> --- On Fri, 7/30/10, Scott Fraser <> wrote:
>
> From: Scott Fraser <>
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Sennheiser 80x0 series. was Infrasound >=
microphone
> To:
> Date: Friday, July 30, 2010, 9:51 AM
>
> > 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,=A0 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,=A0 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=A0
> 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
Well, if you qualify the needs with "at a distance", yeah you would be hard=
pressed to do better. My needs are more geared toward marching bands reco=
rded from stadium seating. So "at a distance" is one of my needs. Not tec=
hnically marching band, but close enough. The bonus being that all of my g=
ear is battery powered and transportable, one person, one trip. Which lend=
s itself to nature recording. And recording while on the move in general.
My current mics are Avenson STO-2's. I feel a bit lucky having stumbled up=
on these from early on. I saw them for sale used. Couldn't find a sample =
of them in use that I didn't like. And took the plunge. Unfortunately in =
use, they tend to be a little light on the low end. All those Tuba players=
sound like half as many as they should. And the noise floor is pretty not=
iceable. Otherwise great mics. And very forgiving.
I've tried swapping the STO-2's for SM81's, and for the problems those impr=
oved upon (low end, noise floor). They introduced many other problems. Ha=
ndling noise, wind noise, and a general girth that doesn't lend itself very=
well to my pursuits. Pretty awesome in controlled environments (indoors, =
with a small group, at a distance, and no one in the audience), but not wha=
t I was (and am still) needing. And the directionality of the 81's is pret=
ty extreme for my uses. Often called cardioid, but you'd need at least 4 o=
f them to cover a 180 degree spread IMO. Anything but natural sounding out=
doors. If you or the subject moves.
So I guess I'm on the prowl for better. Everything at the price point of t=
he STO-2's (~$500-ish) seem to be a side step at best and not really worth =
the effort. The Crown Sass-P MK II being one of the shining stars that MIG=
HT be a step up. Rode NT4 or a pair of NT5's, maybe. Doubling that price =
point yields some options, but a lot of them are not suited for my use give=
n the potential for high SPL depending on how close or far I am from a grou=
p. All stadiums are not created equal. Beyer Dynamic MC910s are interesti=
ng, but relatively low SPL ratings for said usage. If I double that price =
point twice (x4 and probably not going to happen anytime soon). That puts =
me in range of the MKH option(s). But I'm torn as to whether I can do bett=
er with say EW QTC-50mp's, or save a few bucks and settle on some Kel HM7u'=
s. So many good mics, not many suited for this particular purpose. I want=
to be able to record that 300 piece group, or the crickets in my
yard. Which is a pretty tall order when it comes to the microphone select=
ion.
I still favor the 80x0 mics, but not because of their sound. The other spe=
cs, notably operational temperatures, lend those mics to be better suited t=
o my uses. Audio Technica mics seem to all rate to 110F, which for Texas a=
nd outdoors could be a COLD day. And it's always hotter in the car, so if =
you're inside having a meal, what's that doing to your mics? 200 miles dow=
n, 200 more to go. So many good mics, and just not that many that are suit=
ed for the no hassle, all weather, outdoorsy types. Living near Austin whe=
re the wind can turn a tripod into a kite probably doesn't help much either=
. Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread or write a book. It's just ex=
tremely frustrating not being able to get there from here for < $10K (not i=
ncluding video).
Per the original thread, that low end, even for the sub 20Hz range is hard =
to come by. If you record a church organ and other things, it becomes more=
evident that something is missing or just not quite right.
Per this list, I'm actually more interested in the weather proofing contrap=
tions / methods ya'all have come up with. I want to be able to record rain=
or shine, and still get equal results with basically the same rigging for =
both. Another tall order apparently. Although the hydrophone discussion i=
s enlightening.
Per my rig, I've set limits. Two channels of audio. One channel of video.=
One person, one trip. Little more than a glorified soccer mom for all in=
tents. But I want it all to be on par with the quality you see on what pas=
ses for TV these days. And for less than the costs of my automobile. And =
I drive a relatively cheap car, which I bought new, but still. And that in=
cludes the video half which would be 2/3's the total (in theory).
- James
|