Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LRRec]

Recently I had the opportunity to demo a pair of new Schoeps CMC6/MK4 microphones. After hearing so many people recommend these mics I was eager to hear them for myself.  I tried them on acoustic gt, voice, percussion, drums and as 'room mics' all with different stereo techniques. Well, I was very unimpressed. The sound seemed artificial, with a grainy top end and seemed to have none of the 'magic' that other people have ascribed to these mics.

One thought that occurred to me was that I was using API 512's, the only preamps I had at the time with phantom power. These have high ratio input transformers that may or may not work well with the low output impedance of the Schoeps. My question is, would a different preamp or using build out resistors have noticeably changed the behavior of these microphones?

Thanks,

Steven

[Barry Hufker]

I don't think a different set of preamps would make a big difference unless the preamp had a sound of its own.  The impedance issue is nothing -- a low impedance will go into a higher impedance.

Schoeps *are* wonderful microphones.  But they are not "personality" microphones.  They don't have 'zing' and don't have a presence boost and don't have...  What they *do* have is a very natural sound.  The mics are exciting in that they give you what you have -- sometimes what you have (instrument/performer) isn't all that exciting.  The Schoeps will tell you that.  But they won't make it better.  Because of their natural sound, they can however be eq'd pretty easily.

Like all things that are out of the ordinary, they take a little getting used to.  The only thing I find lacking in them at times is a bit of detail -- and sometimes they have a bit too much "warmth" from their low frequency response.

But!  All those people aren't wrong about Schoeps.  They *are* great microphones, just maybe not your taste.

Barry

[LRRec]

Barry, thanks for responding.

I'm not so sure that the impedance issue is nothing. (Maybe it is.) There was a recent discussion on the Ampex List where Steve Hogan, formerly with Jensen Transformers, had this to say (I hope it is ok to quote him):

"Feeding the input transformer with the designed source impedance gives low
distortion and bessel high frequency response.
Feeding the same transformer with a significantly lower source impedance
will lower the low frequency THD and peak the high frequency response, often
resulting in a harsh sound.  Adding a couple of 60 Ohm build out resistors
between the output of a 30 Ohm microphone and the primary of an input
transformer designed for 150 Ohm microphones will amaze you."

Mr. Hogan also went on to say that the artifacts are worse the higher the transformer ratio.

I know that John Hardy and Doug Fearn have matching resistor networks on their transformer coupled preamps for use with low impedance mics.  Unfortunately I don't have access to the Schoeps right now and I was hoping someone would have some practical experience with them working into different preamps.

I also would question the notion that these mics don't have a 'personality'. I too heard what you called 'lack of detail' and the low frequency 'warmth'.

Barry wrote:

"But! All those people aren't wrong about Schoeps. They *are* great microphones, just maybe not your taste."


Well, if 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong, who's going to question a bunch of engineers.

Maybe it just isn't my taste.

Steven

[Barry Hufker]

Thanks for your reply (I wish I knew your name).  I found it quite informative, with the impedance issue in this case more complex than I realized.

When I said "personality" I should have said something along the lines of a "shaped frequency response" designed to put a sonic signature on the sound going through it.  Of course everything has a personality and what we both described is Schoeps'.  But I guess I should have said Schoeps are a bit of a "wallflower" rather than "the life of the party!"

Barry

[Dot]

LRRec, what type of music are you recording and what kind of sound are you wanting?

I think the API 512's would certainly color - and in many cases hinder - the more netural performance of Schoeps CEMC64's. I would strongly recommend you audition the Schoeps with a more clean preamp. If you're wanting a natural sound -  the combination of Hardy preamps and Schoeps on acoustic guitar is hard to beat.

I think Schoeps work best with traditional Americana acoustic-types of music like Bluegrass, Zydeco, Country, and acoustic-based Jazz. If you're doing rock/pop-type music, I can certainly see where you might find the Schoeps a bit lackluster.

I'd recommend you at least get your hands on another mic pre. Something by Hardy, Millennia, GML - in the clean/transparent range, and then see what you think of the Schoeps then. If they turn out not to be what you're looking for and you want something with a little more personality, then in that same range of price and performance I'd suggest you get your hands on a pair of Gefell M295's - with that Neumannish "sheen", color, detail and magic.

[Schallfeldnebel]

Are you sure you tested a CMC 6 and not a CMC 6xt?
The last one has an EQ on board emphasising the range above 10 to 40K. I really have my doubts about the xt version, all the phase problems are emphasised.

Also I would suggest to try a CMC 5. The highpass filter in the CMC 6 makes the amplifier go down deeper, but the filter is 12dB per octave, and the highpasss filter from the CMC 5 is 6 dB per octave, result rolling off more early, but less phase shift.

CMC 6U - second order Butterworth filter  -3dB at 20Hz
CMC 5U - first order filter               -3dB at 30Hz

I have tested a lot with highpass filters for taking away rumble from acoustical sessions, and the steeper the filter down there, the more sharp the top end becomes, caused by the phase shift of the highpass filter.

I have not compared the CMC 6 with the CMC 5, but if I ever have the chance, I would take time to compare them.

I would also suggest, to use Schoeps mikes together with transformerless input stages, or those transformer inputs for low Z output microphones like Hardy.

Erik Sikkema

[Mark Lemaire]

Dear LRRec

I bought a pair of MK2H heads with CMC6 amplifiers a few years ago for use as a main pair for classical recordings. My other main pair mics were/ are either a pair of DPA 4003 or Klaus modified Neumann M269s. My impression of the Schoeps? Much like yours. You wrote:

"The sound seemed artificial, with a grainy top end and seemed to have none of the 'magic' that other people have ascribed to these mics."

Besides that, I also found the mids and lows to seem kinda 'grey', for want of a better word. The 4003s seemed like the lows and mids were more 'solid black', while the Schoeps sounded 'greyish'. The Schoeps seemed darker than either of the other pairs in tone- and darker than the 4003 does not generally suit my tastes.

I have heard some fine recordings that used Schoeps mics, but I am not the person who made them. While my personal experience with this single pair is in no way an overview of the whole Schoeps line, I disliked the sound enough that I have felt no reason to try more by that brand since.

sincerely

Mark Lemaire

[Schallfeldnebel]

Mark,

I very much respect your observations about the Schoeps MK 2H and the CMC 6. Of course there is very much difference between the DPA 4003 130V and the Schoeps P48 Colette series. I wonder only how much psychology is involved in how you describe the differences in grey and black colours, since the Schoeps Colette series have Nextel grey housings, and the DPA mikes are matblack.

It is obvious we all have our preferences, and also I can name several types and brands of microphones I dislike in someway. It is only difficult to say why, and if I am not influenced by other information than only what I heard auditioning them.

Once I was recording with Philipe Entremont all Beethoven pianoconcierto's, and one microphone of my Neumann TLM 50 set started to produce rumble, and I needed to replace the microphone with the start of the 2nd movement. Since my reserve microphone was already at Neumann for repair I was left with one other option, change both TLM 50's for two DPA 4003 including the APE's. No one ever complained the sound from the second and third movement did not fit well together. The sound is pretty much the same.

The Schoeps Colette series are very pleasant microphones, I like the BLM very much, and also the MK5. I still suspect the different highpass filter in the CMC 6. I will call Schoeps, and ask them if I can borrow a CMC 6 and compare it with the CMC 5. If they offer me this possibility I will come back to it in this thread. At the moment I am testing the new Schoeps CMD 2 conditioner-AD converter with AES 42 output. I have no connection to the Schoeps microphone company, only a high interest in digital microphones.

Erik Sikkema

 

[LRRec]

Thanks to everyone for replying.

EricS wrote:

Are you sure you tested a CMC 6 and not a CMC 6xt?
Also I would suggest to try a CMC 5.

Yes, it was a CMC6. I would be curious to hear any differences between the CMC5 and the CMC6.

Mark Lemaire wrote:

My impression of the Schoeps? Much like yours.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Steven

[liuto]

I own a pair of CMC54 and can't find any of your described characteristics. I find them to sound very smooth and pleasant, at least for my application as a main mic for choral and baroque or classical chamber music. Compared to my former workhorse, Neumann KM84 I prefer the Schoeps in most situations. I have no experience with DPA mics so I cannot comment on these.
Regards
Hermann

[Barry Hufker]

I too don't want to disparage Schoeps.  I like their microphones very much.  They are good microphones with great qualities.  They aren't limited to any one style of music and they aren't for every application (which one is?).

I have found the sound of the CMC5 with the MK2S to be very good.  "Smooth" and "pleasant" are both good words Hermann chose to describe them.  I have never found them to be harsh or grainy either in the top or mid.

In fact, it is their neutrality that is their undoing.  People are attracted initially to a brighter sound or a louder sound.  That's just the way we're built.  Schoeps just isn't that type of microphone, nor should it be to my way of thinking.

The British say "horses for courses."  We need a variety of microphones for a variety of applications.  Often Schoeps fills the bill.

Barry

[David Satz]

Erik, if I remember correctly you often make organ recordings with pressure (omnidirectional) transducers. You'd be one of the relatively few people to whom the difference in the infrasonic filters between the CMC 5 and the CMC 6 might matter. I'd assume that you would lean toward the CMC 6.

However, in either model the turnover point can be set by the factory to any reasonable audio frequency, either as a special order at the time of purchase or as a "retrofit" modification. And if you want the filter out of the audio band completely, it can be set to ca. 2 - 3 Hz; that's a standard option listed in the catalog.

Otherwise, the general recommendation is that people who are just starting out with Schoeps might want the CMC 6 especially for location recording. It adapts to 12- or 48-Volt phantom powering giving equal performance either way, and the ones manufactured in the past year or two have truly superior RFI / EMI rejection (though I only once have had an RFI problem with my CMC 3 amplifiers in something like 1500 live recordings, most in large American cities--and that one time was in a church out in the suburbs).

