AKG CK93 as a backup mic
Bryan Beasleigh
Would the CK93 be a viable alternative?
Eric Toline
AKG CK93 as a backup mic
Group: rec.arts.movies.production.sound Date: Fri, Jun 11, 2004, 5:55pm
(EDT+4) From: notbea...@eudoramail.com (Bryan Beasleigh)
There are times when you don't want to, or can't use a schoeps MK41.
Would the CK93 be a viable alternative?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Absolutely, The 93 with the SE300b is a great sounding combination.
Eric
Frank
very cheap and schoeps like
Frank
Martin Harrington
month for many different jobs, including an short drama, and it is
fantastic, especially with the drama shoot.
It comes with an interchangeable omni capsule, (it's Cardioid, but fairly
tight in application), and is great for "2 up dialogue".
The best part is...it's under $100 in the US....well worth having in the
kit, even if only for a sacrificial mic, although I think you'll get much
more use out of it than that.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Frank" <Fr...@toneheads.de> wrote in message
news:cad869$rb9$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
Ty Ford
(in article <ooryc.5166$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
> Another one is the Behringer B-5, (SDC), I've been using it over the past
> month for many different jobs, including an short drama, and it is
> fantastic, especially with the drama shoot.
> It comes with an interchangeable omni capsule, (it's Cardioid, but fairly
> tight in application), and is great for "2 up dialogue".
> The best part is...it's under $100 in the US....well worth having in the
> kit, even if only for a sacrificial mic, although I think you'll get much
> more use out of it than that.
>
Martin,
What SD hypers have you used?
Regards,
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
Martin Harrington
listen), a couple more that I can't remember, but none as inexpensive...
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:itmdnUHIaOv...@comcast.com...
Ty Ford
(in article <bSDyc.11801$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
> I've used the Neumann KM184, Octava MC-12, AKG 451, AKG C1000, (just for a
> listen), a couple more that I can't remember, but none as inexpensive...
>
Ah! Try a Schoeps cmc641. COmpare that with your Behringer and let us know
what you think.
Bryan Beasleigh
in jepardy or use it in inclement weather. i also want to use
something that is similar in sound.
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:19:06 -0400, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Brad Harper
comparison to the sound quality of his highly cherished mic.
I think the best back up for a Schoeps is another Schoeps and I have four
CMC6 preamps and eight or nine capsules to prove it. However, I did recently
buy a Sennheiser MKH50 for very high humidity situations or where for other
reasons the Schoeps might not be the best choice.
I am not in love with the MKH50 like many others. It has a bump in the low
frequencies and a 4db presence slope that sounds a little edgy to me. Many
people praise the MKH50 for having better "reach" than a Schoeps MK41 but I
think if you put the same EQ curve on a Schoeps it would have about the same
apparent reach. I am tempted to try the MKH40. I would bet that this mic
sounds and acts closer to a Schoeps than anything else. Sennheiser should
make a high quality windscreen for these mics like Schoeps does with their
B5D and W5D.
I have also tried the Oktava mic as a backup to the Schoeps. Although, it
sounds pretty good on a stand, I find the handling noise on a boom to be
terrible. Neumann KM150 is another alternative that some like, but I find
these too thin sounding.
If you are an AKG fan I know that Mike Westgate is a big promoter of the
C460/CK69.
Brad Harper
Martin Harrington
The point is though, If it sounds good, it IS good, irrespective of price,
and Schoeps, in this country, (Australia), is very expensive.news:F_Sdneck3pI...@comcast.com...
Eric Toline
Re: AKG CK93 as a backup mic
Group: rec.arts.movies.production.sound Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2004, 9:24pm
(EDT+4) From: bradh...@comcast.net (Brad Harper)
I am not in love with the MKH50 like many others. It has a bump in the
low frequencies and a 4db presence slope that sounds a little edgy to
me. Many people praise the MKH50 for having better "reach" than a
Schoeps MK41 but I think if you put the same EQ curve on a Schoeps it
would have about the same apparent reach.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That's exactly the point of the 50. Whatever eq it has built in is what
gives it the extra reach.
The lf bump creates the 50's own special sound which makes it stand
apart from the forest of Schoeps.
Eric
Bryan Beasleigh
I had the usual ME66 and then tried the Oktava MCO12.
