Posted by: "Wild Sanctuary"
>
> A few years back (pre-Telinga and other smaller mic manufacturers who
> have since developed into serious players), the Audio Engineering
> Society rated the Sennheiser MKH series as the quietest mics
> professionally manufactured. Period.
>
> While they were not rated as the most sensitive (the trade-off), they
> were quiet and transparent. Furthermore, at the time, they were
> considered the most stable units for a wide range for field
> applications that took into account weather (thermal conditions,
> humidity, wind, etc.). Because of Sennheiser's careful QC during
> manufacturing, you can take any set of mics (we typically use
> different sets of MKH30/40s), set them up in a lab and the calibrate
> to within .1 dB. My MKH 40 purchased in the late 80s calibrates to
> that kind of spec with the two I bought in 2001 for a larger project.
> It's that kind of reliability one wants and needs at the pro level,
> especially if you are representing calibrated inputs.
It was knowing this that lead me to quit trying to come up with a
cheaper alternative and instead work on coming up with the money to buy
used MKH mics. I now have the freedom of using a set of mics long term
with no need to continually hunt for mics that might do what these do.
When one realizes that a lot of the MKH reputation was made with
previous generations of the mics and that the current generation is even
better, it's easy to see why they stay up on top. Even within the
current generation there are some that are much more sensitive than
others. The MKH 20, 30, 40, 50 form the less sensitive group. The MKH
60, 70, 80, 800 are much more sensitive and even lower noise specs. I
expect eventually Sennheiser might replace the first four with ones like
the latter four. Though I hardly feel the need for that to happen.
Before I decided to concentrate on MKH mics I spent considerable money
trying various other mics. Buy lots of cheap mics and you have paid the
same as buying MKH once.
I'm now free to really learn how to make the best recordings with these
wonderful mics. I've been at it for several years and still a lot to
learn. You need to spend time with a mic setup to really learn how to
use it for the best recording.
> When testing, though, you might want to use different technology,
> like current lab equipment or a 722 because of the quiet preamps.
> That may make a difference.
I've always found it a little amusing that folks will think that their
testing is up to the standards of the testing that manufacturers do on
their mics to establish their specs. It is especially amusing when it's
a one off recording with a single example of a mic of a uncalibrated
sound stage (as in the outdoors). You can learn a lot about a mic by
recording with it in such situations, if you do enough of it. But even
then you are really not in much position to be authoritative about the
mic's calibrated specs.
If your hobby is mic specs spend the money on a proper acoustic lab
setup. Though that will cost a large amount more than the mics. If your
hobby is recording nature then you don't really need to go to that
level. You need to choose good mics and get out and get on with learning
nature recording. The mic choice is just a early step.
Walt
|