Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 84

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

January 7, 2008

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Microphone


An Overview of Popular Short Shotgun, Supercardioid,
Hypercardiod and Cardioid Microphones
By Dan Brockett

Microphones

Audio-Technica AT875R
Audio-Technica AT4073a
Beyerdynamic MC 836
Neumann KMR81i
Oktava MK-012

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

Microphone Voice Tests

Test #1. Male Voice, Interior, on-axis,


interview setup
Test #2. Male Voice, Interior, off-axis,
interview setup
Test #3. Microphone handling noise,

1/82

29/8/2010

Sanken CS-1
Sanken CS-3e
Schoeps CMC641
Schoeps CMIT5u
Sennheiser MKH-50
Sennheiser MKH-60

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Interior, narrative setup


Test #4. Female Voice, Interior, onaxis, interview setup
Test #5. Male Voice, Exterior, on-axis,
narrative setup

Is This Article For You?


Take a deep breath; we are about to embark on an epic journey
through the world of location sound microphones. Yeah, I know,
sounds like a bit of hyperbole, right? If you read all of the ads in the
trade magazines, hang out on some Internet sound forums and talk
to sound mixers, perhaps you have reached a sublime level of
crystalline understanding about location sound microphones OR more
likely, you may be a little confused by all of the conflicting
information out there like most us. That's what makes this an epic
journey; there are so many microphones out there and so much
conflicting information. Everyone seems to have his or her favorites
and everyone disputes how much you need to spend to buy a great
microphone. I decided to wade into this article with an open mind
and some audio knowledge but I am decidedly not a professional
location sound mixer. Since I produce and shoot video myself, and
often do my own sound recording, I am writing this article for an
audience of camera owners like myself who may know a little about
location sound, but may not have the chance to audition this many
microphones in person before buying one. If you are a cameraperson,
director or producer who buys, rents and uses professional sound
gear, this article will provide some good starting points in your
search for the right microphone. I hope that by reading about my
experience with these microphones and listening to some samples I
have recorded in several different types of situations, you will be
armed with knowledge that will help you make an intelligent buying
or rental decision so that your projects will have a polished
professional sound mix.

I am not an engineer and I don't know all of the answers but I can
tell you that after reading this article and carefully listening to the
recorded samples, you will have saved yourself several days of
shopping, internet research to hunt down disparate sound samples
and lots of misinformation that you might hear from uninformed
sound forum posters, salespeople or retailers who just didn't do their
research or have a vested interest in not being unbiased. There are
no clear-cut winners and losers amongst these microphones; this
review is not a contest. All of the microphones I tested and reviewed
are capable of excellent sound. Not a single one of the microphones
sounded "bad". Some were better than others or stood out from the
rest for specific sound qualities though, the purpose of this article is
to help you find the best microphones for your needs, taste and
budget. This is why I decided to review microphones that range from
U.S. $259.00 in cost to almost U.S. $2,000.00. It's all about
discovering which microphones suit your needs as well as your
finances.
From Then to Now, A Bit of Background
In order to understand why buyers want better quality audio, it is

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

2/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

helpful to know why video and film shooters care or should care
about sound quality. With the democratization of video equipment in
the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was also an influx of new
users creating video and films. When it took a minimum of a
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 investment in gear to create professional
quality video, the typical broadcast or industrial camcorder user was
an experienced professional. Video and film shooters manned the
camera and usually a professional sound mixer, sometimes along
with a boom operator was included on the call sheet. When the
economic equation required producing quality video changed to
needing just a few thousand dollars of gear to create the same
relative image and sound quality, tens of thousands of new users
began to shoot and produce web content, television, films, corporate
video and many other types of programming using the new
inexpensive gear. As the number of camcorder users increased, they
were doing their own sound mixing on video and film shoots and
learning as they went along with a lot of on-the-job experimentation.
In 2001, I wrote a Low Cost Shotgun article because at the time, it
seemed that everyone was looking for the right microphone to use
with the newly popular low-cost Mini DV camcorders. The word of the
day was cheap. When your new MiniDV camcorder cost $3,000.00 and
made decent quality pictures, who wanted to spend $2,000.00 on a
microphone? In this era, significantly reduced production budgets
were eliminating crew positions, often including the sound mixer and
or boom operator. There was a whole influx of new users who knew
very little about sound mixing that were out shooting their projects
and looking to purchase audio gear. Many people seemed to think
that they could obtain adequate sound quality with a cameramounted microphone. As most of us know, you cannot refute the
laws of physics but many learned about this the hard way.
The HD Era and Sound
We are beginning to see significant change in audio for video
production with the advent of the Hi-Definition era. While the costs
for HD production have fallen rapidly as the demand for HD
programming and the gear to shoot it has risen, in general, HD
production gear is significantly more expensive than standard
definition video gear was. HD camcorders record digital sound with
significantly better quality then their generally poor sounding Mini DV
and analog sound Betacam SP predecessors did. In my experience,
the newer generation HDV and HD camcorders have better
microphone pre-amps and quieter audio paths than the previous
generation MiniDV camcorders had.

Many broadcast and delivery specs for programming now accept and
often expect edited masters be delivered with multi-channel surround
sound. It seems that with the advent of HD production, filmmakers
and videographers today seem to be looking for better quality sound
than they were just a few years ago. Hi-Def puts increased demands
on the quality of the sound expected as well as the picture. More end
users are listening to HD programming on high-end, high-resolution
sound systems that they have added to their 60" HD sets. The day of
the average viewer hearing their television and films through a 2"
bad sounding mono speaker is not completely over but that day is
thankfully dying a quick death.

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

3/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Conventional Wisdom Says...

In 2001, I wrote, "there is really no such thing as a good all around


microphone." Six years later, I feel that this is just as true as it was
in 2001. In the ensuing years since then, there have been no new
technical revelations that allow a microphone to function well in all
sound situations. There are multiple-capsule systems that do allow a
lot of flexibility though such as the Schoeps Collette system, the
Oktava MK-012 and the Sennheiser K6/ME system as well as several
others that let you use different types of capsules that each have
different pickup patterns in conjunction with a dedicated powersupply/base. I have used several of these systems and they can be a
decent, if not perfect solution to those of us who shoot in many
different sorts of physical locations. These modular systems use the
same power supply, matched with several different capsules, each
with different pickup patterns. The goal is always to record the
subject with the most natural, uncolored sound possible and to
eliminate as many of the extraneous sounds not emanating from the
subject as possible. These extraneous sounds are often referred to
as "off-axis sound", meaning that in a practical sense, when you are
recording a line from your talent, you want to hear as little of the
traffic sound from the road next to them as possible while hearing
their voice clearly and with great detail.
What Are The Most Common Microphone Types and Pickup
Patterns For Location Sound?
The terminology in how manufacturers and users categorize and
name microphones can be a bit confusing because it's not consistent.
In general, for location sound, there are several types of commonly
used boom microphones. I like to loosely categorize them into the
following groups:

Long shotguns These microphones, in my opinion, are typically


most useful for recording sound for noisy exteriors or when you
cannot locate the microphone very close to the source. Long
shotguns typically have a very narrow angle of acceptance. If
you check out the polar pattern for a long shotgun, (an overhead
visual representation of a microphone's pickup pattern), you will
usually see that an unfortunate side effect of having an
extremely narrow angle of acceptance is a lot of ancillary sound
pickup at the rear of the microphone. As you might imagine,
when shooting interiors, this means that the crew and activity

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

4/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

behind the microphone, along with the room's reverberant


characteristics are usually picked up as well, making long
shotguns not very useful for recording interiors. Another
practical concern of using long shotguns is that when combined
with a suspension mount and windscreen and furry windscreen
cover, a long shotgun is physically huge and long. This can be
difficult to manage when there is not enough physical room to
use the microphone under overhangs or in rooms with low
ceilings and it's immense size and length can be a visual
distraction for talent as well.

Short Shotguns This short shotgun is the more diminutive


relative of the long shotgun. Most manufacturers that offer short
shotguns also offer long shotguns, often in the same product
line or with a similar sound quality, usually just with a different
pickup pattern. Besides being physically smaller than a long
shotgun, most short shotguns offer a somewhat wider pickup
pattern than long shotguns, usually coupled with more rear axis
noise rejection. The short shotgun is probably the most
commonly used microphone in location sound. They vary widely
in cost and sound quality and almost all of the major audio
manufacturers offer at least one, if not multiple iterations of the
short shotgun. Generally, most sound mixers use short shotguns
in normal exterior locations although plenty of interiors are
recorded using short shotguns as well.
Supercardioids A Supercardioid microphone has a pickup
pattern between a cardioid and a lobar short shotgun with more
off axis rejection than a cardioid but not as narrow of angle of
pickup as a short shotgun. I know, what does lobar mean? A
microphone with a lobar polar pattern has the highest possible
directivity. Lobar polar pattern is often referred to as:
supercardioid/lobar, or hypercardioid/lobar polar pattern, but
both supercardioid and hypercardioid patterns are slightly less
directional than the lobar pattern. A lobar pick-up pattern is
achieved with a shotgun microphone only.

A supercardioid microphone also usually features more rear axis


pickup than a cardioid. Four out of the twelve microphones I
reviewed for this article were supercardioids or short shotguns
with a supercardioid pickup pattern. There are some shotguns
that list a line + gradient pickup pattern and some that just list
the pickup pattern as supercardioid and some that label their
pickup pattern as lobar. As with many descriptors in sound,
there is some confusion about exact terminology. In my
experience, supercardioid microphones typically are physically
shorter than short shotguns but a lot of this categorization
becomes whatever the manufacturer wants to categorize the
microphone as. I have seen the Schoeps CMIT5u labeled as a
long shotgun, short shotgun and as a supercardioid by the
manufacturer, retailers and end users so keep this in mind as
you read the product descriptions for each microphone. Where
available, I have tried to include pickup pattern graphs for each
microphone. These graphs, along with the spec sheets for each
microphone will tell you all you need to know as far as what
kind of microphone each model is.

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

5/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Hypercardioids As you may have guessed by now, a


hypercardioid has a similar pickup pattern to a supercardioid but
it is a wider pickup area, therefore it will usually have less rear
angle pickup than a supercardioid. Hypercardioids are usually
more popular for recording interiors than most of the microphone
pickup patterns listed above because they are capable of
providing a more natural, open and less focused sound. Using a
hypercardioid with a wider pickup pattern also means it is easier
to pickup multiple subjects with one boom. For hand booming
dialogue scenes between multiple characters, a hypercardioid
would not have to be pointed as precisely as a short shotgun or
supercardioid.
Cardioids Cardioid microphones have the widest pickup pattern
of all of the microphone types I tested. The cardioid could be
considered more efficient for picking up larger groups of
speakers at a time and this type microphone might prove to be
more efficient when trying to boom a fast moving subject. A
cardioid microphone has very little pickup pattern directly behind
the microphone but because the pickup pattern is so wide, the
microphone does have a tendency to pickup sounds on the far
sides of the microphone's pattern. An added benefit of all three
of the cardioid microphones is that generally these types of
microphones are physically shorter, allowing the microphone to
be more easily used in spaced with low ceilings and tight
spaces.

How Do You Choose Which Type Of Microphone Pickup Pattern


To Use For a Given Situation?
As a rule of thumb, it's a good idea to listen to each location through
at least a couple of different microphones that you think you might
like to use. You may occasionally discover that a short shotgun will
work for a given interior location better than a cardioid or the short
shotgun may be a better choice than a long shotgun for some
exteriors, it just depends on the situation and the recordist's choice
of sound quality desired. This leads us back to square one; there is
no perfect, all-around general microphone for the location sound
mixer's bag. Brace yourself and budget yourself, you should seriously
consider purchasing more than one microphone or at least a modular
microphone system along with at least two capsules. Keep this in
mind as you peruse the rest of this article, you can consider taking
your total microphone budget and dividing it so that you can buy
more than one microphone.
The Economics
This may sound a bit harsh to you, but if you have gone to lengths of
purchasing a high quality camcorder, tripod, monitor, lights, grip
equipment and all of the paraphernalia needed in order to produce
film or video, you SHOULD consider spending a decent amount of
money on your audio gear. The single most important component of
your audio gear is the microphone. Depending on your needs and
expectations, you don't always have to spend a lot of money on your
microphones, but it does makes prudent economic sense to NOT
scrimp on the quality of your microphones. Buy the right microphones
to successfully record the types of projects that you plan on
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

6/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

shooting. Many newer users fall into the trap of buying a camcorder
that is too expensive for their overall production budget, then
scrimping on all of the most important support components like
tripods, lighting and most importantly, the sound gear. Before you
buy any production gear, you have to really know how to budget your
funds to craft a well-rounded production gear package. Owning a
great camcorder with a lousy tripod, junky lights and a bad sounding
microphone is more common than you might believe. A cheaper
camcorder with good quality support gear like microphones and
tripods will result in a better looking and sounding project. As you
read this article you will see and hear that you don't always need to
buy the most expensive microphones to record great sound, but you
need to know what to buy for your particular shooting style. After
spending six months with all of these microphones, in my opinion,
you need to budget for at least two types of shotgun/cardioid variant
microphones along with at least one lavaliere microphone for most
users.
In the simplest terms, any of you who have purchased a camcorder
like the Panasonic HVX-200, the Canon XL-H1, the Sony PMW-EX1 or
the JVC HD-100/110 family can afford to purchase any microphone
reviewed in this article. If you are reading this article and only have
a $500.00 Mini DV camcorder, that is a different story, I would refer
you to my original Low Cost Shotgun Microphone Comparison since in
most instances it wouldn't make sense to buy a microphone that
costs more than your camcorder. Since the low cost article was put
on-line, many other low-cost shotguns/cardioids have appeared on
the market to consider. For the rest of you who have dropped at
least $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 or more on your camera package
alone, I am not letting you off of the hook; seriously consider buying
more than one microphone. Buy a high quality, reputable brand of
sound mixer and quality lavaliere microphones, buy the best cables
and headphones you can afford. But most important of all, buy the
right shotgun/cardioid variant microphones. Microphones as in plural.
Your completed film/video projects will be judged mostly on audio.
From a technical and audience viewpoint, great graphics,
cinematography, story, actors and direction are all trumped by the
quality of your sound. Creating great sound takes knowing how to
choose the correct microphones and having access to the right
microphones to record your location sound.

