Thanks for the pointers, Uh oh, I think I feel some new desires swelling up=
.
To my listening, the mkh 80/80 M-S recording:
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.MS.MKH80-80.mp3
has a great deal more spatial appeal than that made with the mkh 30/40:
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.MS.MKH30-40.mp3
The MKH80/80 MS has more tone simplification in the lower mids
(harmonic drones). Even though there seem to be two frogs around
10-11 o'clock in the 80/80 recording and a wide spread pair before
the 30/40, there's much more instantaneous DEPTH throughout the field
with 80/80 recording. The pitches of the chorus frogs seem also less
hammered with the 80/80 too.
I'm surprised there's that much additional hiss from the mkh 30/40.
Is the noise performance of the 80/80 consistently this much better?
I don't need another test, but if you do make one, I'd enjoy hearing
all of the bottom end. The lowest tones set the table for the upper
harmonics.
The difference/improvements I can hear between these two rigs are exciting!
<snip>
> Think about what would be appropriate for the
>person buying just one stereo setup with the sound recording itself
>being the goal, not adding it to something else.
I can't generalize about what nature recording is for a hypothetical
buyer. Again, I personally would not buy another mkh 30-40 as long
as there are other, much more affordable options like the NT1A or
Nt1A/2A MS out there. The Rodes are larger, clunky mics and not at
all well suited to some people's styles. I'm even more convinced
after listening to your samples.
I feel the MKH line deserves most the good reputation it enjoys. We,
as consumers, can also enjoy the new approaches mic makers are coming
up with or be happy with what we've got. I feel that what I can get
out of a pair of NT1A's can be closer the qualities I like in your
mkh80/80 sample than what I can coax out of my 30/40. I don't feel
mic manufacturers know the way things sound, and I wish they
expressed more interest in getting people to listen to things
carefully like we try to do. This predicament exists before the
engineers and designers and machinists confront the considerable
challenges involved with their crafts. Microphones, portable phantom
power supplies, speakers, etc, not excepted. Rob D.
=3D=3D=3D=3D
>From: Rob Danielson <>
>
>>
>> At 8:33 PM -0400 7/16/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>
>>>>Others have noted the lack of standardization in Rode mics, one price
>>>>you pay for that cheap price.
>>
>>
>> I had the pleasure of working with recordings from about 8 different
>> kinds of mics in "matched" x-y or spread omni pairs. None of them
>> have been that well matched really. I'm interested in folks with
>> DPA's and other expensive mics taking a shot at describing the
>> improvements they feel they hear because the frequency responses (or
>> other qualities) of their mics are very closely matched. Comments
>> about MKH 80's or 800's (in X-Y or spread omni) would be interesting
>> to hear about. M-S is inherently less demanding on tonal martching
>> but I guess uniformity could also affect M-S polar patterns. Come to
>> think about it Walter, it would be great to hear your mkh 30/40's
>> stereo field compared to your 80/80's or is it an 80/800?
>
>Back, several years ago, when I first assembled my MS MKH setups I put
>up a page with photos:
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/my_ms_setups.html
>At the same time, I also put up photos and information on making the
>SASS/MKH-20 mod, starting here:
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/my_mod_sass.html
>And, finally, at about that time, I put up some of my first recordings
>with these mics. In there you can find the same site recorded with
>different mics. I should probably bring it up to date as I know better
>how to use the mics after several year's use. But then if nobody notices
>the site is there, why bother? I've put these links up frequently in
>replying to one or another question:
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/mic_samples.html
>
>If no one is interested, I've plenty of other uses for my limited webspace=
.
>
>>>>
>>>>Have you seen any polar patterns for Rode mics that go above 4 khz? The
>>>>stuff I've downloaded off their site is very disappointing, the bottom
>>>>end frequencies are easy to get good polar patterns compared to the
>>>>higher frequencies. Is Rode just showing the good stuff? Sennheiser,
>>>>Schoeps and such like all give polar patterns up to 16 khz, much more
>>>>useful to evaluate a mic for nature recording. Even if those curves at
>>>>the upper frequencies are not as pretty. Giving polar patterns only up
>>>>to 4 khz is just evaluating the use of the mics with voice frequencies.
>>
>>
>> The pdf I have for the Nt1A goes to 8K. It seems like all mics I've
>> used, even omnis have considerable off axis drop from 8K up.
>
>Where did you get that pdf, I have only found 4k polar patterns on their
>site? Even a limited polar pattern up to 8k would be better.
>
>> Based on field results, the area uniformly covered at 8K with an NT1A
>> pair is around 120 degrees of coverage. You should check my
>> computations, but using Sennheiser's chart for a pair of mkh40's, I
>> get a whopping 180 degrees of coverage within 5db at 8K. The cardioid
> > pattern in the NT2A looks very similar to the 40, even little wider.