The CMC 3 and CMC 5 are still available for people who are reasonably certain that they will only ever use 12 Volt or 48 Volt phantom powering, respectively, and of course for people who are looking to match another Schoeps CMC amplifier that they already own.

--best regards

[Klaus Heyne]

Quote:

... The (Schoeps) mics are exciting in that they give you what you have -- sometimes what you have (instrument/performer) isn't all that exciting. The Schoeps will tell you that. But they won't make it better...

and:

Quote:

In fact, it is their neutrality that is their undoing. People are attracted initially to a brighter sound or a louder sound. That's just the way we're built. Schoeps just isn't that type of microphone, nor should it be to my way of thinking.

Barry, even if I overlook the seeming discrepancy between the first sentences in both of your quotes, I have a fundamental problem with the logic of your (and many others') thinking about this subject:

To me ONE very important job a good mic has to succeed in is to translate the musical event I heard with my ears well enough into the electro-acoustic realm that I can again embrace it emotionally.

I firmly believe that our hearing is so complex and refined that no microphone ever can capture what we hear, because the medium, even in its current state of the art, is too primitive.

So, let's talk here about the very best microphones, i.e. those that were conceived and executed without engineering or financial shortcuts, and therefore avoid blatant, major-league artifacts introduced by either bad capsule or bad electronic design (the Schoeps company is certainly in that category with most ot their offerings.)

This is my theory: Because the sonic truth we heard originally in the performance cannot be transmitted, we react emotionally to a certain type of acoustic/electronic manipulation by the microphone (and its associated follow-up equipment.)

If the manipulation is done well, either by design or by happenstance (As an example I am thinking of the ELA M251 in both cases), we generally will respond positively emotionally, and may even regard the recorded sound as "realistic".

If the manipulation is done without introducing specific euphemisms- done through frequency response, level and type of distortion, etc.- then we will not embrace the results emotionally.

I therefore treat the terminology of a "neutral" sounding mic with suspicion- this is invariably a mic that only intellectually convinces me- a mic so "real" that I don't even respond to it emotionally anymore.

If that is the case, the mic has no place for me in my life, because I come to recorded music for the same reason that I come to a performance: I want emotional connection to the music.

I do not want to be misunderstood: My esteemed colleagues and I are striving for ever better qualities of sound transmission in a microphone, because each and every bit of euphemism that can be replaced by a higher grade of transmission here or there in the circuit or membrane is one step closer to an emotional musical truth and satisfaction. But I still see a huge gaping hole where the mic- every mic- has to fudge, because the ear's functions are so superior.

P.S.: I hope we as professional audio enthusiasts are finally past the state where we will react positively just because a mic is brighter.
On the other hand, a brighter mic (within reason!) can 'make up' transmission losses over distance, which out ear/brain combo can effortlessly overcome.

Kind regards,

[Barry Hufker]

How shall I answer Klaus?  Let's see if I can explain myself better... probably not.

People by nature are attracted to brighter and louder sounds.  That is how we are built -- that's why radio stations keep trying to be louder than the competition and that's why pop songs are compressed beyond all reason.  Brighter is attractive because there is a "zing" or excitement.  Take any two microphones, listen to the bright one then listen to the less bright one.  The less bright one will sound dull by comparison.

Now having said the above, both of these qualities -- excessive brightness and loudness -- are only interesting in the short term as they are not "normal" or "natural" or satisfying in the long run because they are artifical and hyped.  People like hyped at least for short periods of time -- bright, pretty lights and loud noises are the mainstay of any 4th of July celebration or rock concert.

This leads me to Schoeps.  I believe the company attempts to make a "neutral" sounding microphone or an "accurate" microphone that attempts to convey all the excitement of the original performance (both player and instrument).  That as a goal can be a very exciting one -- the excitement of not making an "exciting" microphone (an "exciting microphone" in this case being [to my mind] one that tends to hype the sound of the instrument/performance).

Consequently, Schoeps can be perceived as "dull," "too polite" or as I described, a "wallflower."  To me a wallflower is a quiet, unassuming person who has the potential to be a great guest at the party but may or may not be.  So the sonic equivalent to me is a microphone (Schoeps) that is not drawing attention to itself but in the right circumstances at the right party could be a wonderful and exciting guest because this guest will bring out the best in others attending the party.

So what is the emotional reward? The Schoeps tries to offer you all the richness and excitement provided by the sound source, while adding as little color of its own as it can.  For this experience to be emotionally rewarding, you damn well better have something wonderful to put through the mic.  If you do, then magic.  If you don't then "have a nice afternoon because nothin' exciting is going on here."

Now as you stated, no microphone is transparent.  Each has its sound or personality.  A microphone like the ELA M251 has its sound, which does color (at least to me) the sound source in a way that may or may not be flattering, but there is no mistaking this personality.  To me, the CMC5 body and the MK2S capsule can be a wonderful combination conveying magic.  Its personality tho' is that it can be a bit too "tubby" or "warm" in the bass, while lacking some ability to accurately convey transients (being a little indistinct in its sound).

One mic seeks to flatter (the ELA M251), while another trys to avoid being noticed.  Each succeeds to some extent.  So again, how is there emotional enjoyment?

Maybe a photographic analogy would help.  For me, the 251 would be an airbrushed photo, where the appearance of the subject's face has been enhanced to offer a more pleasing or enjoyable representation.  The Schoeps then would be the photograph were we could see age spots, wrinkles and scars.  All of these not being terribly attractive but offering a more realistic look at the person.  By seeing these "flaws" we can appreciate the life actually lived because we see it in that person's face.  That to me is much more exciting, enjoyable and rewarding than any artifice.

I've used a lot of words.  Did I convey anything?

Barry

[Mike Mermagen]

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 20 July 2005 05:59

So what is the emotional reward? The Schoeps tries to offer you all the richness and excitement provided by the sound source, while adding as little color of its own as it can.  For this experience to be emotionally rewarding, you damn well better have something wonderful to put through the mic.  If you do, then magic.   Barry

It took me about 10 years of recording "proving grounds" testing all the flavors and brands of vintage and modern mics to finally arrive at the philosophy of the above quote.

In fact, I found that when you finally get all the ingredients of fantastic performers on world class instruments (or voices) in a flattering concert hall acoustic, that the so-called flattering and highly colored large diaphram vintage microphones detract from beauty that is there before you and you wish for equipment that could reproduce the beauty, not create it's own kind of beauty.

Mike

[Mark Lemaire]

Mike-

I agree with you (and others) that in a great acoustic and great players in good balance, a 'flattering' mic is not necessary or warranted, as it is all already there. In many instances, though, the players and hall need all the help they can get!

For instance, if the hall is muddy and/ or the players are using baroque instruments, then the extra 'zing' and clarity of the Neumann M269 is often called for. The DPA 4003 (which I always set up as well) has too neutral a top end here, it's low-end extension is a liability with a passing bus, and the mids only accentuate any lack of clarity in the acoustic. Besides that, the M269 also has the added advantage of a continuously variable pickup pattern. I often need to move away from my default omni setting to some degree or another to shut out even MORE of a muddy hall or gain more focus on players further from the front of stage, all impossible with the omni-only 4003.

However, with modern symphony musicians in modern halls, I often use the 4003 as a main pair as the brighter modern instruments and the drier (often too dry) hall would seem harsh using the Neumanns and are perfect with the (omni) 4003.

The Schoeps, however, were (to my ear) darker than the 4003 in tone and somehow displeasing to my ear. I am happy that other respected engineers find so much enjoyment in them- they are just not for me. For me, my 'neutral' mic of choice is the 4003.

Erik-

"I very much respect your observations about the Schoeps MK 2H and the CMC 6. Of course there is very much difference between the DPA 4003 130V and the Schoeps P48 Colette series. I wonder only how much psychology is involved in how you describe the differences in grey and black colours, since the Schoeps Colette series have Nextel grey housings, and the DPA mikes are matblack."

If you 'respect my observations', please prove that by trusting that I know better than to assume that a grey mic will 'sound' grey or a black mic 'sound' black.


sincerely

Mark Lemaire

[liuto]

Mark,
which of the Schoeps omni capsules did you compare to the DPA 4003? There are in total 4 different omnis from Schoeps from linear (MK2) to diffuse field (MK3 +6dB@10kHz) equalized with MK2H (+2dB) and MK2S (+4dB)inbetween. Especially the MK3 ist rather bright sounding (compared to a KM83 which has nominally the same response!). While I think it is more practical to only change grids on a microphone (DPA) than a much more expensive capsule, I don't know if you can generally state Schoeps omnis are darker sounding than the DPA 4003.
Best regards
Hermann Platzer

[Mark Lemaire]

Hermann-

In my original post you will read that the mics I auditioned were a pair of MK2H heads with CMC6 amplifiers. Also if you read my earlier, original post you will see that I very carefully did NOT make any such general statement about Schoeps in general (I know they make many mics), but limited my opinion only to the mics I purchased and then returned.

sincerely

Mark L

[recordista]

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 20 July 2005 05:59

Brighter is attractive because there is a "zing" or excitement.  Take any two microphones, listen to the bright one then listen to the less bright one.  The less bright one will sound dull by comparison.

To some of us the 'bright' ones are just irritating.

[Barry Hufker]

And frankly I think "the bright ones" ought to be.  But then think about what kind of crappy speakers most people buy.