Introducing...The Contestants
I make no claim that the eleven microphones tested here should be
the only microphones that you consider. There were many other
candidates that I would have liked to have tested and written about.
I tried for months to obtain a factory sample Sennheiser MKH-416
but Sennheiser could not provide me one. I tried for months to obtain
samples of the Blue Line from AKG but they could not provide factory
samples. Since I wanted the test to be as fair and unbiased as
possible, I decided not to rent or borrow samples, I felt that would
not be fair to the manufacturers or to you. We would have no way of
knowing if a rental or borrowed sample had been abused, how old it
was, etc. So I decided only to test factory fresh samples direct from
the manufacturers.

Unfortunately, the realities of time, and the space allotted for this

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

7/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

article prevent me from not expanding these eleven microphones to


forty or fifty models. I do feel that the microphones included are a
good cross section of the most popular microphones for most users in
the U.S., I do know that in other parts of the world, there are some
popular brands not represented here.Since I am based in the States,
it made sense to include the most popular brands that are
easilyavailable in the U.S. and known in the U.S. The important
thing to remember is that by reading this article and listening to the
samples, you can train your ear and increase your knowledge of what
you like and dislike in microphones. You can use this knowledge in
the future when you consider buying any type of microphones. Sound
is sound and high quality recording will become easier for you to
recognize after you read through this article and analyze the sound
samples.
The microphones are listed in alphabetical order.
#1. Audio-Techinca AT875R

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Line + Gradient


$259.00 MSRP
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

8/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Audio-Technica U.S. Inc.


1221 Commerce Drive. Stow, Ohio 44224
www.audio-technica.com
Relative size: Smallest shotgun I've ever seen
Weight: 80g (2.8 oz.)
Dimensions: 175.0 mm (6.89") long, 21.0 mm (0.83") diameter
Extras: AT8405a stand clamp for 5/8"-27 threaded stands; 5/8"-27 to
3/8"-16 threaded adapter; windscreen; soft protective pouch
Cosmetics: Unusual interference tube design, I liked it
Fit and Finish: Very good, it doesn't look inexpensive
Audio-Technica's description of the microphone:
Audio-Technica's AT875R is designed for video production and
broadcast (ENG/EFP) audio acquisition. Audio-Technica's shortest
shotgun microphone, it mounts conveniently on a HDV/DV or HD
camcorder without adding noticeable heft, and is ideal for use with
compact digital cameras. This high-performance microphone offers a
narrow acceptance angle of line + gradient design. It also features
smooth, natural-sounding on-axis audio quality and excellent off-axis
rejection of sound arriving from the sides and rear of mic.

Designed for video production and broadcast (ENG/EFP) audio


acquisition
Extremely short length (under 7") ideal for use with compact
digital cameras
Provides the narrow acceptance angle desirable for long-distance
sound pickup
Excellent sound rejection from the sides and rear of mic
Tailored response minimizes camera and handling noise
Operates on phantom power only
RoHS compliant-free from all substances specified in the EU
directive on hazardous substances

Dan's initial take on the microphone:


I first heard about the AT875R at NAB 2007. The niche that AudioTechnica seems to be trying to fill with the 875r seems to be the
camcorder mounted short shotgun. It's small, inexpensive and seems
to be a perfect candidate for on-camera use. Except that you should
know that mounting a microphone on your camcorder, no matter how
good-sounding the microphone, is a recipe for horrible audio quality.
We are more interested in how the AT875R performed as a proper
boom mic.
[Top]

#2. Audio-Techinca AT4073a

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

9/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Line + Gradient


$895.00 MSRP
Audio-Technica U.S. Inc.
1221 Commerce Drive. Stow, Ohio 44224
www.audio-technica.com
Relative size: fairly small size and lightweight make it a boom
operator's friend
Weight: 114g (4.0 oz.)
Dimensions: 9.13" (232.0 mm) long, 0.83" (21.0 mm) diameter
Extras: AT8405a stand clamp for 5/8"-27 threaded stands; AT8134
windscreen; protective carrying case
Cosmetics: Very generic looking, nice grey/bronze color
Fit and Finish: Very good, has a nice feel to its surface plus
unusually shaped, eye catching diaphragm openings
Audio-Technica's description of the microphone:
The AT4073a sets new standards in small size and light weight. With
an overall length of just 9.13" and weight of just 4.0 oz, the mic
adds virtually no heft to the end of a fish pole or the top of a
minicam. Through the use of an advanced, propriety Audio-Technica
design, the interference tube of the AT4073a provides a narrow

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

10/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

acceptance angle that would require a tube 50 percent longer using


conventional technology. Audio-Technica has pioneered a unique
interference tube design* in the AT4071a and AT4073a shotgun mics
that provides the same directivity as mics up to 50 percent longer.

Designed for critical long-distance pickup in broadcasting,


film/TV production and theater sound reinforcement applications
Direct-coupled, balanced output ensures a clean signal even in
high-output conditions
Exclusive acoustic design* provides same directivity as mics up
to 50% longer
Switchable 150 Hz hi-pass filter
Rugged housing made of lightweight structural-grade aluminum
alloy

Dan's initial take on the microphone:


I have quite a bit of experience in shooting with this microphone as a
production company I shoot a lot for has them in their audio kits that
I have used for the past few years. I have always liked the sound of
the microphone, it is quite good for interiors, especially deadsounding rooms with a lot of carpet and plush furniture.
[Top]

#3. Beyerdynamic MC 836

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

11/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Lobe Cardioid


$999.00 MSRP
Beyerdynamic
56 Central Ave. Farmingdale, NY 11735
http://northern-america.beyerdynamic.com
Relative size: Average size for short shotgun
Weight: 116g (4.09 oz.)
Dimensions: 9.76" (248.0 mm) long, 0.83" (21.0 mm) diameter
Extras: protective carrying case
Cosmetics: Gray crackle anodized finish
Fit and Finish: Nice, easy to grip when fingers are damp
Beyerdynamic's description of the microphone:
The rugged and lightweight MC 836 shotgun microphone has been
designed to meet the demands of ENG and EFP applications. Due to
its acoustical characteristics it is also suited for film applications.
The directional polar pattern helps to suppress lateral and
background noise.The microphone operates according to the pressure
gradient/line transducer technique. A switchable low frequency rolloff eliminates unwanted low frequencies at a cut-off frequency of 90
Hz. An integrated footfall sound insulation avoids the transmission of
noise below 40 Hz. To avoid wind noise when used outdoors, a wind
shield must be used. The microphone can be operated with a
phantom power supply of 11 - 52 V.
Lobe/Cardioid polar pattern
Very wide frequency response
Low frequency roll-off switch
Phantom power supply 11 - 52 V

Dan's initial take on the microphone:


I had never used a Beyerdynamic microphone before this review. The
microphone's overall sound was neutral and it featured very good offaxis noise rejection. For some reason, Beyerdynamic mics have never
been commonplace in video/film production and I am not sure why. I
was eager to hear how this microphone compared to the brands more
familiar to me.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

12/82

29/8/2010

[Top]

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

#4. Neumann KMR81i

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Supercardioid/Lobe


$1,349.00 MSRP
Neumann USA
1 Enterprise Drive. Old Lyme, CT 06371, USA
www.neumannusa.com
Relative size: Average size for short shotgun
Weight: 145g (5.11 oz.)
Dimensions: 8.97" (226.0 mm) long, 0.83" (21.0 mm) diameter
Extras: WS-81 windscreen, leather carrying case
Cosmetics: Available in nickel or black finish
Fit and Finish: Impeccable German craftsmanship, a work of art like
all Neumanns I have used and owned
Neumann's description of the microphone:
The KMR 81 is a shotgun microphone with a high directivity that
remains within the acceptance angle independent of the frequency.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

13/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The advantage is that a sound source, for example an actor on


stage, will not change its apparent tonal balance when moving within
this area.
Applications
Shotgun microphones are particularly useful in recording situations
where a microphone cannot be positioned within the desired distance
of the sound source to produce a sufficiently loud signal level.
Typical applications are film and video recordings, where the
microphone should not appear in the picture. The KMR 81 has been
specifically designed for electronic news gathering.
Acoustic features
In principle, Neumann shotgun microphones use a combination of a
pressure gradient transducer and an interference tube. If the
wavelength of the frequency is longer than the tube length, the
microphones work as pressure gradient transducers. At higher
frequencies they operate as interference transducers for lateral
sound. Off-axis sound sources are picked up with reduced level, but
without coloration.

Therefore, the microphones are well suited to record individual


instruments of an orchestra. The pickup areas of several shotgun
microphones may even overlap as, for example, during recordings on
a large stage, without causing any problem.
The KMR 81 is less sensitive to wind and pop noise when compared
to the KM 150 miniature microphone with a similar high directivity.
The shotgun microphone features extremely low self noise, good
impulse response, and high output level.
Polar patterns
The KMR 81 is a shotgun microphone with a very directional
characteristic.

The microphone capsule is positioned inside a housing tube that is


acoustically open but has a high flow resistance. The directional
pattern of the microphone is lobe shaped. The attenuation of lateral
sound is practically independent of the frequency. The KMR 81 has a
frequency independent directivity within a pickup angle of 90 for
audio signals that determine the tonal balance of the program
material.
Filter and attenuation
The microphone has a 10 dB attenuation switch to prevent the input
of the following unit from overloading.

A second switch activates a 200 Hz high-pass filter. Toward the


lower frequencies the sensitivity of the microphone is
attenuated by approximately 15 dB at 50 Hz. The frequency
range above 200 Hz is unaffected.

Dan's initial take on the microphone: I have owned a couple of


Neumann's large diaphragm studio condenser microphones for
decades and have always liked their sound characteristics as well as
their legendary build quality and craftsmanship. The KMR81i is no
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

14/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

different; it's a very well crafted piece of gear. This microphone was
the only nickel satin finish microphone we received for testing, which
cosmetically makes it really stand out in a sea of black, gray and
bronze finishes. The sound is smooth and natural and the KMR81i
has outstanding off-axis noise rejection as well. The KMR81i has a
very well balanced and clear sound quality that I found appealing.
[Top]

#5. Oktava MK-012

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Cardioid, Omni,


Hypercardioid (each using a separate capsule)
$375.00 MSRP
Oktava USA
345 N. Dubuque St. North Liberty, IA 52317, USA
www.oktavausa.com
Relative size: Very, very small microphone
Weight: 70g (2.46 oz.)
Dimensions: 5.03" (128.0 mm) long, 0.90" (23.0 mm) diameter
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

15/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Extras: -10dB pad, microphone holder, plastic case


Cosmetics: Available in silver or black matte finish
Fit and Finish: Rugged looking, and a bit rough, typical of Soviet
electronics
Oktava USA description of the microphone:
The MK-012 is a compact, high quality capacitor microphone. The
wide, flat response ensures that all sounds are captured with a high
degree of accuracy. A cardioid, omni & hypercardioid capsule increase
this microphone's versatility.
The MK-012 is suitable for use in any situation where an accurate
sound is required, the size of the system makes it ideal for use in
broadcast, sound for picture, installation, sound reinforcement and
theatre situations as well as the recording studio.

Dan's initial take on the microphone:


The Oktava MK-012 has become a cult microphone with location
sound mixers, indie filmmakers as well musicians and studio owners
everywhere. The microphone is priced in the low-budget range. Is
this the only reason for all of the enthusiasm? I have heard
comparisons between the MK-012 and the Schoeps microphones and
I have also heard that the Oktavas are also prone to Q/C issues and
excessive handling noise. The samples I recorded will let you make
up your own mind about the Okatava.

