CS-3 vs. MKH-60 vs. KMR-81
matty_ne...@my-deja.com
I have yet to use either on a job. I have been
using a Sanken CS-3 for about a year as my primary
exterior mic, mostly for documentary and low-budget
narrative work. For interiors, I favor the schoeps.
My question to those familiar with all three of
these mics is: What factors would cause you to
choose one of the three for a particular situation?
I know the Sanken has more self noise and less
headroom (and no preattenuation) than the
Sennheiser and the Neumann, but other than that,
where do the 60 and the 81 really stand out as the
superior choice.
Thanks for sharing your experience. This is my
first post. Just visited RAMPS for the first time a
couple of months ago -- an amazing resource!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
mat...@earthlink.net
with much interest just a couple of months back.
I recently added an MKH-60 and KMR-81 to my kit to augment the Sanken CS-
3 that, for the past year, has been my boom mic for outdoor dialog in all
but the quietest environments, where I prefer using a Schoeps. If you are
experienced with all three of these shotguns, I'd appreciate your
thoughts on what sort of situations favor each one.
Thanks,
Matty
Ty Ford
The MKH 60 I heard recently was very dark sounding. How does yours compare
with the CS3. The CS3 I reviewed last year or so was very natural sounding
with a rolled off bass (relative to a Sennheiser 416.)
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's audio equipment reviews and V/O sound files can be accessed at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Eric Toline
CS-3 vs. MKH-60 vs. KMR-81
Group: rec.arts.movies.production.sound Date: Fri, Jan 5, 2001, 10:04am
(EST+5) From: mat...@earthlink.net
I have the least experience with the Sanken but I like the CS-3 except
that the low end seems to be rolled off a little too much (which can be
a good thing). It has a very good ability to pick up dialog like a 416
but without the mid range peak of the 416. I'm seriously considering the
CS-3 as my next purchase.
I used a Sennheiser 50, 60 & 70 for nine months on a show and found the
60 really didn't match the others. The 60 I find to be a little too warm
in the lower mids for my taste. It almost sounds "muddy" even with the
hp on the mic dialed in.
The Neumann (which I own) appears to be the most "neutral" sounding of
the three. It has it's own unique sound of a very smooth & extended top
end and a nice low end. The reach on the Neumann seems to be a bit less
then the 60.
They'er all top mics and each will have it's pros and cons. Since you
have all three, it would be interesting to hear your impressions of
them.
PS. Personally I've never been impressed with the Schoeps but YMMV.
et
Douglas Tourtelot
mic. I bought a pair for a show I was doing where my Schoeps just didn't
seem to be pulling out the dialog. What a great choice! Actually had a
chance to compare the two in a scene. Had to reshoot some closeups that we
had shot months before I had the Sankens. Went to match the previous mic
choice, the Schoeps, and was so disappointed that I went back to the Sankens
mid-setup even though they didn't match. This was on a huge set on a big
stage, not a tiny bathroom, by the way, so the Sanken interference tube
style was not a liability.
To be fair, I have never worked either the MKH-60 or the KMR-81 on a shot,
but I have experience with both the 70 and the 82 in comparison to the
Sennheiser 816 and both the 82 and the 70 went on the junk heap in a hurry.
They both had no redeeming virtues as far as I was concerned. They were too
warm (some say "tubby") to effectively pull out the dialog from the BG and
their patterns were both (seemingly) much wider than the 816 which made
other, better sounding, mics a more logical choice when extreme directivity
was not an issue.
Again, this is all empirical, and highly subjective (and will probably cause
much flaming from those of you who are ardent 60/70 or 81/82 users <g>) but
the Sanken CS-3 is certainly a great sounding mic and lends itself perfectly
to the style of recording that I prefer to use. FWIW!
And "self-noise" on a dialog mic? On a movie set? The sound of the
electricians whispering over by the lighting controller with it's four boxer
fans that they won't move "because it has to be there" should cover that up
nicely. Rant mode to off!
Regards,
Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
Seattle, WA
tour...@earthlink.net
"Eric Toline" <Audi...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7843-3A...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Glen Trew
also a big fan of the CS-3). But while the CS-3 has awesome side and rear
rejection characteristics, the MKH-60 certainly sounds better (more
accurate, quieter, wider range). So, I am surprised to hear the negative
opinions about the Sennheiser MKH-60, which I don't think the MKH-60
deserves. I think I might have an explanation for this:
I noticed no one mentioned the High Freq Boost switch on the MKH-60. For
those who like the sound of the 416 and want to emulate it with the 60, then
the Low Cut switch AND the High Freq Boost switch together accomplishes
this. These filters add flexibility to the microphone, and I'm sure add some
to the price.