Barry

[Jørn Bonne]

Mark Lemaire wrote on Sat, 16 July 2005 07:15

Dear LRRec I bought a pair of MK2H heads with CMC6 amplifiers a few years ago for use as a main pair for classical recordings. My other main pair mics were/ are either a pair of DPA 4003 or Klaus modified Neumann M269s. My impression of the Schoeps? Much like yours. You wrote: "The sound seemed artificial, with a grainy top end and seemed to have none of the 'magic' that other people have ascribed to these mics." sincerely Mark Lemaire

Mark and Steven,

I have been testing Schoeps microphones the last few months in my quest to find a good setup for recording steel string acoustic guitar in the nearfield (about one foot out). CMC6 amps with Mk21, MK41, Mk4, Mk5 and MK8 in different stereo setups.

I found the same "artificial" sound and "grainy top end" you both are referring to, much to my surprise. The sound was very different from the actual sound of the guitar in the room. Guitar used was a Lowden with a big and solid sound overall and very full sounding treble.

Especially the sound from the top strings suffered, they came out sounding thin and unnatural. At first I thought my chain might have something to do with it, but when I heard the Royer demo CD, where Steve Albini has an example of a Martin guitar recorded with Schoeps, I heard that same weak and unnaturel top end in his recording as well.

I think Klaus has a good point when he writes:
"To me ONE very important job a good mic has to succeed in is to translate the musical event I heard with my ears well enough into the electro-acoustic realm that I can again embrace it emotionally.

I firmly believe that our hearing is so complex and refined that no microphone ever can capture what we hear, because the medium, even in its current state of the art, is too primitive".

The lack of "magic" is not about hyped top vs. flat response, but more about the way the mics represent the actual sound of the instrument as heard in the room. The trouble in my application is not that the Schoeps have less treble than some other mics, but that the treble sounds artificial and does not represent the sound of the instrument in an appealing way.

Kind regards

J

[liuto]

Sorry Mark,
when I read your second posting I had forgotten the first one!
Regards
Hermann Platzer

[Barry Hufker]

J

[LRRec]

Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 22 July 2005 22:31

J Barry Hufker Hero Member Offline Posts: 8228 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Steven, I don't understand why I've given you whiplash.  I sure hope your insurance covers you for it! If you read all my postings on this subject (and I don't know why anyone would) then I think you'd find a very clear logic -- it is the notion of obvious personalities versus more subtle personalities in microphones.  It is not limited to frequency response but design philosophy, transient response etc.  How can that not be clear?? With regard to impedance, I thought you and I hashed that out at the beginning.  I said I didn't think there would be any change as long as a low impedance went into a higher one.  Then you stated a reason as to why that may not be so.  So if the question is "does impedance have an effect?" then based on your information alone the answer must be "yes." Are different preamps going to make a difference due to impedance or some other aspect of design? Sure. I am sorry if I've been difficult to understand or have somehow appeared to flip-flop.  It's not my fault you can't read my mind! ;>) -- I hate smiley symbols. Barry David Satz Hero Member Offline Posts: 661 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Steven, I don't know the API preamps, but you describe them as having input transformers with a relatively high turns ratio. This type of input circuit makes good sense for use with low-output dynamic microphones, since you can get as much as 20 dB "free" voltage gain right at the input. But this voltage gain in the input stage is unnecessary with high-output condenser microphones, and in fact can cause some rather severe problems. The most easily predictable of these problems is input stage overload at high sound pressure levels. This is especially dangerous since most preamps do not have overload indicators that respond to conditions at the input; you can record a live performance and not hear the distortion until it's too late. Another problem that may be less well known or expected is that the input circuit's high frequency response can deviate several dB from linear when driven by a very different source impedance from what the preamp's design "expects." The problems can range from an unintended rolloff to possibly boosted, peaky response. In extreme cases of peaky response, bursts of parasitic oscillation can even occur on transients. In many (most?) U.S.-designed preamps that have this type of input circuit, a 150 - 200 Ohm microphone source impedance was assumed. But the Schoeps CMC 6-- amplifier has an output impedance of only 35 Ohms when operated from a 48 Volt supply. So unfortunately, your preamp can't be assumed to work correctly in the top two audible octaves or so, given its design. Maybe it's working properly but maybe it really isn't. If you have access to a pair of balanced, resistive pads (Shure A15A for example) please try inserting them at the inputs to your preamp. That will reduce the output from the microphones so that input overload is far less likely to occur, and at the same time will raise the driving impedance that the preamp's inputs are "seeing," bringing it into the intended range. If this causes a noticeable change in the sound of the microphones, then you've got evidence that the preamp is unfortunately not especially suitable for use with modern, transformerless condenser microphones--and not only Schoeps, by the way. And if there is a difference, then the sound that you get with the pads in place should be more representative of what the microphones are actually capable of putting out. Would you please let us know what you find? --best regards LRRec Newbie Offline Posts: 18 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues David Satz wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 02:32 Steven, Would you please let us know what you find? --best regards David, As I said in an earlier post, I don't have access to the Schoeps now. I had them on loan for a short time. I am aware of input stage overloading and that was not the case in this instance. If ever I do get the chance I will try your other suggestions. Sincerely, LRRec Ivo Full Member Offline Posts: 169 Re: Schoeps? bonne wrote on Fri, 22 July 2005 18:56 Mark and Steven, I have been testing Schoeps microphones the last few months in my quest to find a good setup for recording steel string acoustic guitar in the nearfield (about one foot out). CMC6 amps with Mk21, MK41, Mk4, Mk5 and MK8 in different stereo setups. I found the same "artificial" sound and "grainy top end" you both are referring to, much to my surprise. The sound was very different from the actual sound of the guitar in the room. Guitar used was a Lowden with a big and solid sound overall and very full sounding treble. J Ivo VELVET MASTERING www.velvetmastering.com SAVITA MUSIC www.savita.cz Jørn Bonne Full Member Offline Posts: 129 Re: Schoeps? Hi Ivo, I'm sure very expensive preamps and converters would make a difference. But if we concentrate on the microphones for a second, I have in the last couple of months recorded with different stereo setups involving microphones from B&K, Brauner, Sennheiser (MKH-series), Royer and others in addition to Schoeps. Spaced, crossed, M/S and Blumlein. Using the same chain in every instance. The Schoeps setups especially were lacking in reproduction of the treble part of the instrument leading to an artificial overall sound, both in relation to the actual sound in the room AND in comparison to the results achieved with the other setups. Davids explanation of the impedance issues related to Schoeps and different preamps may be a part of this picture. Like Steven I have unfortunately returned the Schoeps by now and won't be able to test with the suggested resistive pads at the moment. I mentioned the Steve Albini sample recording with Schoeps (from the Royer demo) because although he most likely used a different chain than I did, I recognised right away the weak top end of the Martin guitar he was recording. Very similar to what I got using Schoeps on a Lowden. This similarity was clearly evident both on my studio setup and on my living room stereo setup. Kind regards J Schallfeldnebel Hero Member Offline Posts: 816 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Earlier I wrote: "I very much respect your observations about the Schoeps MK 2H and the CMC 6. Of course there is very much difference between the DPA 4003 130V and the Schoeps P48 Colette series. I wonder only how much psychology is involved in how you describe the differences in grey and black colours, since the Schoeps Colette series have Nextel grey housings, and the DPA mikes are matblack." And Mark Lemaire replied: "If you 'respect my observations', please prove that by trusting that I know better than to assume that a grey mic will 'sound' grey or a black mic 'sound' black." I worked 24 years ago for the first time with Schoeps, and 20 years ago with B&K. Although I hear clear differences in the bass, I cannot make myself a picture what a greyish or black sound in the bass means. The only remark I can make about the difference in bass between the DPA 4003 and Schoeps CMC - MK2(s), is the Schoeps capsules in general are a bit more colourised in the Great Octave. About the "hearing in colours", I once described the loss of HF of a converter in stead of dark, as purple, untill I found out later this converter model had a purple stripe on it's front, which I had not noticed before. From that moment I had doubts about my findings. I must have seen the purple stripe, even when I did not remember it. I prefer rather words like dark, dull, bright for the discant, and coloured, thin or fat for the lower octaves instead. David Satz wrote:"Erik, if I remember correctly you often make organ recordings with pressure (omnidirectional) transducers. You'd be one of the relatively few people to whom the difference in the infrasonic filters between the CMC 5 and the CMC 6 might matter. I'd assume that you would lean toward the CMC 6." I do not use the CMC6. I may have not been clear, a 12dB per octave highpass filter causes in the high midrange because of phaseshift a different "colour" than a 6 dB per octave highpass filter or no filter at all, and therefore it is also audible on guitar or any other instrument without subsonic tonal information. Therefore I prefer a 6 dB per octave solution like the CMC5, but as far down as possible, 5 hz. Erik Sikkema Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals." Plush Sr. Member Offline Posts: 264 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I find the discussion very surprising. Actually I'm shocked by those who call Schoeps a grainy sound. Not an exciting sound??--then get a more exciting instrument! My maxim is: (With a neutral microphone)"The microphone is not making the sound.                            The source is making the sound." I don't take this discussion seriously at all. Hudson Fair Atelier HudSonic, Chicago http://www.myspace.com/hudsonek David Satz Hero Member Offline Posts: 661 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Plush, like you I don't know what to say if people call Schoeps microphones "grainy" sounding, but that's partly because I've never been able to figure out what "grainy" is supposed to mean where sound is concerned. I only know that it isn't good. But even conceding that a "neutral" microphone still acts like a microphone and that our conventional ways of reproducing audio still don't sound quite like the real thing most of the time, I don't want false promises to be left hanging in the air regarding Schoeps microphones. Specifically, not quite all of their music capsules are designed for the flattest possible frequency response. The MK 4V cardioid (the one that is laterally addressed) has a slight high frequency "marketing peak," and any of their omni capsules other than the MK 2 will have a high-frequency rise on axis if it is used closer to the sound source than intended--though that's just as true for anybody else's omni capsules unless they are teeny-tiny. --best regards LRRec Newbie Offline Posts: 18 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Plush wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 19:06 I find the discussion very surprising. Actually I'm shocked by those who call Schoeps a grainy sound. Not an exciting sound??--then get a more exciting instrument! I don't take this discussion seriously at all. Plush, Let me get this staight, because people have had experiences and opinions different from your own, you won't take this discussion seriously? Thanks for letting us know. Also, I don't think anyone in this thread who has been critical of these microphones has said the reason they didn't care for them was that they were not 'exciting'. David, I agree, it is extremely imprecise using language to describe what we hear in audio, but until somebody comes up with something better, it will have to do. Unfortunately, words such as grey, black, orange(!), opulent, grainy, sexy (as our moderator likes to use), neutral, bright and even exciting can mean different things to different people. Steven Rick Sutton Sr. Member Offline Posts: 265 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I don't have a lot to add in the technical discussion but thought I'd add my experiences with Schoeps mics. Over the years I've owned 4 CMC bodies and 6 various MK capsules. I was originally attracted to them for use as remote recording mics for choirs but really never got the results that I had hoped for. I've since returned to Neumann KM84's which consistently give more pleasing results with choirs. I've had reasonable success with Schoeps in other applications but not until I stumbled across a combination of a pair of old CMC bodies with a new pair of MK4 capsules coupled with Tab-Funkenwerk V72S preamp on my Yamaha C7 piano did I become a fan of the microphones. My C7 has been problematic to get a full sound from without  the top end becoming harsh. I thought I'd tried every combination in my studio but the Schoeps/Tab combo has been absolutely superior to all my other mics, which include many wonderful tube condenser  and ribbon models. Anyway, I sold my other Schoeps bodies and capsules but the mismatched ugly duckling combo ( old grey bodies and shiny new silver capsules) are not likely to be sold for a long time. Rick ted nightshade Hero Member Offline Posts: 1272 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues FWIW my experiences with various Schoeps capsules and bodies are archived here. Suffice to say that the mk4 is not, to my taste, the most thrilling Schoeps capsule out there. I vastly prefer the mk41, which has served me very well within it's limitations, and all mics have limitations. I've captured some beautiful colors and emotions with the mk41/cmc6 combination, using just a single mic. The vibe was very much there. I do hear that grainy thing too. All I can say is, placement placement placement, and sometimes a different mic does better. Great tool though. Just have 'net access for a couple days here, BTW- glad to see this remains a great forum. Ted Nightshade aka Cowan There's a sex industry too. Or maybe you prefer home cookin'? Jim Williams Hero Member Offline Posts: 1105 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I first got a pair of Schoeps in 1983. Thought they were real clean through a transformerless mic preamp. My opinion has reversed 180 on them. They are too dirty. They mask low level details.They have too much transistor color. They cost too much. They also make the best 1/2" capsules in the world. Too bad the electronics don't live up to the capabilities of the capsules. I havn't used them in 10 years, although I've tried. No of the artists I tried them on liked them either. The circuit is now used extensivly by the Chi-coms in the low cost Marshall mics(MXL2003). It's one of those circuits that grabs you at first, then fatigues the ears after time. One Reporter's Opinion. Jim Williams Audio Upgrades Schallfeldnebel Hero Member Offline Posts: 816 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote:"Too bad the electronics don't live up to the capabilities of the capsules. " Then the new CMD2 digital microphone conditioner amplifier AD converter module with AES 42 output will surprise you. Although maybe not available yet on the market, I have been testing with them for a couple of weeks, and I am very enthusiastic about them. Erik Sikkema Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals." Ivo Full Member Offline Posts: 169 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 21 August 2005 19:16 I fThey are too dirty. They mask low level details.They have too much transistor color. I havn't used them in 10 years, although I've tried. No of the artists I tried them on liked them either. Well, if it is a general truth, Schoeps company would have ceased to exist long time ago ... Or could it mean that those using Schoeps microphones (after carefully selecting them among all the other branches) have something wrong with their ears ? Ivo VELVET MASTERING www.velvetmastering.com SAVITA MUSIC www.savita.cz locosoundman Jr. Member Offline Posts: 65 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Just my $.02: I have used the Schoeps CMC6 amplifiers with different capsules through several different preamps.  I especially like the sound of the Hardy M-2 with the Schoeps switch, but I also have enjoyed the colour that the API 3124 imparts in certain situations. The only time I have ever noticed a "graininess" was once using the Schoeps with a Sytek preamp (which I believe is transformerless) as drum overheads, or times when I was recording with cheap AD convertors.  Sometimes good mic's and/or pre's can expose other flaws in your recording chain. Best, Rob Anderson What does this little red button do? klaukholm Jr. Member Offline Posts: 79 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I have found that the 4003/millennia/prism combination can sometimes be too hard sounding in the upper mids or top end. When this is the case our M150's have the same resolution but a milder top end. By aiming the mics more or less away from the bright source you get some control of the hardness albeit sometimes with some change in imaging. When the M150's are too hard our Schoeps M222 are most likely in their right element. To me neither of the three have too much or too little of anything, they are simply different tools for different situations and tastes. I find it surprising that the top amplifier in the schoeps range, the M222, is not mentioned in this discussion. As a spot for double bass in orchestra the mk4cmc5 can make the player/instrument come across as "pressed" and "stringy" to me. The m222 with the mk6 in cardioid has a gentle high lift and seems to open up the sound and the playing seems more high class. The interesting thing is that as a player, the added highs does not make it sound "brighter", atleast in players terminology. The added treble changed the mids and removed the stringy/pressed feeling. With a different bass and different player it might be the other way around. I would suggest trying the M222 with a pre like the Millennia. I would also take a look at the mk4v capsule or even the mk5. "Grainy" makes perfect sense to me. To me it is an impurity in the resonance of a sound. It often comes to mind in a sound that has white noise or "extra musical" components. It can also be present in a sound that is "flarp", i.e. some flat and sharp components. An example can be a string instruments wolftone or simply a substandard player. I am curious as to what improvements someone like Klaus can make on a cmc5 or cmc6. Polyhymnia has chosen to make their own body for the capsules. I would love a solid state option on par with the M222 bodies. And I would gladly pay M222 money for it as well. Kjetil Laukholm CK Recording Malmö Symphony Orchestra Yannick Willox Sr. Member Offline Posts: 264 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I have to agree with Jim Williams. For me it is strange to see how Schoeps lovers mention the purity of the electronics as one of the advantages. Some completely dislike the MKH series of Sennheiser because it is full of electronics. They can hear it. Well, as Jim, I hear a completely artificial zingy thing on the Schoeps mics I have used, and records which I know to have used them. That seems contradictory, but maybe some people are more sensitive to one kind of electronic sound, and others to another aspect ? For me, the MKH series does something strange around 2K on some sources. But Schoeps on strings just sound like broken strings to me ... Yannick Willox Acoustic Recording Service Andy Simpson Hero Member Offline Posts: 714 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Piano is one instrument where there is no sustained energy, unlike voice/violin/brass/etc. Each note is a single attack and decay, which is easier for a microphone to deal with. This is one possible reason why a microphone can be surprisingly useful on the piano where it might not be useful on other sources. In any case, anybody who has spent any time trying to remove 'graininess' with EQ will know that these artefacts are time-domain related. Andy www.SimpsonMicrophones.com - Next Generation Microphones TLM50 VS NextGen Decca Tree WAV Jim Williams Hero Member Offline Posts: 1105 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I have had good results in Schoeps and similar circuits by removing the European BC transistors and the jfet. I find the BC audio transistors to sound grainy, this was pointed out to me by tonmeister Andrew Lipinsky when I rebuilt his Beyer 740 mics. The Wima MKS mylar coupling caps help in softening this grain, pop in some MKP-2 polyprops and you will hear those transistors zinging along. Transformer input preamp also help soften the grain, a fast transformerless preamp makes them the Emperor with no clothes. Jim Williams Audio Upgrades Schallfeldnebel Hero Member Offline Posts: 816 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues In the middle of the nineties my Schoeps CMC's were modified to B&K electronics alike designs, first with phantompower and later based on separate power-leads with 60V basic voltage for both preamp and capsule. The results were not that much better from the original Schoeps designs, except the low end was a bit more tight with the MK2 and MK2s. What people have described here on the forum I can recognize, but in my opinion there may be another aspect causing disappointment with users. Mylar/PE/polyester made omnis (Schoeps mk2(s), Neumann km183) do have higher mechanical distortion than e.g. the nickel DPA and B&K omni (measuring) microphones. When their behaviour is very neutral, like the Schoeps MK2(s) or H, this distortion might be more obvious and disappointing than with brands like Neumann, where aside the mechanical distortion also more musical colouration is a part of the design, and as a result the whole concept seems to sound more appealing. Anyway the Schoeps cardioid MK4 for me belongs in the absolute top ten of cardioids, aside the DPA 4011, Sennheiser MKH406, Beyerdynamic MCD100, Sanken CU44X and others. Erik Sikkema Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals." Klaus Heyne Hero Member Offline Posts: 3154 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 08:55 I have had good results... by removing the European BC transistors and the J-Fet. I find the BC audio transistors to sound grainy Which J-Fets and transistors do you find less "grainy", as you call it? Quote:  The Wima MKS mylar coupling caps help in softening this grain, pop in some MKP-2 polyprops and you will hear those transistors zinging along. Is that a good thing to hear them "zinging along" ? Or did I misunderstand you? Klaus Heyne German Masterworks www.GermanMasterworks.com Jim Williams Hero Member Offline Posts: 1105 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Some of the older jfets like the 2N3019 are dark, the replacement Toshiba 2SK107/170 are better. I like the RF parts like Siliconix J305's best, they sound much more open especially with very high input impedances above 3 gig ohms. The discontinued Hitachi 2SA1084 and 2SC2546's sound very good in microphones plus they have lower noise, a .5 nv/hz/sq noise spec. The top end loses it's hard and strident transistor sound, they are just open and relaxed sounding in comparison. Jim Williams Audio Upgrades minister Hero Member Offline Posts: 1761 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues David Satz wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 15:37 Plush, like you I don't know what to say if people call Schoeps microphones "grainy" sounding, but that's partly because I've never been able to figure out what "grainy" is supposed to mean where sound is concerned. Octava MK012.  That's my definition of grainy.  By that, i mean missing something, and what is left lacks smoothness. I believe that the people who are saying "grainy" WRT to Schoeps mean "not as clear as" (insert mic of preference for them).  and that they hear "grain" in the frequency spectrum.  Rather obvious interpretation, but i know what they mean. I do not, however, agree.  I use the CMC6-U's for field recording along with a Sound Devices 702 which has a 7.5k ohm Input Impedance.  With the CMC6-U's at 35 ohm, i do not expereince graininess, rather smooth and natural sound.  If I add EQ to the top end with a decent EQ, I do not get more graininess. In the studio, i use them for Foley for films and find them to be natural sounding.  This is usually with a Focusrite ISA 110 with an input impedance of 1.2k ohms). I just ordered a John Hardy Twin Servo 990 with the 20 ohm switch. I am interested to hear if there is a big difference with the different impedances. and if i hear more "graininess" comparatively with the other impedances. In the end, our brains hear things differently.  Oliver Sax can attest to that.  So, it does come down to : what are *YOU* looking for. And, they certainly do not work on everything. tom hambleton C.A.S. minister of fancy noises ministry of fancy noises IMDb minister Hero Member Offline Posts: 1761 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Ok.... So it took a LONG time to get the Hardy Pre.... the first one shipped had the wrong features and the correct unit took a long to get here. The Hardy specs say 150 or 20 Ohm impedance when you have the switch.  I can say categorically that there is a BIG difference in the sound.  I very quickly recorded my assistant talking an the 20 Ohm version sounds nice and clear and the 150 Ohm version sounds clouded and clogged by comparison.  I listen to the recordings back to back. I plan to record a bit of music or something more suitable for posting as a comparison.  I will return to post when I have those files ready. tom hambleton C.A.S. minister of fancy noises ministry of fancy noises IMDb Andy Simpson Hero Member Offline Posts: 714 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 21 August 2005 19:16 I first got a pair of Schoeps in 1983. Thought they were real clean through a transformerless mic preamp. My opinion has reversed 180 www.SimpsonMicrophones.com - Next Generation Microphones TLM50 VS NextGen Decca Tree WAV Print Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]   Go Up « previous next » R/E/P Community > R/E/P > R/E/P Archives > Klaus Heyne's Mic Lab (Moderator: klaus) > Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues   SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies XHTML RSS WAP2 Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc. Page created in 0.047 seconds with 13 queries.