Personally, I found the microphone to have very good quality sound


for its price range. The Oktava, to my ears, presented a slightly more
colored and high frequency emphasized sound quality than the
Sankens and the Schoeps, it did not have the smoothness and
natural sound quality of the Schoeps but it did sound very
impressive. I would not hesitate to recommend the Okatava as a
solid, low cost and versatile choice that is an excellent value since it
is a microphone system for under $400.00 including three capsules
and a -10dB pad, microphone holder and case. I very much enjoyed
recording with the Oktava, it seemed like a relative bargain.
[Top]

#6. Sanken CS-1

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

16/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Short shotgun


$795.00 MSRP
Plus 24
1155 N. La Brea Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90038, USA
www.plus24.net
Relative size: Very small microphone
Weight: 100g (3.52 oz.)
Dimensions: 7.14" (181.5 mm) long, 0.74" (19.0 mm) diameter
Extras: US-1 foam windscreen, ROCS rubber O-ring, padded hardshell case
Cosmetics: Black/dark gray smooth finish
Fit and Finish: Very nice quality feel
Sanken description of the microphone:
The new CS-1 Short Shotgun Microphone employs the same
innovative technology as previous Sanken mics in a new, smaller,
ultra-compact housing. Specifically designed for the film and
television industries, the CS-1 is unobtrusive and easily avoids the
camera's view. Sharp directivity delivers highly targeted sound while
eliminating background noise through off-axis rejection.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

17/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Measuring only 7 inches in length, the CS-1 is ideal for mounting on


video and film cameras, and with a weight of only 3.5 ounces, it is
easy to maneuver on boom poles and is also effective as a handheld
shotgun mic. Utilizing Sanken's original square condenser capsule,
the CS-1 has a flat frequency response well beyond 20kHz.
Very sharp directivity in a compact 7" body
Flat frequency on-axis response beyond 20kHz
Optimum sensitivity: -30dB/Pa
High SPL- more than 137dB SPL(1% THD), with no distortion,
even in close proximity to sound sources
Narrow angle directivity in all frequency ranges - 23dB/20kHz,
25dB/10kHz,26dB/1kHz,20dB/200Hz
Only 3.5 ounces - light weight makes it ideal for boom pole
operation
Sanken original square-type DC-biased condenser capsule

Dan's initial take on the microphone:


The Sanken CS-1 has become a very popular choice as a solid midrange and physically small short shotgun. With crisp detailed sound
and very good off-axis rejection, the Sanken is an intelligent choice
for a sound package for video/film. The sound is neutral, relatively
uncolored and contains a lot of detail, particularly in the high
frequencies.
[Top]

#7. Sanken CS-3e

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

18/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Short shotgun w


supercardioid pattern
$1,350.00 MSRP
Plus 24
1155 N. La Brea Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90038, USA
www.plus24.net
Relative size: Very small diameter, long length microphone
Weight: 120g (4.23 oz.)
Dimensions: 10.6" (270 mm) long, 0.74" (19.0 mm) diameter
Extras: US-1 foam windscreen, ROCS rubber O-ring, padded hardshell case
Cosmetics: Black/dark gray smooth finish
Fit and Finish: Very nice quality feel

Sanken description of the microphone: In the CS-3e, three


directional capsules are arranged in a front-back array to combine
line microphone performance and second-order pressure gradient
response in a single system.With this unique design, the CS-3e
achieves phenomenal supercardioid directivity in the lowest
frequencies and throughout the full range in a microphone 27cm (10
inches) in length.

It is significant that the CS-3e picks up the targeted frontal sound


sources with exceptional clarity over a wide frequency range - even in
noisy ambient environments or in long reverberation spaces - by
rejecting undesired noise and sounds coming from the rear and sides.

Background
Conventional shotgun microphones use a line capsule array and a
pipe with slits in front of the capsule to create high directivity by
utilizing phase interference inside the casing. With this conventional
design, high-directivity in the middle-low frequency range is not
achieved, although high-directivity in the high frequency range is
maintained. Conventional shotgun microphones are at a
disadvantage because they invariably pick up unwanted sounds
coming from the back and sides. In order to solve this problem,
conventional shotgun microphones designed for high directivity in the
middle- low frequencies require a length of more than one meter (39
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

19/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

inches) in length. However, long shotgun microphones seriously


affect mobility and are not ideal for field recording.

Unique Design
The remarkable performance of the CS-3e is based on the
combination of a second-gradient and line microphone with three
directional condenser elements, using new PPS (Poly-Gold-Phenylene
Sulfide) diaphragms to provide optimum humidity/temperature
stability. The CS-3e incorporates the revolutionary technology of the
CSS-5 shotgun stereo microphone (switchable shotgun
stereo/mono/wide) and the COS-11s lavalier microphone developed
in conjunction with NHK. The CS-3e is small and lightweight with a
low-cut switch to satisfy the various needs of location and studio
recording.The standard 19mm diameter permits use of a wide range
of accessories developed for enhanced performance and field
mobility.
Non-Proximity Effect
When a conventional shotgun microphone is near the sound source,
proximity effect results in a boosting of certain low frequencies and
slight masking of others. Some designs utilize this effect to reduce
surrounding noises, but microphone response greatly varies with the
changing distance between the source and the microphone. This
effect becomes more pronounced when the directionality becomes
greater. By contrast, the CS-3e virtually eliminates the proximity
effect and maintains sharp directivity, while the sonic characteristics
do not change with varied distances between sources and
microphone. This is a significant advantage over all other directional
microphones.

Dan's initial take on the microphone:


The Sanken CS-3e presents somewhat of an enigma to me. It has a
similar sound to the Sanken CS-1, but it has better off-axis rejection
than the CS-1, as you would expect. The Sanken CS-3e seems to
offer a very smooth and detailed sound with excellent dynamic range
as well. The CS-3e retails for almost twice the price of the CS-1
though. In audio, there is a general guideline for gear called the law
of diminishing returns. What it means is that in order to obtain a
piece of gear that sounds good, you have spend a certain amount of
money. In order to obtain a piece of gear that will sound 10% better
than a similar piece of other gear, you often have to spend many
times as much. As costs increase, the differences in sound quality
become smaller and smaller. I wonder if this might be the case with
the CS-3e? It sounded smoother and more balanced than the CS-1
but is it worth almost twice the money? You will have to judge with
your own ears and make that decision.
[Top]

#8. Schoeps CMC641 - CMC6U Microphone Preamp and MK-41G


Super Cardioid Capsule

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

20/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Supercardioid


$1,592.00 MSRP
Redding Audio
97 South Main Street, Unit #10 Newtown, CT 06470, USA
www.reddingaudio.com
Relative size: small length modular system
Weight: 120g (4.23 oz.)
Dimensions: 4.57" (116 mm) long, 0.78" (20.0 mm) diameter
Extras: SG20 Microphone Stand Mount, B5 Pop-Filter, Case
Cosmetics: Dark Gray Matte
Fit and Finish: Top of the line matte finish with gold engraving, gold
colored XLR connection
Schoeps' description of the microphone:
CMC Microphone Amplifiers

balanced, very low-impedance output


can be used with very long cables (several hundred meters)
can be used with Active Accessories for miniaturization and
special applications

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

21/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The chief task of a CMC microphone amplifier is to convert the


extremely high-impedance signal from the capsule to a very lowimpedance one suitable for transmission through a microphone cable.
Several versions are available which differ only in their powering,
connectors, output levels and surface finishes. They all feature a
symmetrical class-A output stage with neither coupling condensers
nor an output transformer. This design helps them to achieve
extremely low distortion and light physical weight, while their very
low output impedance helps make them insensitive to electrical
interference. standard microphone amplifier: Modular MK 41 Capsule
supercardioid pattern very well maintained throughout the
frequency range
for music and speech
high directivity, comparable to that of a short "shotgun"
microphone up through midrange frequencies

The MK 41 is strongly directional. Sound arriving from off axis is


attenuated even more than with a cardioid. The pickup is 'drier' and
less susceptible to acoustic feedback than any other SCHOEPS
microphone type, provided that a loudspeaker is not located directly
on the rear axis of the microphone.

Its directivity is highly independent of frequency, so that even


sounds arriving off axis and reverberant sound are registered without
coloration. Consequently, even distant placement of the microphone
produces a very natural sound pickup. This is a real advantage over
interference-tube "shotgun" microphones, whose directivity is very
frequency-dependent exceeding that of a supercardioid only at higher
frequencies. Interference-tube microphones are notoriously sensitive
to their position in a room, where the shifting patterns of reflections
cause corresponding shifts in sound color. Thus the MK 41 and CCM
41 are surprisingly effective and space-saving alternatives to shotgun
microphones - and being small, they can often be placed closer to
the sound source.
Dan's initial take on the microphone:
The Schoeps CMC641 is an industry standard. It is relatively costly,
yet most location sound mixers feel that it is worth it. To my ears,
the CMC641 seemed to have the least colored, most natural sound of
any of the microphones tested. It's difficult to describe. Almost all of
the mics tested had clear and concise sound, yet I always formed the
impression that I was listening to a recording of the sound. The
other mics "present" the sound, each in their own style. With this
microphone, I never got the impression that the sound was
"presented" it just was "there" and sounded very similar to what my
ears alone hear. In audio parlance, this is the textbook description of
"uncolored" sound.
The versatility of the Schoeps Collette System should also be
considered. With the addition of other capsules, your CMC6U preamp
becomes the basis for a very versatile and high quality microphone
system, if you have the financial means to afford the not so
inexpensive prices for additional capsules.

[Top]
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

22/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

#9. Schoeps CMIT5u

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Supercardioid/ lobe-shaped


$1,895.00 MSRP
Redding Audio
97 South Main Street, Unit #10 Newtown, CT 06470, USA
www.reddingaudio.com
Relative size: about the average size for a shotgun
Weight: 89g (3.13 oz.)
Dimensions: 9.88" (251 mm) long, 0.827" (21.0 mm) diameter
Extras: SG20 Microphone Stand Mount, W 140 foam-type windscreen,
Polished Wooden Case
Cosmetics: Anodized Blue Aluminum
Fit and Finish: Top of the line with three separate filter push buttons
with six small, orange LED indicators
Schoeps description of the microphone:
Schoeps Microphones and proudly present the Schoeps CMIT 5U
shotgun microphone.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

23/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Three pushbutton-activated filters:

High-frequency emphasis (+5 dB at 10 kHz)


Steep low-cut filter (18 dB/oct. below 80 Hz)
Gentle low-frequency rolloff (6 dB/oct. below 300 Hz)

A pair of LEDs next to each filter pushbutton indicates the status


(in/out) of each filter-a practical feature that is truly unique for a
microphone of this type.

Weight: An amazing 3 1/8 ounces!


48 Volt phantom powering
Superior RF immunity
Unusually low coloration of off-axis sound, for a shotgun
Pickup pattern is consistent in both the horizontal and vertical
planes (unlike some popular shotguns)
Increased directivity at medium frequencies
Less sensitive to wind noise than a Schoeps CMC 641
Schoeps sound quality makes the microphone suitable for music
recording as well as Dialogue
Beautiful, blue anodized all metal housing

Schoeps: Innovation redefined


The focus on outstanding high quality, reliability, and neutral,
accurate sound has been the production philosophy of Schoeps
microphones since 1948. The simple elegance and clever engineering
of their products reflects a true passion for the art of microphone
manufacturing and a tireless attention to detail. Schoeps is most
famous for its Colette Modular Microphone System, the most
extensive and versatile microphone system ever conceived.
Introduced in the early seventies, the Colette System is still the
heart of the Schoeps line today. It was the first of its kind, allowing
the use of various active accessories between the capsule and
amplifier body and is undoubtedly the standard to which all other
small-diaphragm microphones are compared. The CMIT 5U continues
in this tradition of superb quality, innovation and functionality that
all Schoeps products share.

Not your ordinary shotgun ...


For years Schoeps has declined requests to produce a shotgun type
microphone. The company felt if it were going to produce a shotgun
microphone, there had to be some level of uniqueness and
improvement. Besides the ber-cool push buttons and LEDs, this
microphone produces a natural sound not thought possible with an
interference-tube design. It is only fitting that they are finally
offering one since Schoeps' Technical Director Joerg Wuttke, the
Project Manager of the CMIT 5U had studied with and assisted the
inventor of the interference tube "shotgun" microphone, Professor
Gnther Kurtze. Countless location recordists already use a Schoeps
CMC 641 supercardioid in conjunction with their favorite non-Schoeps
shotgun to handle all their audio capture needs. For the first time,
users can enjoy an audible cohesion between their venerable CMC
641 and their shotguns.

Dan's initial take on the microphone


Professional sound mixers have longed for a Schoeps shotgun for
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

24/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

quite some time and the introduction of the CMIT5u finally means
that a Schoeps shotgun finally exists. The CMIT5u sounds great and
shares a lot of the same sound characteristics as the CMC641
supercardioid while featuring a narrower pickup pattern with better
off axis rejection. Pairing a CMIT5u with a CMC641 would result in an
ideal location sound package. The only problem for many of us might
be that the cost of the two together approaches U.S. $3,600.00. The
CMIT5u is a beautiful microphone that exudes a unique look and feel
as well as a unique sound. The other notable quality of the CMIT5u
is it's amazingly light weight. When using the CMIT5u, its extremely
light heft allows the boom operator to use the mic for longer periods
of time with less fatigue. Those missing few ounces make a big
difference when using the mic on a long boom pole especially.
[Top]

#10. Sennheiser MKH-50

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Pressure gradient


microphone with super-cardioid pick-up pattern
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

25/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

$1,440.00 MSRP
Sennheiser
1 Enterprise Drive, Old Lyme, CT 06371
www.sennheiserusa.com
Relative size: Short length but larger diameter than other comparable
microphones
Weight: 99g (3.5 oz.)
Dimensions: 6.02" (152.9 mm) long, 0.98" (24.8 mm) diameter
Extras: Shock mount MZS 40, Stand adapter MZQ 40, Windscreen
MZQW 40
Cosmetics: Black matte
Fit and Finish: Very nice black metallic finish with typical Sennheiser
high-quality feel.
Sennheiser description of the microphone:
Features & Benefits

High rejection of lateral sounds


Exceptionally low inherent self-noise
Transformerless and fully floating balanced output
Symmetrical transducer technology ensures extremely low
distortion
Switchable roll-off filter to compensate for proximity effects at a
distance of approx. 0.5 m
Switchable pre-attenuation
Black, anodised light metal body