Some of us may remember the 416F (F for Flat), which was a box-office flop
because it had many of the characteristics people have complained about with
the MKH-60 ("muddy", "tubby","warm", etc). I'm sure that using either or
both of the MKH-60's filter switches will fix this problem. The low cut
should typically always be used for hand-held (boom pole) dialogue, and I
always use the High Boost when I'm using a Windjammer windscreen.
Another note about the Sanken CS-3:
As mention earlier in this thread, it's true that the CS-3 does not sound
like it has quite the low end response of some other mics. However, most of
this characteristic is because the CS-3 rejects the off-axis low frequencies
much better than any of the other shotguns, long or short. Therefore, when
comparing the CS-3 to the MKH-60 in a fairly quiet room, you will hear much
more off-axis low freq ambience with the MKH-60, giving the false impression
of a fatter sound. The ability to reject the off-axis low frequencies so
well is a major achievement by Sanken, and would be a big plus for any
shotgun mic.
That being said, the CS-3 does have a little less low freq response, even
on-axis. To address this complaint, Sanken has recently altered the CS-3
slightly. The low freq cut-off remains the same (70hz or so... I've
forgotten), but, with the High Pass switch in the normal position, the low
freq curve is flat up until the cut-off. With the high-pass switch in the IN
position, the Lows begin to taper from about 200Hz (the original normal CS-3
curve).
Lastly, while the CS-3 has impressive noise specs when compared to cheaper
microphones, it is not as quiet as the MKH-60, MKR-81, Schoeps CMC,
AKG-480.... etc. So, when the Sanken engineers altered the low end response
of the CS-3, they also managed to improve the noise spec by a few dB in the
mid freq range (wear it is most noticed).
The short answer to the original question: The Sanken CS-3, Sennheiser
MKH-60, and Neumann KMR-81i are all microphones worthy of being in a
professional's kit. You really can't go wrong with either one. It's just a
matter of choosing which characteristic you prefer:
1) The Sennheiser for flexibility, humidity resistence, RF rejection and
lowest noise.
2) The Neumann for warmth and smoothness.
3) The Sanken for off-axis rejection.
Glen Trew
Ty Ford" <tf...@jagunet.com> wrote in message
news:297F7C1F050E2C0E.7011032D...@lp.airnews.net...
Eric Toline
Re: CS-3 vs. MKH-60 vs. KMR-81
Group: rec.arts.movies.production.sound Date: Sat, Jan 6, 2001, 3:01pm
(EST+5) From: gl...@trewaudio.com (Glen Trew)
(I am also a big fan of the CS-3). But while the CS-3 has awesome side
and rear rejection characteristics, the MKH-60 certainly sounds better
(more accurate, quieter, wider range). So, I am surprised to hear the
negative opinions about the Sennheiser MKH-60, which I don't think the
MKH-60 deserves. I think I might have an explanation for this:
I noticed no one mentioned the High Freq Boost switch on the MKH-60. For
those who like the sound of the 416 and want to emulate it with the 60,
then the Low Cut switch AND the High Freq Boost switch together
accomplishes this. These filters add flexibility to the microphone, and
I'm sure add some to the price.
Some of us may remember the 416F (F for Flat), which was a box-office
flop because it had many of the characteristics people have complained
about with the MKH-60 ("muddy", "tubby","warm", etc).
>>>> I'm sure that using either or both of the MKH-60's filter switches
will fix this problem. The low cut should typically always be used for
hand-held (boom pole) dialogue, and I always use the High Boost when I'm
using a Windjammer windscreen.<<<<
The low mid "hump" I'm talking about is above the hp point on the mic.
Of course the hf boost is to compensate for the reduction in presence
caused by the windscreen/furry, etc but it does nothing to eliminate the
lf "hump". I agree that the percieved "hump" might be caused by less
then ideal lf off axis rejection. FWIW, the 70 dosn't have that
characteristic and to a much greater degree matches the sound of the
Senn MKH 50.
>>>>>Another note about the Sanken CS-3:
As mention earlier in this thread, it's true that the CS-3 does not
sound like it has quite the low end response of some other mics.
