, also check out the 8040. I've used both (but own neither) and prefer the pickup pattern of the 8040... Probably because it's more Schoeps like... but at least some other mixers agree.

So for you I'd look at (and actually test to see what best fits the sound, work style, and compatibility you want), in order:

8040
8050
Audio-Technica AT4053 (mid-priced option)
Audix SCX1-HC (about the same price as the AT)
MKH50 (great mic; not my choice)

OK I'll stop beating this horse...

Jim
PS- Schoeps > Sennheiser
PPS- Just kidding
PPPS- Sort of

 

[Guest]

When it comes to expense, something in how the CMC642 and Cmit5u can really do just about anything between the two mics.

With Sennheiser, one could split between the KH40 and the MKH60, but the polarity gap is a bit wide for some, and might end up wanting to add the 50. So, haha, in a way, one might spend about the same money on either brand.


Where the Sennheisers get interesting is in the MKH30 figure 8 mic is a very nice mic for MS stereo. I've never owned a 30, but always wanted to mount an M/S rig on a steadicam and go all Samsara roving.


Haha. now I am way off topic. Good night. Thanks for the good convo Jim. I often forget about the nice shoulder on the 641, as well as how it is more forgiving in lively rooms. Definitely the king of film/tv interior mics.


I have reasons for choosing the MKH50 as my ONE(aka the great compromise of choice) mic for camera work, but it certainly doesn't discount the brilliance of the CMC641.

 

[Guest]

Again, just a post for the lurkers, or if the internet brought you here:

This guy's test is a good example of when these mics are in less than ideal situations, some of the ideas of how different hypers and shotguns are is diminished. A bad location is still a bad location. and bad mic technique is still bad mic technique. I often see directors and producers wanting to demand the best gear, but then they choose horrible locations, and give no thought sound in preproduction. If a place is reverberant and echoey, then that is how it will sound regardless of the mic used. In a blind test, outside the context of a narrative, an Audix in an acoustically pleasing room at a proper distance from the speaker will sound a hundred times better than a Schoeps in a coffee shoo with the fridge humming and the mic out of optimum placement. Technique and planning go a lot further towards good sound than figuring out if an MKH50 is worth it or not. Day in and day out use and work, the differences between mics become bigger deals. but i’d much rather have a talented sound person using an oktava into a F8 zoom recorder than myself one man band on the best gear. (the issue is finding a talented sound person and good location



here are the comparisons in “bad” environments. of course, if the story calls for those sounds, then it would be good sound. To me, there are differences in the side by side, butnif they were individually going to a finished product, would be difficult for the viewer to really care about the differences.

MKH50 vs shotguns outdoors in a noisy street, they all sound like they are being recorded on a noisy street:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZCbxtLUEjw

And then Shotguns vs the Schoep 641 and MKH50 in a very reverberant room, they all sound like they are in a small slappy tiled room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKDrDPcAW3M

And then an average room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lcBQemK4j8

So, i think for owning “one” mic, or possibly just one good mic, there really isn’t a winner, and also in extremely varied situations, i don’t know that one is better than the other. traditionally, videographers have gone with the shotgun, as they might give preference for better isolation outdoors than the off axis sound in doors. I think this comes from the broadcast tradition of making the voice very clear, so viewers can understand what people are saying. in film making, i am not sure, seems people chase the movie sound. Which these days is difficult to replicate on a budget. but at the end of the day, the mic choice and technique would be more about the story than purely “good or bad” sound.

 

[Jim Feeley]

Good quote from Jim from a couple years ago, reiterates what he said in this thread:

Well I may not be original, but at least I'm consistent.

Those tests James posts are interesting...and clearly back up his statement, "bad mic technique is still bad mic technique." Nothing against the guy, but I think for the street scene, if the Sanken CS3e was positioned more vertically (or just less at the street), he'd have recorded less street noise. Even with different (and arguably better) positioning, the Schoeps CMIT and the others would probably still pick up more wet-tire street noise than I'd want.

I think of microphones as not just like prime lenses, but as prime lenses with a fixed apeture and focus distance. So moving them helps a lot...and having more than one also helps.
Geez, I and others have probably also said this before, too, huh?

Jim
PS- This has been an interesting thread. I always appreciate hearing other people's opinions and experiences. Thanks all!