The super-cardioid MKH 50 offers a higher attenuation of diffuse-field


and lateral sound than the cardioid microphone. It is principally
designed for use as a soloist's or spot microphone for applications
requiring a high degree of side-borne sound muting and feedback
rejection. The directional characteristics are frequency-independent.
The unit shall be a super-cardioid studio directional microphone with
switchable pre-attenuation and switchable roll-off filter. The
frequency response shall be 40 Hz-20,000 Hz, with sensitivity (free
field, no load) of 25 (8) mV/Pa 1dB at 1 kHz. The nominal
impedance shall be 150 W, and min. terminating impedance shall be
1000 W. The dimensions shall be .98 x 6.02 inches, and weigh
approx. 3.5 oz. The unit shall be a Sennheiser MKH 50. Values in
parentheses with attenuator switched on (-10 dB).
Dan's initial take on the microphone:
The Sennheiser MKH-50 is a popular supercardioid microphone. It has
a robust and clear sound with a nice bass response and decent offaxis rejection. The Sennheiser has a different sound than the other
high-end microphones tested, which I found refreshing. To my ears,
the Sennheisers present a slightly "darker" sound with considerable
low end without boominess. I find this sound appealing for many
projects and subjects.
[Top]

#11. Sennheiser MKH-60


kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

26/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Interference Tube (short


gun) microphone with super-cardioid/lobar pick-up pattern
$2,000.00 MSRP
Sennheiser
1 Enterprise Drive, Old Lyme, CT 06371
www.sennheiserusa.com
Relative size: Short length but larger diameter than other comparable
microphones
Weight: 160g (5.64 oz.)
Dimensions: 11.02" (280 mm) long, 0.98" (25 mm) diameter
Extras: Stand adapter MZQ 40
Cosmetics: Black matte
Fit and Finish: Very nice black metallic finish with typical Sennheiser
high-quality feel.
Sennheiser description of the microphone:
Features & Benefits

Extremely low inherent self-noise


High sensitivity
High directivity throughout the whole frequency range

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

27/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Transformerless and fully floating balanced output


Infra-sonic cut-off filter
Symmetrical transducer technology ensures extremely low
distortion
Switchable pre-attenuation, switchable roll-off filter and
switchable treble emphasis
Rugged and weather-proof
Black, anodised light metal body

The MKH 60 is a lightweight short gun microphone. It is versatile and


easy to handle and its superb lateral sound muting makes it an
excellent choice for film and reporting applications. Its high degree of
directivity ensures high sound quality for distance applications.
Dan's initial take on the microphone:
The Sennheiser MKH-60 is a very popular supercardioid patterned
shotgun microphone. It has a robust and clear sound with a nice bass
response and excellent off-axis rejection. The Sennheiser has a
different sound than the other high-end microphones tested,
although the basic sound quality is similar to the MKH-50, which I
quite liked. The MKH-60 presents with less bass and slightly more
mid-range emphasis than the MKH-50.
[Top]

Comparison Table

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

28/82

29/8/2010

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

29/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Tests
I mulled over how to best test these microphones so that readers
could make up their minds about which one best suits their needs.
(Insert cheesy sound mixer joke here) I wanted to avoid the analysis
of the anechoic chamber and test bench routine, largely because my
test bench has tools and cat food bowls all over it and my anechoic
chamber was retrofit with a Jacuzzi last Spring. ;-)
It seemed that the most useful way to test these microphones was
to record a variety of subjects in varying "real" audio environments
using both male and female voices. Many of the other tests clips
from microphones of the web were recorded in a perfect sounding VO
booth or recording studio. This is fine if you record in a VO booth or
recording studio but most video and filmmakers record in a wide
variety of locations, from sound stages to living rooms, from street
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

30/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

scenes to backyards, so I decided to try to record at least most of


the test clips in "real" environments.
Support Gear Used
I decided to record the samples with practical, common support gear.
Most video shooters and an increasing number of filmmakers do not
record dual system sound or use a Zaxcom Deva, etc. Most video and
an increasing number of HD films are shot with the microphones
input directly into the audio connections on the camcorder.
Depending on the model of camcorder, most HD/HDV camcorders are
capable of recording decent quality sound. I decided that I would run
the signal through an audio mixer, then I would run line level output
from the audio mixer to the line level inputs of the camcorder,
bypassing the camcorder's mic-preamps.

Recording Device
NTSC Panasonic HVX-200 P2 camcorder. Camera was set to record
48kHz/16 bit audio in the 720 24PN frame rate to P2 cards. All
footage was loaded into Final Cut Pro 5.1.4 and .AIFF files were
extracted. The .AIFF files were then compressed to 192Kbps .MP3
files for publication on the web. This type of prosumer camcorder is a
very common for many shooters today, although many also shoot
HDV tape. Each microphone was fed into audio input one and two,
with a roughly 15dB offset. Only one channel was used for the audio
samples for this article, the single channel was duplicated to for
those listening to this with a stereo speaker set on the computer.
Left and right channel are identical.
Cables
One twenty-foot XLR cable, Mogami cable and Canare XLR connecters
Audio Mixer
Professional Sound Corporation M4 MKII Audio Mixer. The PSC audio
mixer supplied 48v phantom power to all of the microphones in the
test. The M4 sent a line level output signal to the HVX-200.
Microphone Support
There was considerable variation in tube diameter and shape of the
microphones. A variety of microphone support gear was utilized
including microphone mounts from Lightwave, Sennheiser, K-Tek and
Rycote. The mics were mounted to a stationary mic boom for all
stationary tests. For the microphone handling-noise test, the
microphones and their mounts were affixed to a Gitzo 11' carbon
fiber boom pole
Your Gear
To be honest, if you listen to the sound samples I have provided on
average computer speakers or especially laptop speakers, you are
not going to hear very many differences in the samples. Many of the
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

31/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

differences between all of these microphones are in the very low


frequency range and many of the differences between the different
microphones are in the very high frequencies. Simply put, low quality
gear is not capable of reproducing very low or very high frequencies
with much accuracy. I analyzed all of these test clips on a playback
system in a sound treated room through Genelec 1029a studio
monitors with a Genelec 1091b subwoofer. The system and room
have had spectrum analysis and the room has been EQ'd and tuned.
I suggest that, if you want a fair evaluation of the clips, you need to
obtain playback on a decent quality, somewhat accurate playback
system. If you do not have access to a decent quality playback
system, listen to the samples on decent headphones. The signal will
not be accurate but you will at least be able to hear the differences
between the mics, the low frequency differences and the room tone
and air tone, ambient sound differences. I tested these samples on
my laptop speakers and on some cheap computer speakers and trust
me, all of the mics sound almost the same on lousy speakers.

Test #1. Male Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setup


This test was designed to reproduce a typical interview setup. The
room was a small office measuring 22' long by 14' wide with an 8'
ceiling height. The room contained a nominal amount of furniture, a
carpeted floor and one window. I have shot hundreds of interviews at
corporations, movie studios and offices suites in rooms very much
like this one.

The microphone was placed about a foot over the subject's head on a
stationary microphone boom. I did not want to color the sound by
using a windscreen or pop filter so for the interior tests, all of the
microphones were recorded bare with only the mic element facing the
subject. For this test, listen for the differences in the quality and
timbre of the voice, noise levels and room reflections.

For the microphones that had built-in low frequency roll offs or cuts, I
recorded separate clips with the microphones low cuts switched in
and out so that you could compare each of the microphone's rumble
and noise level.
Playing Back Microphone Test Files
All audio files are 192Kbps .MP3 files. On Mac-based systems, if
clicked on, these files will open in iTunes. On Mac-based systems, I
recommend downloading the files, then opening them with QuickTime
player for a more accurate playback. On PC systems, these files may
be played back with iTunes player or any other .MP3 capable
application.
File Naming Convention For This Test
You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters
"MVINOA" in the file name. MVINOA stands for Male Voice Interior On
Axis. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initials so
that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell which tests
for which microphone you are listening to.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

32/82

29/8/2010

Sound Samples

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

1. AT875RMVINOA
2. AT4073aMVINOA
3. BeyerdynamicMC836MVINOA
4. NeumannKMR81iMVINOA
5. OktavaMK012CardiodMVINOA
6. OktavaMK012HyperMVINOA
7. SankenCS-1MVINOA
8. SankenCS-3eMVINOA
9. SchoepsCMC641MVINOA
10. SchoepsCMIT5uMVINOA
11. SennheiserMKH-50MVINOA
12. SennheiserMKH-60MVINOA

[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #1


Male Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setup
Audio-Technica AT875R

I was pleasantly surprised after recording the first test with this
microphone. I tried to forget everything that I knew about each
microphone and just listen. When I listened to the Audio-Technica
AT875R, I really liked what I heard. The mic features strong bass
response with a good mid-range and fairly detailed high end without
being overly sibilant. Overall this microphone had a balanced sound.
Audio-Technica AT4073a

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

33/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

A production company that I often shoot for uses these microphones


so I was instantly familiar with the sound signature of this mic. One
standout characteristic of this microphone is that it has a very high
nominal output; it was significantly more sensitive than any of the
other mics. The microphone emphasizes highs more than most of the
other mics that I tested. The microphone's bass roll off was also very
effective and more drastic than some of the other mics tested. I
would characterize the 4073a sound as "in-your-face", it would be
good for quiet subjects or in situations where you could not place the
microphone very close to the talent. Overall this microphone
emphasizes the high frequencies.
Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

I have never used a Beyerdynamic microphone before this test and I


was impressed with the smooth and natural quality of this
microphone. The MC-836PV emphasizes more of the mid-range sound
of voices than some of the other mics tested; it also retains smooth
highs and a decent amount of bass response. Overall this
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

34/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

microphone seemed to emphasize the mids. It is the opposite of the


AT4073a and MKH-50; it is kind of mellow sounding and seemed to
be fairly uncolored.
Neumann KMR81i

The Neumann is certainly an impressive looking and well-crafted


piece of gear. I own several Neumann microphones although I have
never used a Neumann shotgun before. This microphone had a very
well balanced sound that I would mostly describe as smooth. There
is a quality to the sound that is hard to describe, but I can relate it
to how it makes my voice sound. On many of the other microphones,
I hear a lot of effort in my voice. I am not a professional VO person
or actor so I am sure that my breathing is not correct for VO work. In
many of the other microphones, I can hear the strain in my voice that
I did not hear in the Neumann. With the Neumann, my voice sounded
more natural, yet the sound was still exciting and dynamic. Overall
this mic did not seem to overly emphasize any frequency range more
than the other.
Oktava MK-012

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

35/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Oktava was another "underground" microphone that I had heard


a lot about but had never used. The sound overall was very nice
although I preferred the sound of my voice with the hypercardioid
capsule to the cardioid capsule. The sound was smooth and balanced
although I did detect a tiny bit of emphasis on sibilance but really
not enough to be concerned about. The microphone does pickup a
very impressive amount of detail without over emphasizing plosives
or mouth sounds. I can see why there exists a large and enthusiastic
following for this mic, it is a great sounding unit. Overall this mic
seemed to slightly emphasize mid-range.
Sanken CS-1

The CS-1 is another microphone that has received a lot of notice from
video and film people as well as professional mixers. In listening to
the first test, I am struck by how crisp and detailed the sound is.
This microphone picked up every last detail in my voice yet I did not
hear anything unpleasant in my voice characteristic, no excess
sibilance or mid-range distortion. The microphone seemed to not
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

36/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

pickup a lot of bass or rumble in the room. Besides the AudioTechnica AT4073a, this microphone struck me as one of the most
detailed, yet this microphone seemed to have a smoother all-around
sound overall than the 4073a. Overall this microphone seemed to
emphasize the highs and detail.
Sanken CS-3e

The CS-3e is Sanken's more expensive, physically longer shotgun


microphone. In A/B comparing the CS-3e and the CS-1, I hear more
smoothness and more bass from the CS-3e. The two mics share a
similar basic sound characteristic but the CS-3e overall sounds
smoother to my ear. The CS-3e seemed to be one of those rare
microphones that can reproduce a lot of bass without too much
rumble or undesirable room tone. As expected, I detected less offaxis noise from the CS-3e than many of the smaller and shorter
microphone designs. The Sanken seems to have some of the same
hard to define balanced quality that the Neumann KMR81i has, which
is a very nice characteristic that makes the mic a pleasure to use.
Overall this microphone seemed to slightly emphasize mids and
bass.
Schoeps CMC641

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

37/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Ever since I have been involved with sound for picture, a recurring
microphone seems to come up in conversation, the Schoeps CMC641.
At first listen, you are not blown away by how amazing the mic
sounds. I learned a long time ago that with microphones and audio
monitors, "sounding good" is not really that desirable. "Sounding
accurate" is a much more desirable characteristic and that is what I
get with this microphone on my voice. All of the other microphones in
the test gave me various versions of my voice, most sounded very
nice but all sounded like very good copies of my voice, some with
more bass, some with more highs but the Schoeps simply recorded
my voice exactly as I hear it in my head. I don't sound great on it,
but I can't deny that it is the most accurate. This is the reason why
most sound mixers will drop the $1,592.00 that it takes to buy one.
The Schoeps did not seem to really emphasize any particular
frequency range. Very impressive performance if you know what you
are listening for.
Schoeps CMIT5u

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

38/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

By all accounts, recording an interview in a relatively small room with


low ceilings and mostly hard surfaces with a shotgun shouldn't sound
that great. I was impressed with the sound quality of this
microphone. It is an unusual looking microphone, very high-tech with
glowing LEDs, active switches and a visually arresting anodized blue
color, but the microphone delivered great sound with a lot of
adjustment that most of the other microphones tested could not
match. This microphone sounded different than the CMC641, yet
somewhat similar in the overall quality. It sounded as if material
recorded with this mic would successfully intercut with material
recorded with the CMC641. I felt like this was the only microphone I
tested that really could sound like two or three different microphones
without switching capsules. Very impressive, smooth and detailed
sound with that elusive "shimmer" that only very expensive
microphones seem to record. Overall this microphone emphasizes
bass frequencies.
Sennheiser MKH-50

The MKH-50 was a different animal. I very much liked its sound
quality. If all of these microphones were described in movie genres, I
would characterize the sound of the MKH-50 as "action movie". The
microphone seems to record a sound that kind of jumps out of the
speakers, almost with a slightly compressed quality that would work
very well for a lot of situations. Often during the video and film post
process, sound has a tendency to become flattened so that the end
result needs a lot of post processing to sound exciting. If you record
using the MKH-50, your sound will already sound as if it is very
dynamic and has a lot of energy. The mic seems to equally
emphasize bass, mids and highs. The microphone has a lot of fans
and after listening to this test, I can see why.
Sennheiser MKH-60

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

39/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

As I listened to the MKH-60, I sensed a lot of balance in the sound.