[Barry Hufker]

Steven,

I don't understand why I've given you whiplash.  I sure hope your insurance covers you for it!

If you read all my postings on this subject (and I don't know why anyone would) then I think you'd find a very clear logic -- it is the notion of obvious personalities versus more subtle personalities in microphones.  It is not limited to frequency response but design philosophy, transient response etc.  How can that not be clear??

With regard to impedance, I thought you and I hashed that out at the beginning.  I said I didn't think there would be any change as long as a low impedance went into a higher one.  Then you stated a reason as to why that may not be so.  So if the question is "does impedance have an effect?" then based on your information alone the answer must be "yes."

Are different preamps going to make a difference due to impedance or some other aspect of design? Sure.

I am sorry if I've been difficult to understand or have somehow appeared to flip-flop.  It's not my fault you can't read my mind!
;>) -- I hate smiley symbols.

Barry

[David Satz]

Steven, I don't know the API preamps, but you describe them as having input transformers with a relatively high turns ratio. This type of input circuit makes good sense for use with low-output dynamic microphones, since you can get as much as 20 dB "free" voltage gain right at the input. But this voltage gain in the input stage is unnecessary with high-output condenser microphones, and in fact can cause some rather severe problems.

The most easily predictable of these problems is input stage overload at high sound pressure levels. This is especially dangerous since most preamps do not have overload indicators that respond to conditions at the input; you can record a live performance and not hear the distortion until it's too late.

Another problem that may be less well known or expected is that the input circuit's high frequency response can deviate several dB from linear when driven by a very different source impedance from what the preamp's design "expects." The problems can range from an unintended rolloff to possibly boosted, peaky response. In extreme cases of peaky response, bursts of parasitic oscillation can even occur on transients.

In many (most?) U.S.-designed preamps that have this type of input circuit, a 150 - 200 Ohm microphone source impedance was assumed. But the Schoeps CMC 6-- amplifier has an output impedance of only 35 Ohms when operated from a 48 Volt supply. So unfortunately, your preamp can't be assumed to work correctly in the top two audible octaves or so, given its design. Maybe it's working properly but maybe it really isn't.

If you have access to a pair of balanced, resistive pads (Shure A15A for example) please try inserting them at the inputs to your preamp. That will reduce the output from the microphones so that input overload is far less likely to occur, and at the same time will raise the driving impedance that the preamp's inputs are "seeing," bringing it into the intended range.

If this causes a noticeable change in the sound of the microphones, then you've got evidence that the preamp is unfortunately not especially suitable for use with modern, transformerless condenser microphones--and not only Schoeps, by the way. And if there is a difference, then the sound that you get with the pads in place should be more representative of what the microphones are actually capable of putting out.

Would you please let us know what you find?

--best regards

[LRRec]

David Satz wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 02:32

Steven, Would you please let us know what you find? --best regards

David,

As I said in an earlier post, I don't have access to the Schoeps now. I had them on loan for a short time. I am aware of input stage overloading and that was not the case in this instance. If ever I do get the chance I will try your other suggestions.

Sincerely,

LRRec

[Ivo]

