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