Posted by: "Tim Nielsen"
> I know people only seem to want to recommend the MKH's, but I would
> tell you to at least check out the Schoeps and Neumann's and MBHOs.
We recommend what we use for the most part. For me MKH were a known
thing for nature recording, I could spend the money safely as there was
a wealth of experience saying that they worked well. Other brands may
work as well, but are a unknown quantity and thus a risk. That's why I
went with MKH. Also specifically MKH as it was also a more or less
matched series of mics that included figure 8 mics.
I cannot say for sure why MKH mics have become so common and Schoeps or
Neumann's so rare in nature recording. I will note that outdoor
recording is not the same sort of controlled ambient environment as
indoor studio recording and the sound at the mic is quite different. Not
only go out with your favorite indoor studio mic, maybe it will handle
outdoor sound as well, but try other mics as they maybe will record the
outdoor sounds better. Some of why MKH mics are used so heavily is not
their tolerance of outdoor environments, but the sound you get from them
in outdoor environments recording outdoor sound.
If you have deep pockets, try them all.
> If you don't think you'll be doing most of your recording in the
> jungle, you'll probably have no problems with humidity. My Schoeps
> have been around the world, recorded in 95% humidity and 95 degree
> heat all day, and never failed me. Doesn't mean they're immune to
> humidity problems or that they won't someday, but I think the
> humidity problem is often quite overstated.
There is more to the outdoor environment and recording in it than just
humidity. Don't get into focusing on humidity only. The outdoor
recording is quite different from studio recording in many ways.
> Also remember that if you have the 722 set to decode the MS into an
> XY signal for recording, it's very easy to 'undo' that later and get
> back your MS signals, which is kind of fun. Most MS plugins for
> digital audio workstations can do this. You can even take an XY
> signal recorded XY, and 'derive' an MS signal from it, then adjust
> the width, and put back into XY.
Note that this conversion is not totally lossless, at least where folks
have bothered to check it out. So don't shift back and forth a lot,
minimize the conversions. That's why I prefer to do the conversion
later, I have the most directly recorded "raw" by recording the M/S
signals in the field. Later I can choose which direct conversion from
M/S to XY will work best and do it just once while archiving the
original M/S in case I later change my mind. The XY I consider a
derivative from the original. If I want to change I go back and
reprocess from the original M/S.
Walt
|