bonne wrote on Fri, 22 July 2005 18:56

Mark and Steven, I have been testing Schoeps microphones the last few months in my quest to find a good setup for recording steel string acoustic guitar in the nearfield (about one foot out). CMC6 amps with Mk21, MK41, Mk4, Mk5 and MK8 in different stereo setups. I found the same "artificial" sound and "grainy top end" you both are referring to, much to my surprise. The sound was very different from the actual sound of the guitar in the room. Guitar used was a Lowden with a big and solid sound overall and very full sounding treble. J Ivo VELVET MASTERING www.velvetmastering.com SAVITA MUSIC www.savita.cz Jørn Bonne Full Member Offline Posts: 129 Re: Schoeps? Hi Ivo, I'm sure very expensive preamps and converters would make a difference. But if we concentrate on the microphones for a second, I have in the last couple of months recorded with different stereo setups involving microphones from B&K, Brauner, Sennheiser (MKH-series), Royer and others in addition to Schoeps. Spaced, crossed, M/S and Blumlein. Using the same chain in every instance. The Schoeps setups especially were lacking in reproduction of the treble part of the instrument leading to an artificial overall sound, both in relation to the actual sound in the room AND in comparison to the results achieved with the other setups. Davids explanation of the impedance issues related to Schoeps and different preamps may be a part of this picture. Like Steven I have unfortunately returned the Schoeps by now and won't be able to test with the suggested resistive pads at the moment. I mentioned the Steve Albini sample recording with Schoeps (from the Royer demo) because although he most likely used a different chain than I did, I recognised right away the weak top end of the Martin guitar he was recording. Very similar to what I got using Schoeps on a Lowden. This similarity was clearly evident both on my studio setup and on my living room stereo setup. Kind regards J Schallfeldnebel Hero Member Offline Posts: 816 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Earlier I wrote: "I very much respect your observations about the Schoeps MK 2H and the CMC 6. Of course there is very much difference between the DPA 4003 130V and the Schoeps P48 Colette series. I wonder only how much psychology is involved in how you describe the differences in grey and black colours, since the Schoeps Colette series have Nextel grey housings, and the DPA mikes are matblack." And Mark Lemaire replied: "If you 'respect my observations', please prove that by trusting that I know better than to assume that a grey mic will 'sound' grey or a black mic 'sound' black." I worked 24 years ago for the first time with Schoeps, and 20 years ago with B&K. Although I hear clear differences in the bass, I cannot make myself a picture what a greyish or black sound in the bass means. The only remark I can make about the difference in bass between the DPA 4003 and Schoeps CMC - MK2(s), is the Schoeps capsules in general are a bit more colourised in the Great Octave. About the "hearing in colours", I once described the loss of HF of a converter in stead of dark, as purple, untill I found out later this converter model had a purple stripe on it's front, which I had not noticed before. From that moment I had doubts about my findings. I must have seen the purple stripe, even when I did not remember it. I prefer rather words like dark, dull, bright for the discant, and coloured, thin or fat for the lower octaves instead. David Satz wrote:"Erik, if I remember correctly you often make organ recordings with pressure (omnidirectional) transducers. You'd be one of the relatively few people to whom the difference in the infrasonic filters between the CMC 5 and the CMC 6 might matter. I'd assume that you would lean toward the CMC 6." I do not use the CMC6. I may have not been clear, a 12dB per octave highpass filter causes in the high midrange because of phaseshift a different "colour" than a 6 dB per octave highpass filter or no filter at all, and therefore it is also audible on guitar or any other instrument without subsonic tonal information. Therefore I prefer a 6 dB per octave solution like the CMC5, but as far down as possible, 5 hz. Erik Sikkema Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals." Plush Sr. Member Offline Posts: 264 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I find the discussion very surprising. Actually I'm shocked by those who call Schoeps a grainy sound. Not an exciting sound??--then get a more exciting instrument! My maxim is: (With a neutral microphone)"The microphone is not making the sound.                            The source is making the sound." I don't take this discussion seriously at all. Hudson Fair Atelier HudSonic, Chicago http://www.myspace.com/hudsonek David Satz Hero Member Offline Posts: 661 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Plush, like you I don't know what to say if people call Schoeps microphones "grainy" sounding, but that's partly because I've never been able to figure out what "grainy" is supposed to mean where sound is concerned. I only know that it isn't good. But even conceding that a "neutral" microphone still acts like a microphone and that our conventional ways of reproducing audio still don't sound quite like the real thing most of the time, I don't want false promises to be left hanging in the air regarding Schoeps microphones. Specifically, not quite all of their music capsules are designed for the flattest possible frequency response. The MK 4V cardioid (the one that is laterally addressed) has a slight high frequency "marketing peak," and any of their omni capsules other than the MK 2 will have a high-frequency rise on axis if it is used closer to the sound source than intended--though that's just as true for anybody else's omni capsules unless they are teeny-tiny. --best regards LRRec Newbie Offline Posts: 18 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Plush wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 19:06 I find the discussion very surprising. Actually I'm shocked by those who call Schoeps a grainy sound. Not an exciting sound??--then get a more exciting instrument! I don't take this discussion seriously at all. Plush, Let me get this staight, because people have had experiences and opinions different from your own, you won't take this discussion seriously? Thanks for letting us know. Also, I don't think anyone in this thread who has been critical of these microphones has said the reason they didn't care for them was that they were not 'exciting'. David, I agree, it is extremely imprecise using language to describe what we hear in audio, but until somebody comes up with something better, it will have to do. Unfortunately, words such as grey, black, orange(!), opulent, grainy, sexy (as our moderator likes to use), neutral, bright and even exciting can mean different things to different people. Steven Rick Sutton Sr. Member Offline Posts: 265 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I don't have a lot to add in the technical discussion but thought I'd add my experiences with Schoeps mics. Over the years I've owned 4 CMC bodies and 6 various MK capsules. I was originally attracted to them for use as remote recording mics for choirs but really never got the results that I had hoped for. I've since returned to Neumann KM84's which consistently give more pleasing results with choirs. I've had reasonable success with Schoeps in other applications but not until I stumbled across a combination of a pair of old CMC bodies with a new pair of MK4 capsules coupled with Tab-Funkenwerk V72S preamp on my Yamaha C7 piano did I become a fan of the microphones. My C7 has been problematic to get a full sound from without  the top end becoming harsh. I thought I'd tried every combination in my studio but the Schoeps/Tab combo has been absolutely superior to all my other mics, which include many wonderful tube condenser  and ribbon models. Anyway, I sold my other Schoeps bodies and capsules but the mismatched ugly duckling combo ( old grey bodies and shiny new silver capsules) are not likely to be sold for a long time. Rick ted nightshade Hero Member Offline Posts: 1272 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues FWIW my experiences with various Schoeps capsules and bodies are archived here. Suffice to say that the mk4 is not, to my taste, the most thrilling Schoeps capsule out there. I vastly prefer the mk41, which has served me very well within it's limitations, and all mics have limitations. I've captured some beautiful colors and emotions with the mk41/cmc6 combination, using just a single mic. The vibe was very much there. I do hear that grainy thing too. All I can say is, placement placement placement, and sometimes a different mic does better. Great tool though. Just have 'net access for a couple days here, BTW- glad to see this remains a great forum. Ted Nightshade aka Cowan There's a sex industry too. Or maybe you prefer home cookin'? Jim Williams Hero Member Offline Posts: 1105 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I first got a pair of Schoeps in 1983. Thought they were real clean through a transformerless mic preamp. My opinion has reversed 180 on them. They are too dirty. They mask low level details.They have too much transistor color. They cost too much. They also make the best 1/2" capsules in the world. Too bad the electronics don't live up to the capabilities of the capsules. I havn't used them in 10 years, although I've tried. No of the artists I tried them on liked them either. The circuit is now used extensivly by the Chi-coms in the low cost Marshall mics(MXL2003). It's one of those circuits that grabs you at first, then fatigues the ears after time. One Reporter's Opinion. Jim Williams Audio Upgrades Schallfeldnebel Hero Member Offline Posts: 816 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote:"Too bad the electronics don't live up to the capabilities of the capsules. " Then the new CMD2 digital microphone conditioner amplifier AD converter module with AES 42 output will surprise you. Although maybe not available yet on the market, I have been testing with them for a couple of weeks, and I am very enthusiastic about them. Erik Sikkema Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals." Ivo Full Member Offline Posts: 169 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 21 August 2005 19:16 I fThey are too dirty. They mask low level details.They have too much transistor color. I havn't used them in 10 years, although I've tried. No of the artists I tried them on liked them either. Well, if it is a general truth, Schoeps company would have ceased to exist long time ago ... Or could it mean that those using Schoeps microphones (after carefully selecting them among all the other branches) have something wrong with their ears ? Ivo VELVET MASTERING www.velvetmastering.com SAVITA MUSIC www.savita.cz locosoundman Jr. Member Offline Posts: 65 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Just my $.02: I have used the Schoeps CMC6 amplifiers with different capsules through several different preamps.  I especially like the sound of the Hardy M-2 with the Schoeps switch, but I also have enjoyed the colour that the API 3124 imparts in certain situations. The only time I have ever noticed a "graininess" was once using the Schoeps with a Sytek preamp (which I believe is transformerless) as drum overheads, or times when I was recording with cheap AD convertors.  Sometimes good mic's and/or pre's can expose other flaws in your recording chain. Best, Rob Anderson What does this little red button do? klaukholm Jr. Member Offline Posts: 79 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I have found that the 4003/millennia/prism combination can sometimes be too hard sounding in the upper mids or top end. When this is the case our M150's have the same resolution but a milder top end. By aiming the mics more or less away from the bright source you get some control of the hardness albeit sometimes with some change in imaging. When the M150's are too hard our Schoeps M222 are most likely in their right element. To me neither of the three have too much or too little of anything, they are simply different tools for different situations and tastes. I find it surprising that the top amplifier in the schoeps range, the M222, is not mentioned in this discussion. As a spot for double bass in orchestra the mk4cmc5 can make the player/instrument come across as "pressed" and "stringy" to me. The m222 with the mk6 in cardioid has a gentle high lift and seems to open up the sound and the playing seems more high class. The interesting thing is that as a player, the added highs does not make it sound "brighter", atleast in players terminology. The added treble changed the mids and removed the stringy/pressed feeling. With a different bass and different player it might be the other way around. I would suggest trying the M222 with a pre like the Millennia. I would also take a look at the mk4v capsule or even the mk5. "Grainy" makes perfect sense to me. To me it is an impurity in the resonance of a sound. It often comes to mind in a sound that has white noise or "extra musical" components. It can also be present in a sound that is "flarp", i.e. some flat and sharp components. An example can be a string instruments wolftone or simply a substandard player. I am curious as to what improvements someone like Klaus can make on a cmc5 or cmc6. Polyhymnia has chosen to make their own body for the capsules. I would love a solid state option on par with the M222 bodies. And I would gladly pay M222 money for it as well. Kjetil Laukholm CK Recording Malmö Symphony Orchestra Yannick Willox Sr. Member Offline Posts: 264 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I have to agree with Jim Williams. For me it is strange to see how Schoeps lovers mention the purity of the electronics as one of the advantages. Some completely dislike the MKH series of Sennheiser because it is full of electronics. They can hear it. Well, as Jim, I hear a completely artificial zingy thing on the Schoeps mics I have used, and records which I know to have used them. That seems contradictory, but maybe some people are more sensitive to one kind of electronic sound, and others to another aspect ? For me, the MKH series does something strange around 2K on some sources. But Schoeps on strings just sound like broken strings to me ... Yannick Willox Acoustic Recording Service Andy Simpson Hero Member Offline Posts: 714 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Piano is one instrument where there is no sustained energy, unlike voice/violin/brass/etc. Each note is a single attack and decay, which is easier for a microphone to deal with. This is one possible reason why a microphone can be surprisingly useful on the piano where it might not be useful on other sources. In any case, anybody who has spent any time trying to remove 'graininess' with EQ will know that these artefacts are time-domain related. Andy www.SimpsonMicrophones.com - Next Generation Microphones TLM50 VS NextGen Decca Tree WAV Jim Williams Hero Member Offline Posts: 1105 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues I have had good results in Schoeps and similar circuits by removing the European BC transistors and the jfet. I find the BC audio transistors to sound grainy, this was pointed out to me by tonmeister Andrew Lipinsky when I rebuilt his Beyer 740 mics. The Wima MKS mylar coupling caps help in softening this grain, pop in some MKP-2 polyprops and you will hear those transistors zinging along. Transformer input preamp also help soften the grain, a fast transformerless preamp makes them the Emperor with no clothes. Jim Williams Audio Upgrades Schallfeldnebel Hero Member Offline Posts: 816 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues In the middle of the nineties my Schoeps CMC's were modified to B&K electronics alike designs, first with phantompower and later based on separate power-leads with 60V basic voltage for both preamp and capsule. The results were not that much better from the original Schoeps designs, except the low end was a bit more tight with the MK2 and MK2s. What people have described here on the forum I can recognize, but in my opinion there may be another aspect causing disappointment with users. Mylar/PE/polyester made omnis (Schoeps mk2(s), Neumann km183) do have higher mechanical distortion than e.g. the nickel DPA and B&K omni (measuring) microphones. When their behaviour is very neutral, like the Schoeps MK2(s) or H, this distortion might be more obvious and disappointing than with brands like Neumann, where aside the mechanical distortion also more musical colouration is a part of the design, and as a result the whole concept seems to sound more appealing. Anyway the Schoeps cardioid MK4 for me belongs in the absolute top ten of cardioids, aside the DPA 4011, Sennheiser MKH406, Beyerdynamic MCD100, Sanken CU44X and others. Erik Sikkema Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals." Klaus Heyne Hero Member Offline Posts: 3154 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 08:55 I have had good results... by removing the European BC transistors and the J-Fet. I find the BC audio transistors to sound grainy Which J-Fets and transistors do you find less "grainy", as you call it? Quote:  The Wima MKS mylar coupling caps help in softening this grain, pop in some MKP-2 polyprops and you will hear those transistors zinging along. Is that a good thing to hear them "zinging along" ? Or did I misunderstand you? Klaus Heyne German Masterworks www.GermanMasterworks.com Jim Williams Hero Member Offline Posts: 1105 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Some of the older jfets like the 2N3019 are dark, the replacement Toshiba 2SK107/170 are better. I like the RF parts like Siliconix J305's best, they sound much more open especially with very high input impedances above 3 gig ohms. The discontinued Hitachi 2SA1084 and 2SC2546's sound very good in microphones plus they have lower noise, a .5 nv/hz/sq noise spec. The top end loses it's hard and strident transistor sound, they are just open and relaxed sounding in comparison. Jim Williams Audio Upgrades minister Hero Member Offline Posts: 1761 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues David Satz wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 15:37 Plush, like you I don't know what to say if people call Schoeps microphones "grainy" sounding, but that's partly because I've never been able to figure out what "grainy" is supposed to mean where sound is concerned. Octava MK012.  That's my definition of grainy.  By that, i mean missing something, and what is left lacks smoothness. I believe that the people who are saying "grainy" WRT to Schoeps mean "not as clear as" (insert mic of preference for them).  and that they hear "grain" in the frequency spectrum.  Rather obvious interpretation, but i know what they mean. I do not, however, agree.  I use the CMC6-U's for field recording along with a Sound Devices 702 which has a 7.5k ohm Input Impedance.  With the CMC6-U's at 35 ohm, i do not expereince graininess, rather smooth and natural sound.  If I add EQ to the top end with a decent EQ, I do not get more graininess. In the studio, i use them for Foley for films and find them to be natural sounding.  This is usually with a Focusrite ISA 110 with an input impedance of 1.2k ohms). I just ordered a John Hardy Twin Servo 990 with the 20 ohm switch. I am interested to hear if there is a big difference with the different impedances. and if i hear more "graininess" comparatively with the other impedances. In the end, our brains hear things differently.  Oliver Sax can attest to that.  So, it does come down to : what are *YOU* looking for. And, they certainly do not work on everything. tom hambleton C.A.S. minister of fancy noises ministry of fancy noises IMDb minister Hero Member Offline Posts: 1761 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Ok.... So it took a LONG time to get the Hardy Pre.... the first one shipped had the wrong features and the correct unit took a long to get here. The Hardy specs say 150 or 20 Ohm impedance when you have the switch.  I can say categorically that there is a BIG difference in the sound.  I very quickly recorded my assistant talking an the 20 Ohm version sounds nice and clear and the 150 Ohm version sounds clouded and clogged by comparison.  I listen to the recordings back to back. I plan to record a bit of music or something more suitable for posting as a comparison.  I will return to post when I have those files ready. tom hambleton C.A.S. minister of fancy noises ministry of fancy noises IMDb Andy Simpson Hero Member Offline Posts: 714 Re: Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 21 August 2005 19:16 I first got a pair of Schoeps in 1983. Thought they were real clean through a transformerless mic preamp. My opinion has reversed 180 www.SimpsonMicrophones.com - Next Generation Microphones TLM50 VS NextGen Decca Tree WAV Print Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]   Go Up « previous next » R/E/P Community > R/E/P > R/E/P Archives > Klaus Heyne's Mic Lab (Moderator: klaus) > Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues   SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies XHTML RSS WAP2 Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc. Page created in 0.047 seconds with 13 queries.