>> The omni pattern in the NT2A only shows up to 4K, but its tad wider
>> at 4K than an mkh 20 (if we believe the chart). Such performance
>> doesn't make a lot of sense for a large capsule mic, but note the
>> 20's off-axis response isn't that good either. It seems to have
>> about same coverage of a mkh 40 within 5dB at 8K.Now, the mkh 80
>> could be in a different league-- a pair, in X-Y cardioid, seem to be
>> able to cover about 210 degrees within 5dB at 8K. The pdf I have has
>> no omni pattern for the 80, is the omni pattern wider at 8K too?
>
>Compare the multipattern Rode to the MKH-80 or MKH-800. Multipattern
>mics have some compromises in their patterns.
>
>The pdf's available from http://www.sennheiser.com/ show all the polar
>patterns for all the MKH. The MKH-800 has the patterns graphed up to
>32k, the others only to 16k. They also put out a pdf "Microphones
>Brochure" that contains the info on all their mics in one document, not
>just the MKH. Not sure just where I got that pdf, it's dated 06/02.
>Handy to have it all in one.
>
>I use the MKH-20 in the mod SASS, where the housing modifies it's
>natural polar pattern. I would like, someday, to have access to good
>testing to work out the polar patterns of this mod. On the basis of
>actual use I find it's pickup to be good out to 270 degrees.
>
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be saying that if the Rode and 30/40 MKH were the same pric=
e
>>>>you'd be using the MKH? That the Rode is only under consideration due t=
o
>>>>it's price. What would be your mix of mics if the prices were reversed?
>>>>Or equal?
>>>>
>>>>Most of us are not trying to equip a university class, we need only one
>>>>set. If you were choosing one set, what would it be?
>>
>>
>> I did decide to buy the Rode 2A they sent me to create another M-S
>> pair with an Nt1A. I'd love to be in Aaron's and your position and
>> play with 80's or 800's, but the gain in the spatial imaging with the
>> higher noise for another 30/40 pair is not where I'd spend my money
>> at this point. I bring 8 mics along when recording surround.
>
>So you are back to saying you have to have all these mics. That's not
>the case for very many in this group, they don't record surround. That's
>what I'm trying to get at. You have specific requirements using sound as
> part of your video efforts and surround systems. That too is not
>common in the group. Think about what would be appropriate for the
>person buying just one stereo setup with the sound recording itself
>being the goal, not adding it to something else.
>
>I prefer the M/S MKH-80's to the MKH-40/30 M/S. May have to do with
>lower self noise, may have to do with that extra high sensitivity, twice
>the sensitivity of a MKH-20 with the same self noise. Mostly I just like
>the sound better. I take my recorded sound as it comes, don't try and
>make nature fit my ideas of how it should sound, so don't eq the sound
>or other modifications much. And note, M/S is only one way I record. My
>recording approach is very different from yours.
>
>>>>This may depend on where you live and time of day you record. Certainly
>>>>the SE has a great deal of humidity to deal with, and mics that cannot
>>>>be trusted out in it are a bad deal. When it's calm, humidity is often
>>>>high, so the very times when you could record because the wind is down =
a
>>>>mic likely to fail with humidity is even worse. Especially if you have
>>>>burned some expensive gas to get to the recording site.
>>
>>
>> The only way we can test this theory is if you get some Rodes! Rob D
>
>I think my money was better spent this week on a Minolta Maxxum AF Macro
>3X-1X Zoom Lens off ebay. See how well that will substitute for my old
>micro bellows lenses and setups. If nothing else it will be more
>convenient. Nature recording is only one of the things I do.
>
>Now if someone wants to give me some Rodes, I won't say no. But for me
>they have little value. Far too awkward for a hand held mic system. And
>I don't have any money to spend on them just for playing around.
>
>You don't need me to test this, just wait for them to be used enough by
>enough people in enough parts of the world. They are, at this point, a
>near unknown. As I've noted one of the big reasons I went with MKH was
>they were a known mic for nature recording, I was not taking a risk, so
>could invest more. The MKH do just fine in the heat, humidity, cold,
>actual rain, wind and so on I've taken them out in.
>
>I did have a MKH-60 with a capsule failure, though it was in use inside
>at the time and had been sitting on a shelf for several months before
>that. Sennheiser put in a new capsule, essentially making it a new mic.
>And it sounds and performs just like my other MKH-60, which is not new.
>It does not matter which of those I use I can expect the same
>performance out of them. The same sound.
>
>Walt
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|