I bought Sound Devices mixers (302 and mix pre) and a marantz pmd670.
I did listen to Ty and bought an MK41. I am of the opinion that the
only thing better than a Schoeps is two of them.
I also bought an MKH60 a few weeks back. I'm tempted to buy another
CMC6U and MK41 capsule.
There are always situations where you don't want to put a $1300 mic in
harms way . I am tempted to order a second Schoeps to tell you the
truth and I too was thinking of an MK4 capsule.
So far as windscreens I use Rycote Baby Ball Gags and the K-Tek SSM
with the soft rubber holds them nicely.
Ty Ford
(in article <5sqmc093fs5v25ug2...@4ax.com>):
> What do you suggest Ty. There are times i don't want to put my shoeps
> in jepardy or use it in inclement weather. i also want to use
> something that is similar in sound.
>
Well I don't know of any mic that IS comparable to the cmc641. At the risk of
being taken WAY out of context, the mc 012 with hyper or AT4053 have been
suggested by others as 2nd or 3rd string players.
THE also makes a SD hyper. I have heard it and reported my findings to this
group only to have their Canadian distributor add to by notoriety by posting
contrary and mildly disparaging comments about me on their website (grow up
guys).
It's not a cmc641 either, but if you want something to take out on a hard
rain and don't want to lose your cmc641, BMG...
Ty Ford
(in article <uwKyc.34641$HG.34053@attbi_s53>):
> Ty probably thought that you didn't have a Schoeps and were making an unfair
> comparison to the sound quality of his highly cherished mic.
Brad = Pot
Ty = Kettle
Which is blacker?
Ty Ford
(in article <5bLyc.12233$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
> If I can get a hold of one, I might.
> The point is though, If it sounds good, it IS good, irrespective of price,
> and Schoeps, in this country, (Australia), is very expensive.
Martin,
My point is that if you haven't heard the cmc641, you should. After you do,
the opinions you offered will be different.
We're talking about paying ONCE for a mic that you'll use your ENTIRE life.
Ammortize that against the years of work you may do with lesser mics and not
getting one makes you come out on the losing end. Get over the cost.
You don't see me throwing down this strongly for many mics. There aren't a
lot of mics in their particular use categories I can be that strong about.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Raymond Collins
show up all the time on E-Bay. Also they get listed now and again on
DAT heads. The Dat heads folks don't use their gear that much, and
probably take care of equipment better than we do.
The MC012/Mk012 with a Hyper card is the most cost effective/decent
sounding if you are on a very tight budget.
Brad Harper
Brad
Bryan Beasleigh
distributor kept sending me reams of meaninless data trying to prove
that the self noise wasn't self noise. I now own a MK41 and there can
be no comparison.
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:55:50 -0400, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:47:55 -0400, Bryan Beasleigh wrote
Bryan Beasleigh
Raymond Collins
cheaper in the used market.
Martin Harrington
passionate about the mics as you.
You are of course right about the cost amortisation thing, but that's not
all there is to the equation.
I have heard Scheops mics, (not sure which models), but didn't instantly
think to myself that I have to go out and buy one, to be able to do better
work than I do now.
I didn't, and still don't, like the sound of Sennheiser mics generally,
which is why, long ago, I bought a Beyer MC736, a much warmer sounding mic
than the Sennheisers to my ear.
It's horses for courses..buy what you like, live with it, and if your tastes
change, get something different.
There are NO wrong answers...it's all a matter of taste...........
--
news:O6qdnaJe5dI...@comcast.com...
Martin Harrington
and I disagree.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Raymond Collins" <rc...@intergate.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:40CC6175...@intergate.bc.ca...
Ty Ford
(in article <IB6zc.19960$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
> I know quite a few scheops owners, and NONE of them are as dogmatic or
> passionate about the mics as you.
Ah, I see I've erred. You have mistaken my conviction for passion, my direct
experience for dogma. And, as I'm sure you know, Schoeps -- and btw, that's
how its spelled -- are used by many folks smarter and with better ears and
talent to record than I can muster. It's not like I'm out here tilting
windmills, Marty.
> You are of course right about the cost amortisation thing, but that's not
> all there is to the equation.
> I have heard Scheops mics, (not sure which models), but didn't instantly
> think to myself that I have to go out and buy one, to be able to do better
> work than I do now.