[Jørn Bonne]

Hi Ivo,

I'm sure very expensive preamps and converters would make a difference.

But if we concentrate on the microphones for a second, I have in the last couple of months recorded with different stereo setups involving microphones from B&K, Brauner, Sennheiser (MKH-series), Royer and others in addition to Schoeps. Spaced, crossed, M/S and Blumlein. Using the same chain in every instance. The Schoeps setups especially were lacking in reproduction of the treble part of the instrument leading to an artificial overall sound, both in relation to the actual sound in the room AND in comparison to the results achieved with the other setups. Davids explanation of the impedance issues related to Schoeps and different preamps may be a part of this picture. Like Steven I have unfortunately returned the Schoeps by now and won't be able to test with the suggested resistive pads at the moment.

I mentioned the Steve Albini sample recording with Schoeps (from the Royer demo) because although he most likely used a different chain than I did, I recognised right away the weak top end of the Martin guitar he was recording. Very similar to what I got using Schoeps on a Lowden. This similarity was clearly evident both on my studio setup and on my living room stereo setup.

Kind regards

J

[Schallfeldnebel]

Earlier I wrote: "I very much respect your observations about the Schoeps MK 2H and the CMC 6. Of course there is very much difference between the DPA 4003 130V and the Schoeps P48 Colette series. I wonder only how much psychology is involved in how you describe the differences in grey and black colours, since the Schoeps Colette series have Nextel grey housings, and the DPA mikes are matblack."


And Mark Lemaire replied:
"If you 'respect my observations', please prove that by trusting that I know better than to assume that a grey mic will 'sound' grey or a black mic 'sound' black."


I worked 24 years ago for the first time with Schoeps, and 20 years ago with B&K. Although I hear clear differences in the bass, I cannot make myself a picture what a greyish or black sound in the bass means. The only remark I can make about the difference in bass between the DPA 4003 and Schoeps CMC - MK2(s), is the Schoeps capsules in general are a bit more colourised in the Great Octave.

About the "hearing in colours", I once described the loss of HF of a converter in stead of dark, as purple, untill I found out later this converter model had a purple stripe on it's front, which I had not noticed before. From that moment I had doubts about my findings. I must have seen the purple stripe, even when I did not remember it. I prefer rather words like dark, dull, bright for the discant, and coloured, thin or fat for the lower octaves instead.

David Satz wrote:"Erik, if I remember correctly you often make organ recordings with pressure (omnidirectional) transducers. You'd be one of the relatively few people to whom the difference in the infrasonic filters between the CMC 5 and the CMC 6 might matter. I'd assume that you would lean toward the CMC 6."

I do not use the CMC6. I may have not been clear, a 12dB per octave highpass filter causes in the high midrange because of phaseshift a different "colour" than a 6 dB per octave highpass filter or no filter at all, and therefore it is also audible on guitar or any other instrument without subsonic tonal information. Therefore I prefer a 6 dB per octave solution like the CMC5, but as far down as possible, 5 hz.

Erik Sikkema

[Plush]

I find the discussion very surprising.
Actually I'm shocked by those who call Schoeps
a grainy sound. Not an exciting sound??--then get a more exciting
instrument!

My maxim is:

(With a neutral microphone)"The microphone is not making the sound.
                           The source is making the sound."

I don't take this discussion seriously at all.

[David Satz]

Plush, like you I don't know what to say if people call Schoeps microphones "grainy" sounding, but that's partly because I've never been able to figure out what "grainy" is supposed to mean where sound is concerned. I only know that it isn't good. But even conceding that a "neutral" microphone still acts like a microphone and that our conventional ways of reproducing audio still don't sound quite like the real thing most of the time, I don't want false promises to be left hanging in the air regarding Schoeps microphones.

Specifically, not quite all of their music capsules are designed for the flattest possible frequency response. The MK 4V cardioid (the one that is laterally addressed) has a slight high frequency "marketing peak," and any of their omni capsules other than the MK 2 will have a high-frequency rise on axis if it is used closer to the sound source than intended--though that's just as true for anybody else's omni capsules unless they are teeny-tiny.

--best regards

[LRRec]

Plush wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 19:06

I find the discussion very surprising. Actually I'm shocked by those who call Schoeps a grainy sound. Not an exciting sound??--then get a more exciting instrument! I don't take this discussion seriously at all.

Plush,

Let me get this staight, because people have had experiences and opinions different from your own, you won't take this discussion seriously?

Thanks for letting us know.

Also, I don't think anyone in this thread who has been critical of these microphones has said the reason they didn't care for them was that they were not 'exciting'.

David,

I agree, it is extremely imprecise using language to describe what we hear in audio, but until somebody comes up with something better, it will have to do. Unfortunately, words such as grey, black, orange(!), opulent, grainy, sexy (as our moderator likes to use), neutral, bright and even exciting can mean different things to different people.

Steven

[Rick Sutton]

I don't have a lot to add in the technical discussion but thought I'd add my experiences with Schoeps mics. Over the years I've owned 4 CMC bodies and 6 various MK capsules. I was originally attracted to them for use as remote recording mics for choirs but really never got the results that I had hoped for. I've since returned to Neumann KM84's which consistently give more pleasing results with choirs. I've had reasonable success with Schoeps in other applications but not until I stumbled across a combination of a pair of old CMC bodies with a new pair of MK4 capsules coupled with Tab-Funkenwerk V72S preamp on my Yamaha C7 piano did I become a fan of the microphones. My C7 has been problematic to get a full sound from without  the top end becoming harsh. I thought I'd tried every combination in my studio but the Schoeps/Tab combo has been absolutely superior to all my other mics, which include many wonderful tube condenser  and ribbon models.
Anyway, I sold my other Schoeps bodies and capsules but the mismatched ugly duckling combo ( old grey bodies and shiny new silver capsules) are not likely to be sold for a long time.
Rick

[ted nightshade]

FWIW my experiences with various Schoeps capsules and bodies are archived here. Suffice to say that the mk4 is not, to my taste, the most thrilling Schoeps capsule out there. I vastly prefer the mk41, which has served me very well within it's limitations, and all mics have limitations. I've captured some beautiful colors and emotions with the mk41/cmc6 combination, using just a single mic. The vibe was very much there.

