<<Most of what I've heard, is that if it wasn't for the extended low
end of the 80x0 series, that they would RATHER use some OTHER rather
specific mic(s). Not to say that they aren't amazing mics and a value
at their price points. Hence why I want some. But I've seen many
comments that favor the older MKH20 / MKH40 over their modern MKH8020
and MKH8040 counterparts. And other mics that are on par with the new
kids on the block.>>
That is what you get with the Internet; opinions that cover the entire
spectrum of thought & experience, and like movie or book reviews you
really need to know something of the background of the opinion giver
to know if your response might be similar or opposite. I frequently
read online reviews of mics, the conclusions of which I can dismiss,
knowing that the reviewer works exclusively with rock bands & has
little involvement with traditional acoustic instruments. My personal
experience, & that of several classical music engineer colleagues who
I work with closely, is that the 8040 has a degree of naturalness,
realism, resolution & presence at distance which is unmatched by
others, including DPA 400x's & Schoeps CMC5/MK2's at a lesser
distance, in the context of chamber music, orchestral music & soprano
(Dawn Upshaw) with piano accompaniment. I have yet to hear a negative
response from anybody who has used these mics, but I also haven't
sought opinions through the usual Internet sources, having had the
opportunity for personal hands-on use of the 8040's. I have not used
the 80x0 for nature recording, so that's untried, but generally I find
the requirements for accurate, realistic portrayal of musical
instruments in acoustic spaces exceeds the demands for a similar sense
of emplacement within a nature setting.
Scott Fraser
|