 

[Paul F]

Interesting videos James.

When I read about people's experiences with equipment, such as the Schoeps humidity complaint, I'm left with no real information. Now I'm not saying what people have experienced isn't true, but what they experienced can't be passed on to me as useful information. All I know is someone had a problem sometime under some condition and that leaves me with not much to work with in the way of making a decision as to whether or not I should concern myself with their concern. Just how humid was it and how hot was it and what was the dew point and .... well, it tells me nothing but that I may or may not have an issue with humidity sometime if I use a Schoeps. It's not helpful.

In reality it's not a problem for me because I'm not shooting outside California.... Now, did I just make a mistake in assuming that the humidity in California will never be a problem? See? There's no way to evaluate this information. It's just general information with no numbers behind it. Now if someone said, I ran a test and here's a graph temperature/humididty and anything above the line will give you problems. But even then, who's to say that the test results will hold up in the field?

Ok, just a bunch of dribble on how I react when I read these things. They leave me shrugging my shoulders wondering.

 

[paulears]

In recordings where shotguns appear to perform poorly, so often we jump to differences in brand being the decider but in all things microphone differences always seem to track back to basics. Different capsules sound different. In cardioid and omnis there’s usually very little in front of the capsule diaphragm, just a grill. The tonal differences are what we use when we select them for a job. Interference tubes follow a couple of basic principles, slots - at 90 degrees or parallel to the mic axis. This changes the front to back ratio and crested those odd nodes and nulls. On axis is the main path to the diaphragm.

In the videos, especially ones where there is a problem, I really believe the problem is always aiming. If we replace the shotgun with one of those led zoom torches on full zoom, so many videos would have the subject’s mouth in shadow or total darkness. We put them on tall stands with booms and if you climbed up on a ladder and sighted along the tube it misses the mouth and captures the sound coming from behind the subject. Outside, with extra gain and good wind shielding, we recover the level to a degree but indoors we just invent a rule that shotguns indoors = bad, when I think it’s an aiming problem. Just a few degrees off the mouth and the room comes up badly. In one of the videos some of the mics in the cluster clearly are off the line to the subject. If you are on set with a new junior sound person with a boom, and sadly, uni trained, they develop tired arms and you see the boom angle change. One hand comes down to relieve the pain and the mic no longer points at the mouth. Watch a seasoned boomer and their aim us so much better.

 

[Guest]

Interesting videos James.

When I read about people's experiences with equipment, such as the Schoeps humidity complaint, I'm left with no real information. Now I'm not saying what people have experienced isn't true, but what they experienced can't be passed on to me as useful information. All I know is someone had a problem sometime under some condition and that leaves me with not much to work with in the way of making a decision as to whether or not I should concern myself with their concern. Just how humid was it and how hot was it and what was the dew point and .... well, it tells me nothing but that I may or may not have an issue with humidity sometime if I use a Schoeps. It's not helpful.

Agreed, majority of people mentioning it, are regurgitating second hand info, much like myself in this case.

In reality it's not a problem for me because I'm not shooting outside California.... Now, did I just make a mistake in assuming that the humidity in California will never be a problem? See? There's no way to evaluate this information. It's just general information with no numbers behind it. Now if someone said, I ran a test and here's a graph temperature/humididty and anything above the line will give you problems. But even then, who's to say that the test results will hold up in the field?

Ok, just a bunch of dribble on how I react when I read these things. They leave me shrugging my shoulders wondering.

The thing for me, is that electronics and moisture are known to not play well. So, it shouldn't really be a surprise when someone mentions issues like that. I think what happens online, is that the MKH50 and the 641 get thrown into "vs" threads all of the time. Not many mics are going to be better than the MKH series RF condenser mics in extreme humidity for prolonged use.

Fun fact, Schoeps made an RF condenser mic, the CMT 20, in the 60's right before switching over to FET tech. Sennheiser was the only (major?) company to keep using RF technology.

FET is likely the better tech for sound reproduction. RF is interesting in that it allows for better or lower bass response in a small capsule, but I haven't recorded elephant conversations, so I'm not too worried about that. For the human voice, I think that it is hard to beat schoeps.

Looking forward to you visiting. Always better testing mics with two or more people.

