Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
January 7, 2008
Microphones
Audio-Technica AT875R
Audio-Technica AT4073a
Beyerdynamic MC 836
Neumann KMR81i
Oktava MK-012
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
1/82
29/8/2010
Sanken CS-1
Sanken CS-3e
Schoeps CMC641
Schoeps CMIT5u
Sennheiser MKH-50
Sennheiser MKH-60
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
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
4/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
5/82
29/8/2010
6/82
29/8/2010
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
8/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
9/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
10/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
11/82
29/8/2010
12/82
29/8/2010
[Top]
13/82
29/8/2010
14/82
29/8/2010
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]
15/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
16/82
29/8/2010
17/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
18/82
29/8/2010
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
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.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
20/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
21/82
29/8/2010
[Top]
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
22/82
29/8/2010
23/82
29/8/2010
24/82
29/8/2010
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]
25/82
29/8/2010
$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
26/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
27/82
29/8/2010
Comparison Table
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
28/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
29/82
29/8/2010
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
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
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
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]
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
34/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
35/82
29/8/2010
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
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
37/82
29/8/2010
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
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
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
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]
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
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
43/82
29/8/2010
44/82
29/8/2010
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
45/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
46/82
29/8/2010
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
47/82
29/8/2010
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]
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
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
51/82
29/8/2010
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
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
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
54/82
29/8/2010
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
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]
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
56/82
29/8/2010
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
Beyerdynamic MC-836PV
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
59/82
29/8/2010
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
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
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
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
62/82
29/8/2010
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]
63/82
29/8/2010
Audio-Technica AT4073a
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
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
65/82
29/8/2010
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
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
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
69/82
29/8/2010
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.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
70/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
71/82
29/8/2010
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
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
74/82
29/8/2010
75/82
29/8/2010
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
76/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
77/82
29/8/2010
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.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
78/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
79/82
29/8/2010
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
80/82
29/8/2010
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.
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
81/82
29/8/2010
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
82/82
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.
83/82
29/8/2010
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
kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht
84/82