However, most of this characteristic is because the CS-3 rejects the
off-axis low frequencies much better than any of the other shotguns,
long or short. Therefore, when comparing the CS-3 to the MKH-60 in a
fairly quiet room, you will hear much more off-axis low freq ambience
with the MKH-60, giving the false impression of a fatter
sound.<<<<<<<<<<<
No argument here...except......my opinions are based on what what I
heard from the 60 alone with both the hp on the mic dialed in and a
100hz hp on the mixer in also, whch led me to believe the rise in the
low mids was above the hp points. I'm not knocking the 60 it's a
wonderful mic with a certain response flavor that not everyone will
love. If all mics (short, medium & long) sounded the same then we
wouldn't need so many choices and that I feel would not be so much fun.
>>>>>> The ability to reject the off-axis low frequencies so well is a
major achievement by Sanken, and would be a big plus for any shotgun
mic.<<<<<<<<<<
You betcha!!!
The short answer to the original question: The Sanken CS-3, Sennheiser
MKH-60, and Neumann KMR-81i are all microphones worthy of being in a
professional's kit. You really can't go wrong with either one. It's just
a matter of choosing which characteristic you prefer:
1) The Sennheiser for flexibility, humidity resistence, RF rejection and
lowest noise.
2) The Neumann for warmth and smoothness.
3) The Sanken for off-axis rejection.
Glen Trew<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well said Glen, now can I interest anyone in an AKG D900 dynamic very
long & heavy shotgun mic?
et
Steve Nelson
"Douglas Tourtelot" <tour...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>... And "self-noise" on a dialog mic? On a movie set? The sound of the
> electricians whispering over by the lighting controller with it's four boxer
> fans that they won't move "because it has to be there" should cover that up
> nicely. Rant mode to off!
>
It is always good to hear the voice of the less than ideal real world. I
think the self-noise of the set is a factor that must always be
considered. This is one reason why the inherent noise floor of 7 1/2 ips
analog recording is not a problem for me; I figure the noise floor helps
smooth out the sound of the generator parked too close, the people talking
by the craft service table, the above mentioned dimmer-packs, HMI ballast
noise, the noisiest insert car rig in the world, and all the other real
world garbage we deal with every day. All in a day's work.
As regards those mics: I haven't had much experience with the Sankens,
but what I found is that if you are comparing them directly to Schoeps or
Neumanns they don't sound as natural, maybe a bit too full in the
midrange, but if you are using two Sankens in a shot you probably won't be
bothered by their characteristic sound. The reports of its ability to
reject off axis sound would make the CS-3 a formidable tool, although my
boom-op tells me that they are particularly sensitive to the noise emitted
by the Pana-Tape (a focussing aid favored by some wuss ACs.)
As others have said, these are all brilliant mics, acquire as many of them
as you can afford and enjoy their different flavors.
--------steve nelson
Douglas Tourtelot
Schoeps. Also video transmitters, especially Modulus 3000s.
Lets say that if I were recording a poignant little scene in, say, the
living room of a Georgetown house, some good sounding actors, generator
miles away, etc, I'd reach for the Schoeps. I still think that they are
great mics. The Sankens just "did it for me" on my last show and boy was I
damned glad to have bought them.
Regards,
--
Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
Seattle, WA
tour...@earthlink.net
"Steve Nelson" <steve-n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:steve-nelsound-...@192.168.1.101...
John Garrett
Are you saying the Sankens were more RFI resistant? Did you have a Panatape or
video xmtr to deal with? Inquiring minds want to know!
G. John Garrett, C.A.S.
matty_ne...@my-deja.com
>>>>> Are you saying the Sankens were more RFI resistant? Did you have a Panatape or
> video xmtr to deal with? Inquiring minds want to know!
>
> G. John Garrett, C.A.S.<<<<<<<<
I had some anomalous problems using a CS-3 about 1-2 miles away from a
hill with a plethora of broadcast towers. I don't know if it was RF
getting into the mic, but it's the only time I've heard something on the
CS-3 that I couldn't explain. I've found it otherwise robust. It seems to
be immune to humidity problems.
In my mind, the single biggest flaw with the CS-3 that I haven't seen
mentioned is its low SPL spec without the ability to switch in
preattenuation. Sanken lists the max SPL as 120dB and I've gotten into
trouble several times using the CS-3 to record dialog that included
yelling/screaming. It's made me real hesitant to use any mic that doesn't
provide some ability to pad ahead of the preamp in any but the most
controlled situations.