Just as in the Schoeps CMIT5u, the MKH-60 sounded surprisingly
good in a small room with lots of reflective surfaces. I would
characterize the sound of the MKH-60 as mid-range emphasized
whereas the MKH-50 seemed to be much more bass focused overall.
The MKH-60 is a favorite for newer boom operators as it's pickup
pattern is pretty forgiving yet has good rejection of off-axis noise.
Like the MKH-50, the overall sound quality of the MKH-60 is darker
than many of the other mics tested, one more reason why it is
important to have more than one microphone in your sound kit.
Sometimes your talent can sound kind of high frequency or even
chirpy. Recording that sort of voice through a mic that emphasizes
high frequencies can be a mistake. A microphone like the MKH-60 can
do very good things for thinner sounding and female/kid voices, as it
lends then some richness. I would say that overall the sound of the
MKH-60 leans toward the mids.
Test #2. Male Voice, Interior, off-axis, interview setup
This test was recorded in the same location as the first test, the
difference being that I moved the subject away from the microphone
during the recording. The first sound you hear in each clip is the
same as the first test, male vocal, on-axis but the subject then
rotates away from the microphone axis by about three feet at about
a 45-degree angle from the microphone.
The idea behind this test was to listen to how the microphone
rejects off axis noise. Universally all of the microphones claim to
have great off-axis rejection so this test was designed to let you
hear how each mic sounds under identical circumstances and judge
for yourself.

The microphone was placed about a foot over the subject's head on a
stationary microphone boom. The subject then rotated about 3 feet
away from the microphone. For this test, listen to the amount of offaxis rejection. For most needs, the more off-axis rejection the
microphone has, the better sound you will record in most non-studio
environments. Don't only listen to the sound level of the off-axis
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

40/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

sound; also listen for the sound frequency response as the subject
rotates away from the mic. Some of the microphones pickup all of the
frequencies equally in their off-axis response, some only pickup lows,
mids or highs off-axis.
File Naming Convention For This Test
You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters
"MVINOFFA" in the file name. MVINOA stands for Male Voice Interior
Off Axis. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initials
so that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell which
tests for which microphone you are listening to.
Sound Samples

1. AT875RMVINOFFA
2. AT4073aMVINOFFA
3. BeyerdynamicMC836MVINOFFA
4. NeumannKMR81iMVINOFFA
5. OktavaMK012CardiodMVINOFFA
6. OktavaMK012HyperMVINOFFA
7. SankenCS-1MVINOFFA
8. SankenCS-3eMVINOFFA
9. SchoepsCMC641MVINOFFA
10. SchoepsCMIT5uMVINOFFA
11. SennheiserMKH-50MVINOFFA
12. SennheiserMKH-60MVINOFFA

[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #2


Male Voice, Interior, off-axis, interview setup
Audio-Technica AT875R

The AT875R had decent off-axis rejection, but it was not as effective
as any of the longer shotguns in this particular test. As I rotated
away from the mic, the sound level did drop noticeably but I also still

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

41/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

hear quite a decent amount of high frequency content in the off-axis


sound. Not a bad result, especially for such an inexpensive mic but
not on par with the more expensive mics.
Audio-Technica AT4073a

The 4073a had better off-axis response than it's little brother, the
AT875R. I was interested to hear what the off-axis sounded like
since this microphone seems to emphasize the high-end more than
most of the other mics tested. Surprisingly, the highs seemed to
fade away more than I anticipated they would. While the 4073a did
not have the best off-axis response of all of the mics tested, it did
pretty well.
Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

42/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

To my ear, after A/B comparing all of the microphone's off-axis


response, the Beyerdynamic seemed to have almost identical off-axis
sound as the AT4073a. I find this interesting because overall, the
MC836 has a much more mid-range emphasized sound while the
4073a emphasizes the highs.
Neumann KMR81i

The off-axis response on the KMR81i was quite good. It was


interesting that on this microphone, none of the frequency response
seemed to change off-axis; the signal just lowered considerably as
the sound source moved away from the mic. I would still characterize
the off-axis sound as smooth, just as the mic's on-axis response is.
This is all the more impressive when you consider that I recorded the
test in a room that really should not have sounded very good with
shotguns. Impressive performance.
Oktava MK-012

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

43/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

I tested the off-axis response with both the cardioid and


hypercardoid capsules. As expected, the hypercardioid provided
considerably more off-axis rejection than the cardioid did. I did
notice that the bass and highs definitely dissipated more than the
mids did using the hypercardioid capsule. This was the only
microphone I tested that seemed to actually change phase in the
sound quality as I rotated away from the mic. This effect was more
pronounced with the hypercardioid capsule than with the cardioid.
Overall, I was particularly impressed with the off-axis rejection of the
hypercardioid capsule.
Sanken CS-1

The CS-1 seemed to provide decent off-axis rejection although it was


not as effective as some of the other microphones tested. The
quality of the sound did seem to mostly gravitate toward the mids as
I rotated away from the mic, the highs and bass seemed to mostly
disappear. This to me could mean that the Sanken CS-1 would be
particularly good at rejecting non-voice sorts of sounds off axis but
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

44/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

might not be the best choice for isolating a voice in a crowd of


voices, for instance.
Sanken CS-3e

The CS-3e proved that it's significantly higher cost than the CS-1 is
justified when it comes to off-axis rejection. The CS-3e had very
good off-axis rejection and the quality of the sound seemed to stay
about the same as the source rotated off-axis. This microphone
seemed to do quite well at off-axis rejection and I would place it
amongst the best based off of my non-scientific, informal off-axis
test.
Schoeps CMC641

The CMC-641, to my ear, seemed to react in the opposite to the


Sanken CS-1 as I rotated away from it. The mids seemed to
disappear but I still heard a decent amount of bass and highs, Keep
in mind that this microphone is a supercardioid, not a shotgun, so I

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

45/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

did expect to hear less off-axis rejection as the shotguns. It would


be a good idea to A/B compare this test with the other supercardioid
that sells in a similar price range as the Sennheiser MKH-50.
Schoeps CMIT5u

As I expected, the CMIT5u seemed to do pretty impressive things in


this test. The off-axis rejection was amazing. My voice has a serious
drop off in level, with an especially noticeable rejection of the highs
and bass, while retaining slightly more of the mids. The CMIT5u
keeps it's smoothness while off-axis, but the drop-off in level is
abrupt, leading me to believe that you had better be a skilled boom
operator if you use this microphone to boom mic multiple speakers.
Based upon this test, I feel that CMIT5u was clearly the strongest in
off-axis rejection of all of the mics tested.
Sennheiser MKH-50

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

46/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The off-axis rejection of this mic was quite good. Keep in mind that
this microphone has a very punchy, in-your-face sort of quality so I
was particularly interested to hear how it's off-axis response was
going to come across. To me, the MKH-50 did not quite match the
other supercardioid, the CMC641 in off axis response although it was
very close. This could also be related to the relative sound levels of
the samples recorded, the Sennheiser has a higher output than the
Schoeps and I tried to match them in level. I felt that the off-axis
rejection on the MKH-50 was very good but it still would not be my
number one choice in the most noisy situations. I think that is a
good indication that supercardioids and hypercardioids in general will
not perform as well as shotguns when more isolation is needed.
Sennheiser MKH-60

The MKH-60 seemed to do quite well in this test. Keeping in mind


that it is a true shotgun, you would expect it to outperform the
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

47/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

supercardioids and hypercardioids, and it did. The real question is


how it performs against the other shotguns. In A/B comparisons with
the Neumann KMR81i and the Sanken CS-3e, I noticed less bass and
a little less mid range with the MKH-60 than with the Sanken or the
Neumann. The MKH-60 did not have as much off-axis rejection as the
Schoeps, though. Overall, I was very impressed with the sound of
this microphone in this test.
Test #3. Microphone handling noise, Interior, narrative setup
This test was recorded in a different, larger and deader room than
first two tests were recorded in. This test was probably the least
precise of all of the tests, mainly because I am by no means a
professional boom operator. I do hand boom occasionally but my
technique is fairly clumsy, especially when compared to a pro.

The idea was to mount each microphone to a mount, mount the mic
to the boom pole and to simulate miking a typical two-person
dialogue scene where the mic is placed overhead and the boom
operator quickly twists the boom pole to follow the conversation. I
recorded the test with no actors so that you could clearly hear just
the microphone's handling noise. Certain microphones are said to be
more microphonic than others. What this means is that the
microphone amplifies all of the microphone's physical exterior noise,
the noise of the microphone cable and various other handling noise.
A microphone that is susceptible to handling noise may not be the
best choice for a project with a lot of movement. Keep in mind, once
again; this was a very imprecise test. All of the microphones
exhibited at least a small amount of handling noise, while some
exhibited quite a bit. A skilled boom operator can minimize the
amount of handling noise so depending on who will be handling your
microphone; this handling noise issue may or may not be a big deal.
If you are amateur like I am, this test may be more significant than
if you hire a professional boom operator.
File Naming Convention For This Test
You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters
"Handling" in the file name. Handling stands for Microphone
Handling. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initials
so that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell which
tests for which microphone you are listening to.
Sound Samples

1. AT875RHandling
2. AT4073aHandling
3. BeyerdynamicMC836Handling
4. NeumannKMR81iHandling
5. OktavaMK012HyperHandling
6. SankenCS-1Handling
7. SankenCS-3eHandling
8. SchoepsCMC641Handling
9. SchoepsCMIT5uHandling
10. SennheiserMKH-50Handling
11. SennheiserMKH-60Handling

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

48/82

29/8/2010

[Top]

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #3


Microphone handling noise, Interior, narrative setup
Audio-Technica AT875R

I thought that the AT875R lived up to its claim of being designed for
on-camera mounting. If you think about it, a microphone designed for
on-camera use needs to be able to reject a lot of handling noise
since riding around on a camera is somewhat similar to flying
overhead on a boom mount. The initial clunk you hear is me picking
up the boompole but once I had the mic in the air and was moving it
from imaginary talent to imaginary talent, I noticed a touch of mid
range noise but almost no low end rumbling. The AT875R turned in a
very good performance in this test.
Audio-Technica AT4073a

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

49/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

It made sense to me that the AT4073A seemed to exhibit a bit more


handling noise than some of the other mics in this test, particularly
with low-end rumble. The AT4073a is a significantly more sensitive
microphone than any of the others tested so this makes the presence
of more noise understandable but not desirable. If you decide to
hand boom with this microphone, I would hope that you are an
experienced boom operator. In the hands of a rank amateur boom
operator like myself, the results are not great. On the other hand,
professional boom operators would probably enjoy the increased
sensitivity of this mic; it would mean more leeway in having to place
the mic element so close to the talent. This is a good sounding mic
but very sensitive. I did get a better result using the mic's bass roll
off.
Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

The Beyerdynamic MC-836 performed this test very well. There was a
tiny bit of rumble but using the mics bass roll off could significantly
reduce it. This microphones basic sound quality seemed to be
neutrality so in the realm of handling noise, this can be considered a
distinct advantage. Several of the other mics that emphasize a
specific frequency range exhibited even more of the emphasized
range when swinging around at he end of a boom pole. The
Beyerdynamic MC-836 delivered a very good result in this part of the
testing.
Neumann KMR81i

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

50/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The KMR81i offered an excellent performance in this test. There was


a hint of bass rumble, but it seemed to stem almost more from the
air rushing past the mic diaphragm more than from actual noise
transmitted from the mount and boom pole and my clunky boom
operating. I performed the mic handling test inside so I did not have
any windscreen mounted. The relatively low handling noise exhibited
would probably mostly be masked by dialogue and ambient noise in
most cases and could certainly be compensated for by a more skilled
boom operator.
Oktava MK-012

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

51/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Oktava MK012 was tested with the hypercardioid capsule, I felt
that this would be the most commonly used capsule when using this
microphone. I did notice quite a bit of handling noise with this
microphone. I did test with three different mic mounts, just to make
sure, but the Oktava did exhibit considerable noise with all three
mounts, although I did notice that I did get a significant reduction in
handling noise when I used a higher-end Lightwave mount that had
rubber suspension legs rather than rubber band types of mounts. I
don't feel that the handling noise is a deal breaker for the MK-012; it
just means that you need the best microphone mount and the best
technique. For those of you who plan on hand booming with this mic,
practice, practice and if you can swing it, hire a skilled boom
operator.
Sanken CS-1

The CS-1 seemed to work pretty well with hand booming. I did detect
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

52/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

a tiny bit of rumble but not very much. Based upon what I hear from
the tests, the CS-1 was in the top three in recording the least
amount of handling noise. This was a very good performance from a
mid-range priced microphone.
Sanken CS-3e

