Schoeps 641 or Sennheisser MKH 8040 / 8050?
HowlcoPr...@gmail.com
compare to the 641 in reel world use. Thanks
soun...@googlemail.com
Do You really mean Schoeps 641 ???
Herb
Charles Tomaras
<soun...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d96f5344-b1ba-4f3c...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
>
> Do You really mean Schoeps 641 ???
Probably means Schoeps CMC6/MK41 combo
HowlcoPr...@gmail.com
> <sound...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
ya sorry should be more clear ... Schoeps CMC6/MK41 combo
I think I'll just have to go down to friendly Audio candy store ....
jacob...@gmail.com
I have the Schoeps. Have not used the 8040's much yet but I'm leaving
this week to take them on a month long project through the jungles of
Africa. Will let you know how they hold up.
Ty Ford
(in article
<169124a0-f066-44b3...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
Let me know how you like the higher sensitivity to low end and high end.
If you're on the "plains of the Serengetti" the low end shouldn't be a
problem unless someone starts a truck. OTOH, due to the elevated HF response,
if you're booming from above, you'll get more foot/grass and foot/gravel
sound during a walk and talk than with a cmc641. Please let us know how that
hits you.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
Gtrew
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:07:27 -0400, jacobfar...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <169124a0-f066-44b3-86ad-08699fbe0...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 11:35 am, HowlcoProducti...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 12, 4:29 am, "Charles Tomaras" <toma...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
> >>> <sound...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:d96f5344-b1ba-4f3c...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> Hi
>
> >>>> Do You really mean Schoeps 641 ???
>
> >>> Probably means Schoeps CMC6/MK41 combo
>
> >> ya sorry should be more clear ... Schoeps CMC6/MK41 combo
> >> I think I'll just have to go down to friendly Audio candy store ....
>
> > I have the Schoeps. Have not used the 8040's much yet but I'm leaving
> > this week to take them on a month long project through the jungles of
> > Africa. Will let you know how they hold up.
>
> Let me know how you like the higher sensitivity to low end and high end.
>
> If you're on the "plains of the Serengetti" the low end shouldn't be a
> problem unless someone starts a truck. OTOH, due to the elevated HF response,
> if you're booming from above, you'll get more foot/grass and foot/gravel
> sound during a walk and talk than with a cmc641. Please let us know how that
> hits you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
I used the MKH-8040 for interiors almost exclusively on "Hannah
Montana, the Movie", and liked it very much. (Keep in mind that for a
pattern nearly identical to the Schoeps 641 hypercardioid setup, the
8040 is the choice, not the tighter 8050.) It is small, light weight,
and sounds great. I also recently used it on exteriors during a US
Army documentary (serious run and gun stuff, recording dialog in and
out of moving tanks, etc...) and it did very well, especially with the
low ceilings of the new Striker vehicle. For my ears, it sounds
identical to the MKH-40. It is definitely more susceptible to handling
and wind noise, but I think this sensitivity may have more to due with
it's smaller design than a difference in frequency response.
Anyway, the only suspension I've found for the 8040 that will keep
boom handling manageable is the Rycote Invision series (http://
www.trewaudio.com/store/product.php?productid=910&cat=36&page=3). The
possible exception may be the Cinella suspension, but I have only be
able to try an early prototype for this mic. If you plan to use the
Invision mount only for the 8000 series, then get the short "Invision
6". If you would also like to use it with a longer mic such as a
Schoeps 641 or even a Sennheiser MKH-60 (yes, the clips will stretch
this far without breaking, in my experience), then get the Invision 7
(the clips can be moved closer together when the 8000 series is used).
Either way, at US$69, they are certainly affordable.
About wind handling: The small foam windscreen that comes with the
8000 series microphones is pretty much useless, even for interior boom
work (a slight panning motion will cause wind noise). I found that a
very good solution is the Schoeps BD5 Hollow Foam Teardrop. The hole
is slightly too large for the 8000 series (21mm vs. 19mm), so I shim
the mic with one layer of mole skin (black blends in well). This makes
a perfect fit for the Schoeps windscreen.
Glen Trew
Field Sound
So would you say the MKH40 is a better choice based on they sound
identical, but the 40 has rolloff and better handling abilities? So,
is it a good alternative to the Schoeps?
Thx
> boom handling manageable is the Rycote Invision series (http://www.trewaudio.com/store/product.php?productid=910&cat=36&page=3). The
Gtrew
> Glen,
> So would you say the MKH40 is a better choice based on they sound
> identical, but the 40 has rolloff and better handling abilities? So,
> is it a good alternative to the Schoeps?
> Thx
For my ears, there is not enough sonic difference (none?) between the
MKH-40 and the MKH-8040 to choose one over the other. True, the MHH-40
has pad and roll-off switches, but the 8040 is smaller and less
expensive. A pad and roll-off module is being developed for the 8000
series.