It didn't strike me at first either. I used one for several weeks in my
studio before "the awakening." And my work has almost exclusively been with
the cmc641. There are quite a few more Schoeps than that. My drumming has
moved more than one person in this group to take the plunge. They have all
pretty much gotten back to me over time and told me that they also heard what
I heard.
> I didn't, and still don't, like the sound of Sennheiser mics generally,
> which is why, long ago, I bought a Beyer MC736, a much warmer sounding mic
> than the Sennheisers to my ear.
> It's horses for courses..buy what you like, live with it, and if your tastes
> change, get something different.
> There are NO wrong answers...it's all a matter of taste...........
Well, I'll have to point you back to your own words (petard kept safely out
of the way) in which you indicate price is a factor. So, sorry, but there ARE
wrong answers. It's NOT all a matter of taste. Rules DO apply. These are
mostly the rules of physics, electronics, R&D and production costs.
Best,
Ty Ford
PS; go back and listen again.
Ty Ford
(in article <1e4pc095ktkcid9hg...@4ax.com>):
> I returned a pair of the THE hypers. What bothered me is the Canadian
> distributor kept sending me reams of meaninless data trying to prove
> that the self noise wasn't self noise. I now own a MK41 and there can
> be no comparison.
>
Bryan,
Does the canadian distributor still have that post string up on his site that
takes shots at me?
What is their URL?
Regards,
Ty
G. John Garrett, C.A.S
> You're saying that without listening to the Behringer B-5...I've done both,
> and I disagree.
I wonder which one is more durable over the long haul.
John
Raymond Collins
How did you compare the mics?
On a boom on set I have found the Schoeps has more reach, than a Neumann
150, Oktava, etc. The sound doesn't change very much as the mic moves
away from talent. (tonal quality, coloration) The pattern is fairly wide
so it is much easier to boom with than (e.g.) an 81. The sound within
the pattern doesn't change as much as others as the edge of pattern
comes into play. I've heard some mixers claim they think the Schoeps
sounds it's best when your on the edge of the pattern. The low cut
filter is a charm, no roll off at the mixer and far better/fuller low
end. The low end is actually cut, rather than rolled off as so many high
pass filters on mixers seem to do.
I have found that just talking into it doesn't tell the tale, a mic has
to be "in motion". Try and borrow one and let your boom operator "fly'
it for a day.
Ray
G. John Garrett, C.A.S
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:48:40 -0400, Martin Harrington wrote
> (in article <IB6zc.19960$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
>
>
>>I know quite a few scheops owners, and NONE of them are as dogmatic or
>>passionate about the mics as you.
That's because some of us have been staying out of the fray :-p
>
>
> Ah, I see I've erred. You have mistaken my conviction for passion, my direct
> experience for dogma. And, as I'm sure you know, Schoeps -- and btw, that's
> how its spelled -- are used by many folks smarter and with better ears and
> talent to record than I can muster. It's not like I'm out here tilting
> windmills, Marty.
I don't know about ears or talent [well, I think mine aren't as hairy as Ty's]
but I am consistently [20+years] amazed at the tracks that come back from my
Schoeps mics. I do have the occassional KMR82, countryman or Sonotrim, but
sometimes, as Steve Izzi says, you can't be wonderful, sometimes you can only be
practical.
Best,
John
Brad Harper
someone is speaking; not like someone is speaking into a microphone. I have
listened to and owned many mics and nothing has compared to the neutrality
of a Schoeps.
Brad Harper
Glen Trew
In my opinion, the Blue Line series (usually seen in TV/Film work with the
CK-93 hyper capsule) is a tremendous value (low cost) and very acceptable in
many real-world situations.
True, in a quiet environment the self-noise is detectably higher than a
Schoeps. (But keep in mind that in the same environment, the noise level of
the Schoeps is detectably higher than the Sennheiser MKH-50.) However, in
situations where I would use the Blue-Line mics, self noise would be totally
undetectable because of relatively high ambience levels.