For the CS-3e, I would take everything stated about the CS-1 and
embellish on it even more. The CS-3e had exemplary low levels of
handling noise, even when manipulated by my clumsy boom pole
skills. An exceptional result in this test, very little noise was
apparent.
Schoeps CMC641

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

53/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Schoeps CMC641 had very, very low levels of handling noise. In
order to even hear any of the handling noise, I had to really crank
the levels of my audio system. There is a slight amount of bass
rumble as I flipped the microphone from imaginary talent to talent
but at normal listening levels, the noise was barely apparent.
Schoeps CMIT5u

The Schoeps CMIT5u turned in an almost identical performance to the


CMC641. Very little noise although the noise that was there was of a
decidedly deeper frequency. This makes sense as the CMIT5u is much
physically larger yet lighter in weight than the CMC641. I think the
extra mass of the CMC641 probably absorbs more of the deep bass
frequencies that are slightly more apparent on the CMIT5u Excellent
handling characteristics.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

54/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Sennheiser MKH-50

The Sennheiser MKH-50 also had very, very low levels of handling
noise. I was able to determine that what little noise was apparent
was of a pretty low frequency. I used the included Sennheiser
microphone mount with the MKH mics and it did a very good job. The
MKH series mics are marked by an unusual rectangular shape so
using this microphone holder is probably a good idea as the
Sennheisers won't easily fit into a regular circular tube-shaped
microphone mount. An excellent result from the very low handling
noise of the MKH-50.
Sennheiser MKH-60

The MKH-60 exhibited even slightly lower handling noise levels than
the MKH-50. I used the same Sennheiser mic mount and obtained
very impressive results. I would say that this would be a great mic to
consider if you are an amateur boom pole operator and need a
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

55/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

forgiving mic. The MKH-60 isolates you from the boom pole in a way
that is very appealing. I felt confident that with this mic, I could
actually boom operate and get decent results. That's saying a lot.
Test #4. Female Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setup
This test was recorded in a fairly lively room that measures 30' by 22'
with a 12' ceiling. I felt that it was important to record sound using a
female voice because microphones are often sexist. What I mean by
sexist is that often a microphone that makes a male voice sound
great will often sound thin on a female voice and vice-versa. I
actually recorded some footage using each of the microphones for a
documentary project in progress so you can hear the microphones at
work in a genuine sort of environment. For this test, listen to the
voice quality of the talent, listen for thinness or thickness in her
voice along with all of the usual room reflections, rumble and off-axis
noise.
File Naming Convention For This Test
You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters
"FVINOA" in the file name. FVINOA stands for Female Voice Interior
On Axis. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initials
so that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell which
tests for which microphone you are listening to.
Sound Samples

1. AT875RFVINOA
2. AT4073aFVINOA
3. BeyerdynamicMC836FVINOA
4. NeumannKMR81iFVINOA
5. OktavaMK012CardiodFVINOA
6. OktavaMK012HyperFVINOA
7. SankenCS-1FVINOA
8. SankenCS-3eFVINOA
9. SchoepsCMC641FVINOA
10. SchoepsCMIT5uFVINOA
11. SennheiserMKH-50FVINOA
12. SennheiserMKH-60FVINOA

[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #4


Female Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setup
Audio-Technica AT875R

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

56/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

I liked the way the AT875R rendered the talent's voice. It had a
crisp, clear quality that I find appealing. That said, there is a slight
touch of sibilance if you listen to her S sounds. Overall, I would have
no problem using this microphone to record a female talent; I
thought the end result sounded good.
Audio-Technica AT4073a

I was surprised to hear the warmth that the AT4073a brought out in
the talent's voice. In A/B comparisons with the AT875R, the 4073a
sounds warmer and fuller yet retains the crispness. I expected a
thinner sound. Overall, I think that this microphone sounded better
with the female talent's voice than with my own. Keep in mind that
this is a shotgun on an interior. I heard no nasty room reflections or
other anomalies that can sometimes show up when a shotgun is
used in a medium-sized reflective surfaced room. This microphone
sounded better than I thought it would in this situation.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

57/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

I thought that the Beyerdynamic MC836 had a pleasant mellow


bass/mid-range emphasized quality to it. The mic was not as crisp
sounding as some of the other mics but it did have an appealing
smoothness that I only found in the other more expensive
microphones. There were no problems with sibilance and overall, I
thought that this microphone de-emphasized the mouth sounds
(clicking, saliva/tongue sounds). A very nice sounding result.
Neumann KMR81i

The Neumann had a precision to it's sound with the female talent. I
almost had a sense that I was listening to a lavaliere. Even though
the Neumann was placed the same distance as all of the other mics
from the talent's mouth, the Neumann definitely sounded closer. This
could be very desirable if you are shooting in real locations as noise

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

58/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

from outside of the room will be minimized. On the other hand, to


me, the sound could also be perceived, in this situation, as bordering
on sterile. Some sound mixers like to hear a little bit more of the
room characteristics mixed in with the voice, but it just depends on
your preference. I felt that the KMR81i made the talent's voice seem
appealing and I liked the sound quality overall.
Oktava MK-012

It is interesting to listen to the differences in this microphone when


using the cardioid capsule versus the hypercardioid. The cardioid
definitely has more emphasis in the bass frequencies but also more
room tone. The hypercardioid capsule has less room tone but her
voice sounds thinner with it as well. I thought the highs were
pleasant all around and that overall, the microphone's sound with a
female talent was a winner.
Sanken CS-1

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

59/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Sanken CS-1 had a sound with the female talent that I would
describe as "intimate". Much like the Neumann KMR81i, the CS-1 had
a very close-mic sound with the female talent in this room. The
sound is very crisp and quite clear. I did notice more mouth sounds
with this microphone than with most of the other microphones.
Sanken CS-3e

I found the overall sound quality of the CS-3e in this situation to be


quite good. The sound was smooth and the microphone had almost
no issue with sibilance. The sound was more mid-range and bass
emphasized, which for this talent's voice was a good thing. I felt
that the Sanken made this voice sound friendlier and more relaxed.
Schoeps CMC641

Much like the way this microphone made my voice sound completely
neutral, the CMC641 made the female talent's voice sound very
neutral to my ear. There was no excess sibilance and no distortion or
room reflections that I heard. The output level with her voice seemed
to be a bit lower than it was with my voice though. It might be just

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

60/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

me, but I sensed more detail in her voice with the CMC641. Once
again, I feel that this mic is probably the most "truthful" of the all of
the mics tested.
Schoeps CMIT5u

To me, the CMIT5u had the same basic vocal quality as the CMC641
but it had a fuller, more bass filled sound. I A/B tested the dialogue
from the CMC641 and the CMIT5u and they would definitely intercut
well. The CMIT5u has more presence than most of the other
microphones but it is also smoother sounding that most of the
others. An interesting thing, I heard more ambient sound in this
room with this mic than I did in most of the others. I honestly think
it was because of room reflections, not that the mic itself was
picking up the ambient so much.
Sennheiser MKH-50

I A/B compared the Sennheiser with several of the mics but I was
most interested in hearing the differences between the MKH-50 and
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

61/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

the Schoeps CMC641. They are similar mics in a similar price range.
The Sennheiser has a darker, bassier and mid-range emphasized
sound. I felt that the detail was about equal between the two and
both sounded amazing. When it comes down to it, I think that
anyone would be very happy with either of these; it mainly comes
down to personal preference. The Sennheiser still comes across as
more dynamic and exciting, while the Schoeps comes across as less
colored. I liked them equally but for different reasons and would use
either in certain situations; depending on what type of project it was
and what quality I wanted in the sound.
Sennheiser MKH-60

The Sennheiser MKH-60 is a great shotgun microphone. If you listen


to the sample test, you will hear what I did, a great, full and rich
sound on the female voice. I think that like the Schoeps CMIT5u
though, the sound had some artifacts in it because of room
reflections. In A/B comparing this mic with the MKH-50, the CMC641,
the CS-3e and the KMR81i, I noticed that the MKH-60 sound field had
a compressed quality to it. I attribute this to room reflections. The
boom was located only about a foot beneath a low drywall ceiling in
a medium sized hard surfaced room, not an ideal situation for a
shotgun. While the sound would be totally usable, the MKH-50 and
the CMC641, to me, sounded best in this room with this talent.
Test #5. Male Voice, Exterior, on-axis, narrative setup
I did not have a full crew to record all of these tests but I thought it
would be valuable to shoot a "man on the street" sort of setup so
that you could hear how the mics performed on semi-noisy exteriors.
The tests were recorded in the evening so the ambient noise was not
too high but there is definitely some ambient noise. Listen for offaxis noise like dogs barking in the distance, traffic noise (this was
recorded about 200' from a busy street), airplanes and wind
buffeting.

Because this test was recorded outdoors, I enclosed each microphone


in a Lightwave Systems Zeppelin, but did not use a fur windscreen

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

62/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

cover since there was almost no wind the night these were recorded.
File Naming Convention For This Test
You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters
"MVEXOA" in the file name. MVEXOA stands for Male Voice Exterior
On Axis. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initials
so that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell which
tests for which microphone you are listening to.
Sound Samples

1. AT875RMVEXOA
2. AT4073aMVEXOA
3. BeyerdynamicMC836MVEXOA
4. NeumannKMR81iMVEXOA
5. OktavaMK012CardiodMVEXOA
6. OktavaMK012HyperMVEXOA
7. SankenCS-1MVEXOA
8. SankenCS-3eMVEXOA
9. SchoepsCMC641MVEXOA
10. SchoepsCMIT5uMVEXOA
11. SennheiserMKH-50MVEXOA
12. SennheiserMKH-60MVEXOA

[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #5


Male Voice, Exterior, on-axis, narrative setup
Audio-Technica AT875R

In this test, I was out in nature, so to speak, (well, actually my


backyard). I was impressed at how the AT875R was able to reject
most of the ambient street noise although you do hear the crickets
more on this mic than on some of the others. The sound quality was
balanced and I thought it made the quality of my voice appealing.
This was not the best microphone for exteriors but I thought it would
still be useful for exteriors if you were on a tight budget.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

63/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Audio-Technica AT4073a

Accurately judging the AT4073a outdoors was a tall order, mainly


because of this microphone's extraordinary sensitivity. If I A/B
between this microphone and the AT875R, this microphone seems to
be picking up more ambient noise. But, in looking at the meters, I
can also see that the signal that the AT4073a recorded at the same
input levels was considerably hotter. If I compensate and lower the
levels on the AT4073a, then the ambient level becomes closer in
level to most of the other mics. This microphone would be excellent
in picking up more distant subjects. If you can only get your shotgun
perhaps 4-6 feet from a subject instead of a foot or two away, this
microphone would pick up the sound better than most of the other
mics in the test.
Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

The MC-836PV did a very nice job on the exterior test. It had
excellent rejection of off-axis noise; I could barely make out the
traffic din from a distant road. I could still hear the crickets/cicadas,
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

64/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

but they were more muted than with some of the other mics tested.
I felt as if the Beyerdynamic really came alive and sounded much
more interesting and dynamic on an exterior than it did on interiors.
Neumann KMR81i

The Neumann KMR-81i exhibited a remarkable isolation on my voice


outside, it almost felt as if I was in a VO booth, the off-axis
rejection was that good. The KMR-81i also warmed up my voice,
adding a smooth bass/mid emphasis that was appealing to my ear.
In a lot of ways, this microphone, even though it is a shotgun,
seems to feature a lot of the same qualities that Neumann large
diaphragm studio condensers feature. This microphone seemed to be
ideal for exterior situations. As you listen to the sample, keep in
mind that the mic was located about a foot to a foot and half over
my head!
Oktava MK-012

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

65/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

I tested the Oktava with both the cardioid and hypercardioid


capsules even though you would undoubtedly want to use the hyper
for most exteriors. I very much liked the quality of sound for
exteriors with the hyper, it sounded much closer in quality to the
cardioid but you will notice that the ambient noise level went way
down when I switched to the hypercardioid capsule. The overall
sound quality on the exterior seemed a bit smoother to me than the
interior clips. Very impressive microphone.
Sanken CS-1

The Sanken CS-1 had a very clear and detailed sound for the exterior
but to my ear, it was picking up more off-axis sound in this situation
than some of the other microphones. The transitions between the
frequencies were very good though and overall, this microphone
sounded very appealing. You would have to test this microphone to
make sure that the ambient levels were acceptable for your needs. I
liked this microphone better for interiors.
Sanken CS-3e

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

66/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Sanken CS-3e sounded very good in the exterior test. I noticed
less ambient sound than the CS-1 and a smoother, more bass/mid
emphasis than on many of the other mics tested. The Sanken did not
have the degree of off-axis rejection that the Neumann seemed to
have but in a way, it's detail and high end were just a tiny bit more
appealing to me. The CS-3e seemed to have more presence but it
was not as "in-your-face" as some of the other mics. Overall, it
presented a very well balanced and sophisticated sound on the
exterior test.
Schoeps CMC641

Wow! This microphone surprised me. I have always heard that few
sound mixers use the CMC641 for exteriors. Because the CMC641 is a
supercardioid and not a shotgun, I was not expecting very good
isolation from off-axis noise and I was expecting that overall this mic
might not keep up with the shotguns on exteriors. Listen to the clip,
it sounds very impressive. I felt that the mic had excellent off-axis
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

67/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

rejection and the overall quality of the sound was superb. Other than
windy situations, I would have no problem in using this microphone
for exteriors if this is the type of sound I could expect.
Schoeps CMIT5u