I do hear that grainy thing too. All I can say is, placement placement placement, and sometimes a different mic does better. Great tool though.

Just have 'net access for a couple days here, BTW- glad to see this remains a great forum.

[Jim Williams]

I first got a pair of Schoeps in 1983. Thought they were real clean through a transformerless mic preamp. My opinion has reversed 180 on them. They are too dirty. They mask low level details.They have too much transistor color. They cost too much. They also make the best 1/2" capsules in the world. Too bad the electronics don't live up to the capabilities of the capsules. I havn't used them in 10 years, although I've tried. No of the artists I tried them on liked them either.

The circuit is now used extensivly by the Chi-coms in the low cost Marshall mics(MXL2003). It's one of those circuits that grabs you at first, then fatigues the ears after time.

One Reporter's Opinion.

[Schallfeldnebel]

Jim Williams wrote:"Too bad the electronics don't live up to the capabilities of the capsules. "

Then the new CMD2 digital microphone conditioner amplifier AD converter module with AES 42 output will surprise you.

Although maybe not available yet on the market, I have been testing with them for a couple of weeks, and I am very enthusiastic about them.

Erik Sikkema

[Ivo]

Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 21 August 2005 19:16

I fThey are too dirty. They mask low level details.They have too much transistor color. I havn't used them in 10 years, although I've tried. No of the artists I tried them on liked them either.

Well, if it is a general truth, Schoeps company would have ceased to exist long time ago ... Or could it mean that those using Schoeps microphones (after carefully selecting them among all the other branches) have something wrong with their ears ?

[locosoundman]

Just my $.02:

I have used the Schoeps CMC6 amplifiers with different capsules through several different preamps.  I especially like the sound of the Hardy M-2 with the Schoeps switch, but I also have enjoyed the colour that the API 3124 imparts in certain situations.

The only time I have ever noticed a "graininess" was once using the Schoeps with a Sytek preamp (which I believe is transformerless) as drum overheads, or times when I was recording with cheap AD convertors.  Sometimes good mic's and/or pre's can expose other flaws in your recording chain.

Best,
Rob Anderson

[klaukholm]

I have found that the 4003/millennia/prism combination can sometimes be too hard sounding in the upper mids or top end.
When this is the case our M150's have the same resolution but a milder top end. By aiming the mics more or less away from the bright source you get some control of the hardness albeit sometimes with some change in imaging.
When the M150's are too hard our Schoeps M222 are most likely in their right element.
To me neither of the three have too much or too little of anything, they are simply different tools for different situations and tastes.

I find it surprising that the top amplifier in the schoeps range, the M222, is not mentioned in this discussion.

As a spot for double bass in orchestra the mk4cmc5 can make the player/instrument come across as "pressed" and "stringy" to me.
The m222 with the mk6 in cardioid has a gentle high lift and seems to open up the sound and the playing seems more high class.
The interesting thing is that as a player, the added highs does not make it sound "brighter", atleast in players terminology.
The added treble changed the mids and removed the stringy/pressed feeling.

With a different bass and different player it might be the other way around.

I would suggest trying the M222 with a pre like the Millennia. I would also take a look at the mk4v capsule or even the mk5.

"Grainy" makes perfect sense to me. To me it is an impurity in the resonance of a sound. It often comes to mind in a sound that has white noise or "extra musical" components.
It can also be present in a sound that is "flarp", i.e. some flat and sharp components. An example can be a string instruments wolftone or simply a substandard player.

I am curious as to what improvements someone like Klaus can make on a cmc5 or cmc6.

Polyhymnia has chosen to make their own body for the capsules.
I would love a solid state option on par with the M222 bodies.
And I would gladly pay M222 money for it as well.

[Yannick Willox]

I have to agree with Jim Williams.
For me it is strange to see how Schoeps lovers mention the purity of the electronics as one of the advantages.
Some completely dislike the MKH series of Sennheiser because it is full of electronics. They can hear it.

Well, as Jim, I hear a completely artificial zingy thing on the Schoeps mics I have used, and records which I know to have used them.

That seems contradictory, but maybe some people are more sensitive to one kind of electronic sound, and others to another aspect ?

For me, the MKH series does something strange around 2K on some sources. But Schoeps on strings just sound like broken strings to me ...

[Andy Simpson]

Piano is one instrument where there is no sustained energy, unlike voice/violin/brass/etc.

Each note is a single attack and decay, which is easier for a microphone to deal with.

This is one possible reason why a microphone can be surprisingly useful on the piano where it might not be useful on other sources.

In any case, anybody who has spent any time trying to remove 'graininess' with EQ will know that these artefacts are time-domain related.

Andy

[Jim Williams]

I have had good results in Schoeps and similar circuits by removing the European BC transistors and the jfet. I find the BC audio transistors to sound grainy, this was pointed out to me by tonmeister Andrew Lipinsky when I rebuilt his Beyer 740 mics. The Wima MKS mylar coupling caps help in softening this grain, pop in some MKP-2 polyprops and you will hear those transistors zinging along. Transformer input preamp also help soften the grain, a fast transformerless preamp makes them the Emperor with no clothes.

[Schallfeldnebel]

In the middle of the nineties my Schoeps CMC's were modified to B&K electronics alike designs, first with phantompower and later based on separate power-leads with 60V basic voltage for both preamp and capsule.

The results were not that much better from the original Schoeps designs, except the low end was a bit more tight with the MK2 and MK2s. What people have described here on the forum I can recognize, but in my opinion there may be another aspect causing disappointment with users.

Mylar/PE/polyester made omnis (Schoeps mk2(s), Neumann km183) do have higher mechanical distortion than e.g. the nickel DPA and B&K omni (measuring) microphones. When their behaviour is very neutral, like the Schoeps MK2(s) or H, this distortion might be more obvious and disappointing than with brands like Neumann, where aside the mechanical distortion also more musical colouration is a part of the design, and as a result the whole concept seems to sound more appealing.

Anyway the Schoeps cardioid MK4 for me belongs in the absolute top ten of cardioids, aside the DPA 4011, Sennheiser MKH406, Beyerdynamic MCD100, Sanken CU44X and others.

Erik Sikkema

[Klaus Heyne]

Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 08:55

I have had good results... by removing the European BC transistors and the J-Fet. I find the BC audio transistors to sound grainy

Which J-Fets and transistors do you find less "grainy", as you call it?

Quote:

The Wima MKS mylar coupling caps help in softening this grain, pop in some MKP-2 polyprops and you will hear those transistors zinging along.

Is that a good thing to hear them "zinging along" ? Or did I misunderstand you?

[Jim Williams]

Some of the older jfets like the 2N3019 are dark, the replacement Toshiba 2SK107/170 are better. I like the RF parts like Siliconix J305's best, they sound much more open especially with very high input impedances above 3 gig ohms.

The discontinued Hitachi 2SA1084 and 2SC2546's sound very good in microphones plus they have lower noise, a .5 nv/hz/sq noise spec. The top end loses it's hard and strident transistor sound, they are just open and relaxed sounding in comparison.

[minister]

David Satz wrote on Sat, 23 July 2005 15:37

Plush, like you I don't know what to say if people call Schoeps microphones "grainy" sounding, but that's partly because I've never been able to figure out what "grainy" is supposed to mean where sound is concerned.

Octava MK012.  That's my definition of grainy.  By that, i mean missing something, and what is left lacks smoothness.

I believe that the people who are saying "grainy" WRT to Schoeps mean "not as clear as" (insert mic of preference for them).  and that they hear "grain" in the frequency spectrum.  Rather obvious interpretation, but i know what they mean.

I do not, however, agree.  I use the CMC6-U's for field recording along with a Sound Devices 702 which has a 7.5k ohm Input Impedance.  With the CMC6-U's at 35 ohm, i do not expereince graininess, rather smooth and natural sound.  If I add EQ to the top end with a decent EQ, I do not get more graininess.

In the studio, i use them for Foley for films and find them to be natural sounding.  This is usually with a Focusrite ISA 110 with an input impedance of 1.2k ohms).

I just ordered a John Hardy Twin Servo 990 with the 20 ohm switch.

I am interested to hear if there is a big difference with the different impedances. and if i hear more "graininess" comparatively with the other impedances.


In the end, our brains hear things differently.  Oliver Sax can attest to that.  So, it does come down to : what are *YOU* looking for.

And, they certainly do not work on everything.

[minister]

Ok....

So it took a LONG time to get the Hardy Pre.... the first one shipped had the wrong features and the correct unit took a long to get here.

The Hardy specs say 150 or 20 Ohm impedance when you have the switch.  I can say categorically that there is a BIG difference in the sound.  I very quickly recorded my assistant talking an the 20 Ohm version sounds nice and clear and the 150 Ohm version sounds clouded and clogged by comparison.  I listen to the recordings back to back.

I plan to record a bit of music or something more suitable for posting as a comparison.  I will return to post when I have those files ready.

[Andy Simpson]

Jim Williams wrote on Sun, 21 August 2005 19:16

I first got a pair of Schoeps in 1983. Thought they were real clean through a transformerless mic preamp. My opinion has reversed 180 www.SimpsonMicrophones.com - Next Generation Microphones TLM50 VS NextGen Decca Tree WAV Print Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]   Go Up « previous next » R/E/P Community > R/E/P > R/E/P Archives > Klaus Heyne's Mic Lab (Moderator: klaus) > Schoeps - "sound" and impedance issues   SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies XHTML RSS WAP2 Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc. Page created in 0.047 seconds with 13 queries.