> From: Rob Danielson <>
> 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!
I remind you, these were some of the very first M/S recordings I did
with these mics. Reading too much into them defining what's possible is
risky. Bernie, for instance, get's real clean recording from the 30/40.
These samples are recorded slightly off optimum gain settings, and
probably also not mixed the best.
However, the MKH-80's have been consistent about being cleaner sounding
than the MKH-30/40. This should not be surprising, the MKH-30 & 40 have
a sensitivity of 25 mV/Pa, the MKH-80 is 50 mV/Pa. And the self noise:
MKH-30 13dBA, MKH-40 12dBA, MKH-80 10dBA. The much higher sensitivity
allows much lower gain settings, thus accentuating the noise difference
more. MKH-30/40 are very good low noise mics, the MKH-80 is also a very
good low noise mic. They are just different mics.
Note that clean sounding recordings are associated with more than just
self noise specs. In fact, I believe it's more important that the polar
patterns be good. Irregularities in the polar patterns will introduce
false structure to a stereo recording.
Since these were recorded I've learned much more about running them and
processing the M/S. And still have a ways to go.
One should set up a M/S pair independently as to gain adjustment. You in
general want to set the gain so both have about the same headroom on
your metering. Note that they are picking up sound differently so the
tempo of what's happening on the meter won't match. And, in mixing M/S I
generally find with these mics that there are limits as to the mixing
range. I may have been mixing slightly beyond the limits back then. I
believe most who are new to M/S mix in a little too much side, pushing
for max width. You need to try a range of mix settings and see what you
like. The settings that are optimum may vary from recording to recording.
If you like the MKH-80's you will probably like the MKH-60. The M/S made
with it is not intended to be used to record as wide a field. It's
intended to extract stereo from a narrower field. But the MKH-60 has the
same high sensitivity as the MKH-80 and it's self noise is 6dBA. I've
been tempted to pair it with a MKH-80 for a side, but it would be more
tricky to suspend and wind protect.
Note as far as getting to know a set of M/S MKH-80 that it's more
complex. Of it's 5 patterns, three (wide-cardioid, cardioid, and
supercardioid) are definitely useful for the mid. Omni is not as useful,
and of course if you switch the M mic to figure 8 you have blumline.
Learning when to use which, and how to optimize each is something I've
still a ways to go. I'm willing to say now that I like the MKH-80 M/S
pair better than the MKH-30/40, but am not willing to make statements
about what the full potential of the set is. Note the supercardioid
version of the MKH-80 M/S pair will not substitute for the
characteristics of the MKH-30/60 M/S. It's somewhere intermediate
between the cardiod MKH-80 and the MKH-30/60.
As far as I can tell, the MKH-800, which is a direct derivative of the
MKH-80 will be very similar. It just adds higher frequency range to
provide a match for the higher sampling frequencies in vogue now. But in
the standard audio range it's virtually identical.
>
>>> 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 ask you to start thinking along these lines, you are becoming a person
who's pronouncements cause others to go out and buy mics. Often without
thinking about their own needs. It would be nice if folks would take
what each of us says in context with what sort of emphasis we have, and
make their own analysis. But, in general, they don't.
> 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.
If mic makers were making mics specifically for nature recording I feel
mics along the lines of the MKH would be much more common. As it stands
they are the only rf mics available. A lot of their advantages outdoors
are in that rf design. The design involves more parts than most other
designs, and they have to be pretty much hand made and hand tuned. So,
I'm not sure just how much cheaper any rf mic competitors would be.
Yes, there are always new lines of mics to try out. Some may even gain a
measure of popularity for nature recording in the long term. Who knows
what will be the list of nature recording mics down the road. Maybe the
Rodes will be in it, or maybe they will fall by the wayside. If they do
it may as likely as not be because of their bulk. I'm pretty sure that
as long as Sennheiser is still making MKH mics they will be on the list.
In the 1950's folks were doing nature recording with far less sensitive
dynamic mics and such like. We have it good and should get on with
recording. Out in the field is where we will really learn to use our mics.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|