Much like the Neumann KMR81i, this microphone basically makes all
of your off-axis issues almost disappear. Very good isolation of the
desired sound from background noise and I really enjoyed the
warmth and intimate sound that the CMIT5u presents on an exterior.
To my ear, the Schoeps has a less colored sound than the Neumann,
which presents with more bass coloration, but in a good way. I did
not have the time to record separate samples with all of the cuts and
roll offs for this microphone but I am sure that they would be helpful
to you in certain situations. Schoeps has really done a nice job with
the CMIT5u, it sounds great on exteriors.
Sennheiser MKH-50

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

68/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Sennheiser MKH-50 simply has a punchy, bass and mid


emphasized sound in comparison with the Schoeps CMC641. I judged
the off-axis rejection to be about the same but the two mics sound
pretty different on exteriors. I would choose the Sennheiser MKH-50
for exteriors if you record female talent or talent with a higher or
thinner voice. It can do wonders. As for my voice, I don't know, does
it make me sound a little Barry White-ish?
Sennheiser MKH-60

The MKH-60 was an outstanding performer on the exterior test. I


heard very little off-axis sound but I never got a sense being in a VO
booth that I had with the Schoeps CMIT5u and the Neumann KMR81i. I would say overall, the MKH-60 shared a lot of similar qualities
with the Sanken CS-3e. They both sound very natural on exteriors
with the Sanken leaning slightly toward the mids and the Sennheiser
leaning slightly toward the lows. Interestingly, the MKH-60 presents
with a lot less of a bass feel than the MK-50 on exteriors. I really
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

69/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

like the sound quality of this mic and I am told that the MKH-60
makes an excellent mic for hand booming by less experienced boom
operators. It has some latitude and forgiveness in it's pickup pattern
which makes it a natural for a beginning boom operator.
Final Evaluation and Recommendations
Wrapping up the considerable amount of data I have presented in
this article is a daunting task. It seems that audio beginners simply
want someone to tell them which microphone to buy, while more
experienced and knowledgeable users want to read more
sophisticated arguments for each microphone tested, using complex
descriptions and metaphors for the sound quality of each
microphone. In the end, what I think of each microphone doesn't
matter in the least; the paragraphs below are simply my opinion. The
real goal of this article was to provide you, the potential microphone
buyer with objective writing and audio samples so that you can
determine which microphone(s) will suit your needs the best.
I am consistently amazed by the sheer diversity in how we all use
our camcorders and microphones. I have spoken with users from all
over the world over the past decade, they are shooting in
environments as varied as outer space, jungles, Antarctica, war
zones, corporate boardrooms, weddings, live events, film sets,
caves, underwater and many other strange, unusual and interesting
places. It seems that few of us have the same experiences as we
film, videotape and record sound. This reinforces my opinion that
YOU need to critically evaluate your needs and eventual needs
before selecting the microphones that will work best for your
situation.

For Your Part


I am listening to all of the audio samples I recorded as I imagine
which situations each of these microphones could best be used in. I
encourage you to do the same. Keep in mind that the method for
comparison between audio components, whether microphones,
mixers or audio monitors usually comes from A/B comparisons
between your two or three most likely candidates. I have learned
that our ears and brain have an incredibly short memory. Our ears
and brain, because they are so adaptive to surroundings, also
become easily confused. The most common mistake potential audio
buyers make is to listen to dozens of potential candidates in a row.
This will do nothing but confuse your ear and brain. If you are serious
about evaluating these microphones for purchase, I would encourage
you NOT to sit down and listen to all of the sound samples for all of
the microphones in this article in one sitting. You will do nothing
except fatigue your ear and confuse your mind about which
microphones sound like what. If you are just curious and doing
preliminary research, listen away, it doesn't matter, but if you are
trying to narrow down which microphone to buy immediately, read on.
The best way to evaluate sound components begins on paper or on
your computer screen. Do your research. Read manufacturer and
sound magazine websites. Talk to people in sound forums. It is
pointless to evaluate $2,000.00 microphones if you only have
$500.00 to spend on one. In the end, you should base your buying

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

70/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

decision off of a body of research, not from any one recommendation,


not even this article. Most recommendations you will get about which
microphones to buy are not objective. Take it all in, process and
distill your opinion down with what matters most to you. Quality?
Quality regardless of cost? Cost? Off-axis rejection? I would advise
you to begin narrowing your selection by evaluating microphone
candidates that are in your general price range by doing the research.
There are several microphones tested in this article that are
considered "industry standards". This, to me has always meant very
little to my evaluative process. As in many other areas in life, buying
into what the status quo uses is sometimes a good thing but often,
you can discover a microphone that costs less and provides superior
results for your particular needs. This piece of gear may be the same
microphone that most other people use (cough, cough, Sennheiser
MKH-416, cough) or it may be a microphone that few people have
ever considered, often because not every great microphone company
is a multi-national conglomerate with a huge advertising budget. The
bottom line is to have an open mind and ear and truly evaluate what
will sound best and work best for your situation.

Do You Have Feelings of Guilt?


Once you have lined up potential candidates, the best of all worlds is
to get your hands on a sample and use it. Nothing beats an ears-on
demonstration. If you visit a quality location sound dealer, almost all
will let you evaluate potential microphones that you may purchase
from them. Location sound is one of the few industries where there
are still many small, quality companies nationwide that offer great
advice and service. In my opinion, it is bad form to go to an audio
dealer, pick their brain, put your hands all over numerous
microphones, then walk out and purchase your selection from that
huge dealer in NYC over the Internet because they have the same
microphone $50.00 cheaper. People who do this (you know who you
are) think that you are smart because you can get the microphone
cheaper on-line but in reality, they are making a seriously short
sighted decision when they do this. The decision they make could
eventually put all of our best small audio shops out of business. I
am all for capitalism and getting the best deal, just realize that the
best deal is not always the lowest priced deal. Taking care of you
after the sale, offering ongoing advice and bailing you out on a
Friday late afternoon for a weekend shoot are all things that my
favorite two or three audio retailers have done for me over the years.
A good location sound dealer is easily worth paying a few bucks more
to in exchange for better service.
My Final Overall Evaluations
Audio-Technica AT875R

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

71/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

This microphone was the little engine that could. Frankly, I did not
have very high expectations for this microphone. It was a brand new,
still unproven commodity. It was really inexpensive. In reading
Audio-Technica's literature, it was clear that the main design
criterion was usage as an on-camera microphone. The more I thought
about though; on-camera usage isn't really that different than using
a mic on a boom pole overhead. Sure, you can usually locate a boom
mic closer to the source than on-camera, but good sound is good
sound. I knew that if Audio-Technica engineered the mic for oncamera usage, it would probably be fairly isolated from handling
noise and would have pretty decent pickup from a distance.

I knew going in what the price was on this microphone but I made an
effort to try to forget the price of the unit as I evaluated it. This mic
finished particularly strongly in the mic handling test and I really
enjoyed it's sound with the female talent. All in all, if you are on an
extremely limited budget, you could record good quality audio in
many situations with the AT875R. This microphone is a perfect
example of the price paradigm in these types of microphones
shifting. Before I tested this mic, if you would have told that you
could purchase a seriously high-quality sounding microphone for
video/film usage for it's price, I would have disagreed. The AT875R is
a very impressive new product and I highly recommend it as one of
the best low cost mics on the market for film/video use. It does not
have the smoothness of sound, transient response, nuance and offaxis rejection of the more expensive microphones but in the right
hands, it still makes good quality recordings for an amazingly low
price.
Audio-Technica AT4073a

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

72/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

I have used this microphone for years. It is a solid performer. If you


read around the sound forums, it is highly recommended by many
users. I would term this microphone as an "industry standard" even. I
found that in comparison to the other microphones evaluated, the
AT4073a is a fairly unique microphone that has some particular
strengths as well as some areas that it was not as strong in.
I was struck each time I used it by the 4073a's amazing efficiency.
This microphone puts out a seriously higher nominal audio level than
the other mics. The other recurring theme is one of crispness. This
microphone sounds basically at the other end of the spectrum than
most of the other microphones. Would I recommend this microphone
if you mostly shoot interiors with lots of reflective, hard surfaces?
No, I would not. In those sorts of environments, the sound could
become a bit brittle. I would recommend the 4073a if you shot in a
lot of absorptive environments. Picture a room in which you are
shooting an interview. The room has silk wall covering, plush thick
carpets and rugs and large, puffy furniture. In an environment like
this, many of the other mics would present with a muffled, probably
too bassy sound. Not the AT4073a, it would be perfect for this sort
of situation. Its crispness would really cut through such muffled
acoustics.

Same thing with exteriors. If you are booming and cannot locate the
microphone a proper booming distance of 1-2 feet from the subject,
the AT4073a would be an excellent choice. With it's increased
sensitivity; it would probably pick up at least adequate sound from
as far away as 4-6 feet from the subject. This microphone is an
excellent example of why I suggest your kit contains at least two
Shotgun/Cardioid variant mics. This microphone is outstanding in
certain physical environments and not as impressive in others. If you
combine the AT4073a with a microphone with smoother sound and
less high-end response, between the two, you would have a lot of
different audio situations covered.
Beyerdynamic MC 836

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

73/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Beyerdynamic MC-836 represented an interesting enigma. I liked


how it sounded overall but it did not seem to be a standout
performer in any of the test situations except the exterior test. I
would say that the main term that comes to mind when evaluating
the test clips is balanced. The MC-836 did not seem to be particularly
impressive on the interior tests although it did not do badly on any
of them either. The unusual thing about this microphone is that even
in it's test results, the microphone was balanced. There were other
microphones that excelled in certain areas but they also tended to
have more distinct disadvantages as well. Not the Beyerdynamic MC836, it did at least decently in all of the tests.
The microphone really came into it's own on the exterior test, I liked
it's sound much more for exteriors than I did for interiors. I did also
really like the detailed smoothness that this mic presented, the
smoothness was on par with some of the much more expensive
microphones. This MC-836 presents with emphasis on the mid-range,
so if you have soft spoken or whispery voiced talent, this microphone
could be a viable alternative for helping to emphasize this voice.
Neumann KMR81i

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

74/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

The Neumann KMR-81i lives in the sound bags of a lot of working


sound mixers. Neumann has quite a reputation for building
outstanding world-class large diaphragm studio condenser
microphones and from what I experienced, Neumann has successfully
managed to infuse the KMR-81i with much of the same sound quality
and mystique. The KMR-81i has a very rich and detailed sound that I
found extremely pleasant to work with. I used it on a project that
featured interviews with several students at a design school. The
area we had to shoot the interviews in was not a good sound
location; it was situated in between two open classrooms just off of
a heavily trafficked hallway. The results were outstanding; we hardly
picked up any of the din from down the hallway that was totally
apparent to our ears.
On the other hand, I recorded with this microphone in a few
instances where I would have liked to hear a bit more "room tone"
mixed in with the voice. The isolation from off-axis sound is almost
too good with this microphone sometimes. In certain quiet
environments; it can be nice to hear a bit more of the environment
mixed in with the voice. Just keep in mind that these situations are
much more rare than shooting in environments with too much
ambient noise. In a few of the recording situations, this microphone
almost sounded like a really full bodied sweet sounding lavaliere, it
sounded close mic'd even though the microphone was almost two
feet from the talent.
The off-axis rejection is top notch; the quality of sound is
outstanding. This microphone isn't inexpensive but it is worthy of
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

75/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

your consideration as a top of the line sound tool that will last you
for many years, and will be useful in many different sound situations.
If you want a premium sound and are willing to pay for it, definitely
consider the KMR-81i.
Oktava MK-012

Talk about baggage. The Oktava came to me with some reputation. I


had heard a lot of different buzz about the MK-012 from users and
the forums. Some describe it as a "poor man's Schoeps", others have
been dismissive about it. The Oktava is unusual in that it is made in
Russia and is quite well accepted and popular all over the world. One
feature that I thought would be very appealing to me was that the
Oktava MK-012 is available as a three capsule set with an
Omnidirectional, Cardioid and Hypercardioid included along with a 10dB capsule to reduce sensitivity. If you are an all-around sound
recordist, this kit is a great value, the Omni and Cardioid capsules
are great in the recording studio and in the field. If you mainly shoot
video/film sound, you will find that the Hypercardioid capsule is the
best for most video/film situations so you may be able to save some
money by purchasing the power supply with only the Hypercardioid
capsule, although I liked the Cardioid capsule for certain situations
as well.

The Oktava sounded great. The MK-012 is an amazing value


considering it's low price. The MK-012 is also physically tiny, which
for many sound for picture situations can be handy. The Oktava was
a solid performer in all of the tests, save the handling noise test. It
is true that the MK-012 is more susceptible to handling noise than
many of the other mics tested. If you are planning on hand booming
with the MK-012, my advice it to purchase the best microphone
mount you can find and practice with it for a while before shooting. A
professional boom operator can probably deal with the handling noise
just fine but an amateur boom operator like me would have issues
with it. Oh yeah, to my ear, the Oktava didn't sound as full, smooth
and uncolored as either Schoeps but it did sound amazing for it's
modest cost.
Sanken CS-1

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

76/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

To me, the Sanken CS-1 fulfilled my expectations. I expected it to


have more detailed and smoother sound than the other $1,000.00
and under microphones. It did. I expected that it would not sound as
detailed or smooth as the $1,000.00 plus microphones. It didn't. I
have heard a lot of satisfied owners on the sound forums talking up
the CS-1, saying that it is the best thing since sliced bread, so to
speak. It was interesting to test both the CS-1 and CS-3e together.