 

[Guest]

Well I may not be original, but at least I'm consistent.

Those tests James posts are interesting...and clearly back up his statement, "bad mic technique is still bad mic technique." Nothing against the guy, but I think for the street scene, if the Sanken CS3e was positioned more vertically (or just less at the street), he'd have recorded less street noise. Even with different (and arguably better) positioning, the Schoeps CMIT and the others would probably still pick up more wet-tire street noise than I'd want.

I think of microphones as not just like prime lenses, but as prime lenses with a fixed apeture and focus distance. So moving them helps a lot...and having more than one also helps.
Geez, I and others have probably also said this before, too, huh?

Jim
PS- This has been an interesting thread. I always appreciate hearing other people's opinions and experiences. Thanks all!

It certainly wasn't a test comparison that anyone should base their purchase on, haha.

If I were to rate them by sound preference in these tests:

1. Schoeps CMC641
2. DPA 4017b, CMIT5u, MKH50
3. MKH416, MKH8060

and I almost disliked the CS1, but also feel a CS1 used well is better than any of the others used poorly, to reference the "bad technique is bad technique"

The CS3e was the unique one of the bunch. has a there-will-be-blood-i-drink-your-milkshake sort of ability to suck in whatever it is pointing at, compare to the others. given its performance was more unique, I don't know how to compare it to the others. It did well in the office as well. The only thing, was that I still preferred the sound of the Schoeps.

The MKH416. and MKH8060 performed a bit like one might expect a shotgun to perform indoors. A bit of that ping going on. Thought they were still better indoors than the CS1, imho.


The MKH50 did better than the MKH8060 and CS1 in the office, but I thought I could here a little more of the funky off axis stuff, that the SChoeps CMC641 did not have. I have noticed, the MKH40 is better indoors than the MKH50 for that reason.

The CMIT5u is a great all rounder, which it has a reputation for, but the DPA4017 surprised me, seemed to be on par, would have to use to feel out the differences, but I've never used DPA.

DPA is still new to me, and I am growing in interest over these mics, but perhaps in years to come. They were recommended to me when Schoeps and Sennheiser were back ordered. much to my chagrin, DPA is more expensive than a 641. haha.


Outdoors on the street, I felt the MKH50 did better than the NTG2 and CS1

Indoors, I felt the CMIT5u and DPA 4017 compared well with the 50.


The 641 was the only mic that handled the off axis reflections well. it just seemed to sound really like the room, wherever it was. Less "mic'd" sounding, and a bit more "there" feeling, without being clinical. The CMIT5u was not far behind, and had a great sound, as well.


Ok, I know I said the videos weren't good for buying, but if I had to buy based on those reviews:

If I were to buy two mic set, I might go CMIT5u + CMC641 (or variant). or DPA 4017 with a MKH40 or a DPA4018 (though I've never heard one first hand).

But just one mic, I feel it could be a toss up between the CS3e, Mini CMIT, 641, and MKH50.

 

[paulears]

I know we started off talking about outdoors, but those videos made me think - so I went around the studio today collecting shotguns and recorded each one I found.

Essentially I set the gain, swapped the mics and kept the end of the mic the same distance from my mouth - done with a tape measure. Done in the office, so there are computers and behind me a window for nice hard reflections. The mics I found were AKG 451 with CK8 and CK9 capsules, an Sennheiser 416, an Audio Technica 815 and a cheap Chinese copy of a 416 in looks and paper spec.

NOTE - forgive me but I kept referring to the Sennheiser as an AKG - put it down to age!

I've never actually compared them together. The first section of the recording shows the relative volumes - this is exactly as recorded by the zoom set to 44.1K The sequence repeats with all the mics normalised to the same peak level. The Audio Tec was quite low in level and the Chinese one rather high. I thought in my previous experiments that it was OK. I have re-evaluated this now. Clearly I was mistaken and it is not actually very nice at all. The Audio Tec seems quite dull. I cannot decide between the AKGs and the Sennheiser - the ck8 and the 416 seem very close tonally - the longer CK9 is a little more harsh maybe??

I don't have a windshield long enough for the CK9 - maybe one day I'll find one on ebay at a price I can afford.

https://www.eastanglianradio.com/shotgun.mp3