The CK-93 capsule of the Blue Line series behaves very much like the Scheops
MK-41 hypercardioid capsule in terms of pattern and rejection. Putting them
side-by-side in an ambience level found in typical locations, it can be
difficult to tell them apart. An actual advantage of the Blue Line is that
it does not react humid air and is not extremely sensitive to low frequency
rumble. Also, the Blue Line can be had with a swivel and a cable and
suspension to remote mount the small capsule (a la Schoeps Collette). These
characteristics (particularly the moisture resistance) makes the Blue Line
the preferred choice of some Sound Mixers during, for instance, car scenes.
This includes some Sound Mixers who are no longer on a tight budget and less
interested in price than they are the best tool for the job at hand.
So, is the Blue Line a preferred choice compared to a Schoeps for boom pole
dialog use? No. But does it have a place in professional TV/Film dialog
recording? Absolutely.
Glen Trew
"Bryan Beasleigh" <notbea...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1e4pc095ktkcid9hg...@4ax.com...
Bryan Beasleigh
you and a few partners in crime. He certainly tries to make a case for
himself but noise is noise. I know i'm still irritated by the way I
was treated. I emailed the link to you.
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:50:30 -0400, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:47:02 -0400, Bryan Beasleigh wrote
Rick Mills
renting.
They can be surprisingly cheap to rent.
Work with it for a week or two in different locations; try it on a
quiet stage. Listening in a shop won't do it justice.
I recently flew to a job and had the fine TSA folks break one - it
worked at home and on location, but not after the return flight! I
cried.
Result: I'm renting one just to have as a back up.
I find them durable, ballance well on a pole, mix well with the right
Lav, and have a great range of accessories. Very nice with Cooper 106
mic pres.
For me an excellent long term investment.
Of course our location and type of job should dictate what type of mic
we reach for, and a Schoeps can't be correct for everything. Some
guys (gals) do mostly dramatic dialogue, and use it all the time. I'm
all over the place and use a MKH50 for humid places and use a MKH 60 &
70 when appropriate. I have a 416 and the nicer AT short shotgun. I
love the KMR's too.
What's on my pole most of the time? Schoeps.
Ok - end of rant, thanks.
Rick
Eric Toline
Re: AKG CK93 as a backup mic
(EDT-3) From: rmi...@earthlink.net (Rick Mills)
I recently flew to a job and had the fine TSA folks break one - it
worked at home and on location, but not after the return flight! I
cried.
Result: I'm renting one just to have as a back up.
Rick<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not that I'm surprised but how did they do that?
Eric
John B., Indianapolis
My .02:
I've recently been doing a Discovery Channel thing for a new show.
We've been shooting army tanks, jet engine powered land vehicles,
motorcycles, and so much more. With a few variations, my main mics are
normally a Schoeps 641 w/cut1 and a Sennheiser 416 in full Rycote dress
for more directional or more windy venues. With the increased damage
potential of this show I added a hypercardioid capsule to one of my
Oktava 012s and gave that a workout. I must report that I'm quite
pleased with what the Oktava adds to my kit. Okay, I could say to the
Oktava, "I know Schoeps, and you're no Schoeps..." but that would be
unfair given the differential in cost. The way I approach it is I see
the Oktava as my Schoeps' "stunt double."
I first used the Oktava on parts of the army tank segment when I needed
a more maneuverable mic that I didn't have to worry about endangering.
On another segment, with the ear piercing scream (and intense heat) of a
jet powered outhouse only feet away, I added the -10dB pad (or two) that
comes standard with the Oktava.
With the low end rolled off on my SD302 (I really like the rolloff
curves on that mixer) the Oktava did a surprisingly good job of subing
for a Schoeps. Someone here said that the Oktava had too much handling
noise to be practical (or something like that). Well, so does the
Schoeps without the Cut1. IMHO, both mics benefit from appropriate low
end cuts. It's surprising how close the Oktava comes to the Schoeps in
sound character when I tailor the low end.
Perhaps I would be remiss if I didn't mention that, in my experience,
the Oktavas vary widely in sound from unit to unit. I bought my
cardioid Oktavas at the Guitar Center and the way I got good ones was to
take my bag kit with me and cull through a stack of Oktavas. Each
sounded different, with some way out of the ballpark, IMHO. I matched
two and again, several months later, did the same thing. When I got the
second "mached set" back to the studio, I was quite pleased with how
close they sounded to the set I had purchased many months prior. I just
recently obtained the hyper capsule from the Sound Room.
John Blankenship, Indy