To my ear, I found the sound of the CS-1 to be clear, clean and


detailed. The CS-1 did not have the warmth or bass emphasis that
some of the more expensive microphones seemed to have; it
probably has a less colored sound. I also get the impression that the
CS-1 may have been primarily designed as an on-camera mic, much
like the Audio-Technica AT875R. It's handling noise was very low, I
would say the best of the sub-$1,000.00 microphones. The CS-1 is
one of the microphones that presents with a little more room tone
than some of the longer shotguns. This is neither good or bad
overall. If you were recording in a very noisy environment, this mic
could pick up too much ambient sound but in a quieter environment,
I really liked hearing a bit of the environment. Some of the longer
shotguns almost sounded sterile, the CS-1 sounds more "real" as far
as integrating the voice with it's surrounding environment. This is
another point for owning more than one of this type microphone;
there is no ideal mic for all sound situations. The CS-1 was a solid
performer; it's great reputation is well deserved.
Sanken CS-3e

I had a sense of Dj vu as I first listened to the Sanken CS-3e.


Hmm...I have heard a mic that sounds like this before. Which one

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

77/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

was it? Oh yeah, the Sanken CS-1. I should clarify, the CS-3e sounds
better than the CS-1. It sells for almost twice as much so it should. I
found that the better bass response and considerably better off-axis
rejection of the CS-3e makes it an outstanding microphone. This is a
classic case of the CS-1 being very good and the CS-3e being better.

The CS-3e also did very well in the mic handling test, suggesting
that this could be an ideal handheld boom mic for interiors and
exteriors. The CS-3e also did very well in the exterior test with a nice
mixture of isolating the voice but also letting in a natural sounding
amount of ambient. For female voices, I really liked what the CS-3e
could do, it made the talent sound open and natural. I felt that the
Sanken CS-3e offered basically a similar level of performance and
sound quality as the more expensive German mics yet sounds
different than the German mics. You would have to determine if you
prefer its sound over the more expensive Neumann, Schoeps and
Sennheisers. I really liked it and would be very happy to have one in
my sound bag.
Schoeps CMC641

Much like the Neumann KMR-81i, the Schoeps CMC641 is, frankly, an
audio legend. It is expensive, like the Neumann, and you will find it
in MANY professional sound mixers' kits. Schoeps mics are also
perhaps a bit more difficult to find, although I have noticed that one
popular NYC "box house" is now carrying this particular microphone.
So, to get right to it did the Schoeps CMC641 live up to it's
reputation? In a word, definitely. The Schoeps had a natural,
uncolored sound that really made me forget I was listening to a
recording. If I recorded lousy sounds with Schoeps, they sounded
lousy, as they should. If I recorded a great sounding source, it
sounded great. The Schoeps gives you what is probably the most
realistic sound picture of any of the mics I tested, what you hear
from it is what you get.

The Schoeps is, like the Neumann, a serious piece of German


workmanship. From the gold colored engraved name and model
number to the no-nonsense crackle enamel finish, the Schoeps feels
like a solid piece of gear. I hesitate to even use too many adjectives
to describe the sound of the CMC641, other than to say it is VERY
accurate and uncolored. I also feel that the Schoeps delivers what
you are paying for. In this case, I feel that "industry standard" is a

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

78/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

well-deserved badge of endorsement. If you knew how many


television shows and how many feature films you have heard through
this microphone, you would probably shake your head in disbelief.
It's that good. If you can afford this one, you probably won't need to
buy another main microphone for decades, if not longer. That said, if
you treasure microphones that impart some of their own personality
to your sound as most of the other mics did, you may be happier
with some of the other models.
Schoeps CMIT5u

The Schoeps CMIT5u was a very interesting microphone. In some


ways, it turns the industry on its side. Let's go down the list. First of
all, it's a Schoeps! Schoeps has never made a shotgun and for many
years, sound mixers have wished that Schoeps would distill some of
the audio magic from mics like the CMC641 into a shotgun form
factor. Check. Next, it has active electronics built into the
microphone body with really cool little buttons with LED indicator
lights. Besides looking interesting and high-tech, the boosts and roll
offs are much easier to implement than with the traditional small,
cheap dipswitch. Personally, I have to be reminded by bad rumble
usually to implement the roll off on most of the mics that I use that
have the roll off. With the CMIT5u, I found myself often just clicking
through the switches because it was so easy and convenient. The
light show has another practical feature, as a shooter, I can look
over and at a glance, receive visual confirmation about which boosts
and or roll offs I am using, very handy. Lastly, Schoeps has really
gone all out to ensure that anyone who sees this microphone notices
that it is something different. The color and finish on the CMIT5u is
beautiful and not in an ostentatious way. The blue anodized finished
is simply exquisite. Nope, it doesn't make it sound any better but it
does make it a joy to use because it is just so cool looking. (Sorry, I
can't help it, I love the way it looks). Check. Last unique feature, the
weight! Man, this mic is long and rather large in comparison to the
CMC641 but it weighs a LOT less than the CMC641. If you are hand
booming, you will fall in love with this mic, it has low handling noise,
great off axis rejection and it is incredibly light.
Interestingly, to my ear, the CMIT5u doesn't sound exactly like a
shotgun version of the CMC641. The two mics have a distinctly
different sound quality although they are in the same neighborhood.
Neither is better or worse, they are just different. The CMIT5u
obviously has better off-axis rejection yet the basic quality of the

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

79/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

sound is slightly more colored, but in a good way. The CMIT5u was
the second most expensive mic I tested and to be honest, I felt it
was easily worth every penny. You will discover if you shop for this
microphone, nobody seems to offer discounts on it. That should tell
you something. It's a superb shotgun.
Sennheiser MKH-50

The Sennheiser MKH-50 was a microphone that I was really


interested in evaluating. I have shot with the MKH-60 and MKH-416
for years but have never had a chance to use the MKH-50. It
displayed a distinctly different sound than both the 60 and 416. It's
difficult to put it into words but the MKH-50 had a very exciting
sound. It made subjects sound big and dynamic. The MKH-50 is a
very popular microphone; I have seen quite a few at work on the
Hollywood television and film sets that I frequent. Sennheisers are
very well built and smartly engineered. The look is low key and black.
To my ear, the MKH-50 presents the sound with bass and mid-range
emphasis. As always, I would seriously consider this type of sound if
you record a lot of female talent, child talent or males with thinner
voices. The MKH-50 makes them sound robust and gives their voices
some authority. If I had to make a film analogy, this microphone
sounds like an action thriller. It's exciting, dynamic and a blast to
record with.

If you look at sound characteristics as a palette, this sort of sound


would be good for warmth and authority. If your talent already has a
very deep or authoritative sort of voice, this microphone might not be
the number one choice. I really liked how this microphone made my
voice sound and I do have a fairly penetrating and deep voice so who
knows, it's just a matter of taste and preference. Sennheiser has
created a classic with the MKH-50.
Sennheiser MKH-60

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

80/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

Unlike it's sibling, the MKH-50, the Sennheiser MKH-60 had a slightly
more balanced sound overall. It produced less bass coloration on
exteriors, had excellent off-axis rejection and did extremely well in
the mic handling tests. In exteriors, the MKH-60 seemed to compare
more to the Sanken CS-3e than the other German microphones. After
reviewing both of these Sennheisers, I could see that teaming the
two of them together would result in a very complimentary
microphone package, if not an inexpensive one.

I have shot many hundreds of interviews with the MKH-60 over the
years and it presents a very well balanced sound picture with a slight
mid-range emphasis. Personally, I find that I really enjoy using the
MKH-60 although it becomes rather transparent, like the Schoeps
CMC641. After a while, you just don't notice the microphone's
characteristics at all, you just notice the sound it recorded. I feel
that the Schoeps is less colored than the Sennheiser but both of
them present a very realistic sound. The MKH-60 holds the
distinction of having the highest list price ($2,000.00) of any of the
mics tested although actual street prices result in the MKH-60
generally selling for less than the Schoeps CMIT5u. The Neumann is
another world-class microphone from Sennheiser. It was a joy to
work with.
In The End
I hope that you have found this article a quality resource. Choosing
the correct audio gear for your needs is always challenging.
Fortunately, microphones don't have a tendency to change much;
several of the models reviewed here have basically stayed the same
for the past 5-10 years. A few of the models are newer and have
introduced some new technology and new quality levels for unheard
of price points.

The most important thing to remember as you decide which


microphone(s) to purchase is to buy quality and buy the product that
best suits your needs. You should always challenge yourself to not
scrimp and to buy the best quality audio gear that you can afford.
Unlike cameras and computers, audio gear can really be an
investment. With care, it will last you many years and will not need
to be replaced by the newest, latest and greatest. Quality audio gear
will also pay for itself quickly in saved rental fees. As with all other
aspects of sound for picture, it's the skill of the operator that really
makes the most difference. Having the most expensive or best

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

81/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

performing microphone on the market won't make any difference in


the quality of your sound unless you know when, where and how to
use it. In order for any of the microphones in this article to work to
their full potential, you need a quality microphone mount, wind
protection, boom pole, cable, mixer and recording device. As you can
see, the microphone is merely the first device in the chain.
Acknowledgments and Thanks
I would like to thank the various manufacturers and distributors who
graciously supplied the review samples and answered many technical
questions:
Karen Emerson - Audio-Technica
Beyerdynamic USA
Dan Radin - Neumann USA
Ken Heaton- Oktava USA
Jim Pace - Plus24
Scott Boland - Redding Audio
Dawn Birr - Sennheiser USA

Dan Brockett, is an independent television producer based in Los


Angeles, Ca. Dan's most recent projects include documentaries for
the DVD releases of Paramount Pictures Braveheart: Special Edition
and Warner Bros. Special Edition of Howard Hawks Rio Bravo. Dan is
also known for shooting and producing two top rated episodes of
A&E's Biography. Dan is currently in development on three television
shows for 2008. Dan can be reached at dan@biglittlefilms.com.
[Top]
copyright www.kenstone.net 2008
2000 -2008 Ken Stone. All rights reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, Final Cut Pro,
Macintosh and Power Mac
are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Apple. Other company and product
names may be trademarks of their respective owners.
All screen captures, images, and textual references are the property and trademark of
their creators/owners/publishers.

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

82/82

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr


created a classic with the
MKH-50.

29/8/2010

Sennheiser MKH-60

Unlike it's sibling, the MKH-50, the Sennheiser MKH-60 had a slightly
more balanced sound overall. It produced less bass coloration on
exteriors, had excellent off-axis rejection and did extremely well in
the mic handling tests. In exteriors, the MKH-60 seemed to compare
more to the Sanken CS-3e than the other German microphones. After
reviewing both of these Sennheisers, I could see that teaming the
two of them together would result in a very complimentary
microphone package, if not an inexpensive one.

I have shot many hundreds of interviews with the MKH-60 over the
years and it presents a very well balanced sound picture with a slight
mid-range emphasis. Personally, I find that I really enjoy using the
MKH-60 although it becomes rather transparent, like the Schoeps
CMC641. After a while, you just don't notice the microphone's
characteristics at all, you just notice the sound it recorded. I feel
that the Schoeps is less colored than the Sennheiser but both of
them present a very realistic sound. The MKH-60 holds the
distinction of having the highest list price ($2,000.00) of any of the
mics tested although actual street prices result in the MKH-60
generally selling for less than the Schoeps CMIT5u. The Neumann is
another world-class microphone from Sennheiser. It was a joy to
work with.
In The End
I hope that you have found this article a quality resource. Choosing
the correct audio gear for your needs is always challenging.
Fortunately, microphones don't have a tendency to change much;
several of the models reviewed here have basically stayed the same
for the past 5-10 years. A few of the models are newer and have
introduced some new technology and new quality levels for unheard
of price points.

The most important thing to remember as you decide which


microphone(s) to purchase is to buy quality and buy the product that
best suits your needs. You should always challenge yourself to not
scrimp and to buy the best quality audio gear that you can afford.
Unlike cameras and computers, audio gear can really be an
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

83/82

29/8/2010

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

investment. With care, it will last you many years and will not need
to be replaced by the newest, latest and greatest. Quality audio gear
will also pay for itself quickly in saved rental fees. As with all other
aspects of sound for picture, it's the skill of the operator that really
makes the most difference. Having the most expensive or best
performing microphone on the market won't make any difference in
the quality of your sound unless you know when, where and how to
use it. In order for any of the microphones in this article to work to
their full potential, you need a quality microphone mount, wind
protection, boom pole, cable, mixer and recording device. As you can
see, the microphone is merely the first device in the chain.
Acknowledgments and Thanks
I would like to thank the various manufacturers and distributors who
graciously supplied the review samples and answered many technical
questions:
Karen Emerson - Audio-Technica
Beyerdynamic USA
Dan Radin - Neumann USA
Ken Heaton- Oktava USA
Jim Pace - Plus24
Scott Boland - Redding Audio
Dawn Birr - Sennheiser USA

Dan Brockett, is an independent television producer based in Los


Angeles, Ca. Dan's most recent projects include documentaries for
the DVD releases of Paramount Pictures Braveheart: Special Edition
and Warner Bros. Special Edition of Howard Hawks Rio Bravo. Dan is
also known for shooting and producing two top rated episodes of
A&E's Biography. Dan is currently in development on three television
shows for 2008. Dan can be reached at dan@biglittlefilms.com.
[Top]
copyright www.kenstone.net 2008
2000 -2008 Ken Stone. All rights reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, Final Cut Pro,
Macintosh and Power Mac
are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Apple. Other company and product
names may be trademarks of their respective owners.
All screen captures, images, and textual references are the property and trademark of
their creators/owners/publishers.

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht

84/82

Вам также может понравиться