The Schoeps 641 is a good alternative to the MKH-40 and MKH-8040, and
the MKH-40 and 8040 are good alternatives to the Schoeps 641. They are
all up there together on the top shelf. For the movie and documentary
I mentioned earlier in this thread, I used the MKH-8040. Granted, the
primary reason I chose the 8040 was so that I could give a first-hand
account to Trew Audio customers (I was already familiar with the
MKH-40 and Schoeps 641). But, I was very pleased with its performance
and would not hesitate to use it again. I should also mention that my
personal kit includes a pair of Schoeps 641 mics and a pair of MKH-60
shotguns.
Glen Trew
Field Sound
> On Oct 14, 1:51 pm, Field Sound <vrc2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Glen,
> > So would you say the MKH40 is a better choice based on they sound
> > identical, but the 40 has rolloff and better handling abilities? So,
> > is it a good alternative to the Schoeps?
> > Thx
>
> For my ears, there is not enough sonic difference (none?) between the
> MKH-40 and the MKH-8040 to choose one over the other. True, the MHH-40
> has pad and roll-off switches, but the 8040 is smaller and less
> expensive. A pad and roll-off module is being developed for the 8000
> series.
Thanks for you replies. Those of us that live in areas where there's
no hope to test mics, veteran voices in the group help alot.
I currently use the AKG CK63 and would love to hear it against the
Schoeps / Senn models. Would you know of any movies out now that used
the 8040 for dialog. I checked IMDB and the Hannah Montana movie is
not out yet to grab a listen.
Thanks,
Mark
Gtrew
> Glen,
> Thanks for you replies. Those of us that live in areas where there's
> no hope to test mics, veteran voices in the group help alot.
> I currently use the AKG CK63 and would love to hear it against the
> Schoeps / Senn models. Would you know of any movies out now that used
> the 8040 for dialog. I checked IMDB and the Hannah Montana movie is
> not out yet to grab a listen.
> Thanks,
> Mark
The microphone is new enough that there are probably very few major
productions showing yet that were done with the 8000 series
Sennheisers. But considering what all happens between production and
projection, anyone who can definitively tell a Schoeps in one movie
from a Sennheiser in another movie should be considered for the CAS
Lifetime Achievement Award.
Other than using a microphone on a number of productions in a number
of different scenarios, the best way to make a choice is to read about
its characteristics and ask others who have used it. But, in the case
of the Sennheiser 8000 series, also keep in mind that the mic is new
enough that people are still becoming familiar with how to best use
it, so mixed reviews, at this point, should be expected. For example,
until I use it with the Rycote Invision mount, I considered it nearly
unusable with a boom pole. Likewise for wind sensitivity until I
started using the Schoeps windscreen mentioned earlier.
I'll try to some it up:
MKH-8040 Pros: Small, light, less expensive, very resistant to RF
interference, sounds very natural, very low noise.
MKH-8040 Cons: Sensitive to rumble and wind noise, no attenuation or
low-cut switches.
The Sennheiser MKH-40 doesn't have any of these Cons, but it does have
some of the Pros. So, the only advantage the MKH-8040 has over the
MKH-40 is that it is smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
Glen Trew
Field Sound
ste...@practicali.com
I bought a CMC64 from you folks back in Jan this year. it works well
for what I use it for ( B roll ambience, unscripted dialog with 2+
people ) but I"m looking for a tighter pattern. I want to ditch my
old shotgun. I was considering a MK41 capsule, but the 8040 and 8050
had my attention. I was more interested in the 8050 actually. how much
tighter is its pickup pattern ? for example with the CMC64 I'd say its
pattern is about 45 deg out from the center of the mic. where would
the 8040 and 8050 fall ? I'm stuck in a corner of the world where I
can't easily borrow / rent one for a few days to try out. my uses
would be for sit down interviews in less then perfectly quiet
interiors where the boom is stand mounted, and some hand booming of
single person talk and walks.
Gtrew
The CMC64 uses the MK4 capsule, which is wider than the CMC641 that
uses the more directional MK41 supercardioid capsule. The MK41 is the
most common Schoeps capsule used for boompole dialog recording in film/
video production. Since you already have the CMC6 body, then adding
the MK41 capsule would likely be the least expensive way to obtain a
very high quality and more directional microphone option.
Glen Trew
jonchiles
Very interesting thread..
I'm just wondering what Glen was using for wind protection when using
the 8040 outdoors??
Also how is it that the 8040 cardioid is a closer match to the
CMC641(hyper) than the 8050(hyper)??
I am really keen to try the 8040 out, at the moment I have an old
MKH406 cardioid mic which I use when I want something a little wider
than my MKH50..
Jon Chiles
jonchiles
the documentary exteriors??
I understand the mic is very sensitive to wind noise..
Also I am interested to hear from Glen or other users how the 8040
deals with off axis sounds/dialogue? The Schoeps MK41 is usually set
apart from other mics because of how natural off axis sounds are
reproduced.. Is the MKH8040 in the same class from that perspective??
Finally I am a bit unclear as to why the cardioid 8040 is a closer
match o the Schoeps MK41 hyper pattern than the 8050 hyper is??
Jon Chiles