Sennheiser mkh 416 vs other mics

[Vegard Paulsen]

Im considering a new shotgun mic and the repultation of the mkh416 shure makes me consider it. Im currently using a sony ecm 674 shotgun and have bought the rycote full windshield kit nr 4 that supports both the sennheiser and the sony mic in size.

but is there any other mics that have the same qualities as the mkh 416 ?

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Vegard Paulsen

Im considering a new shotgun mic and the repultation of the mkh416 shure makes me consider it. Im currently using a sony ecm 674 shotgun and have bought the rycote full windshield kit nr 4 that supports both the sennheiser and the sony mic in size.

but is there any other mics that have the same qualities as the mkh 416 ?

Sanken CS-3, Neumann KMR81i, Schoeps CMIT, others - not to disparage the 416, it's a fine mic but there are a number of other horses on the track.

[Jeffery Magat]

I currently use the 416 on my jobs. The main issue is that it tends to colour the sound when you start getting off-axis. You really have to be quite accurate with it. I've had the chance to use the Schoeps on multiple occasions and love it..

[Wayne Brissette]

For short guns, I would agree with Steve's choices. If you want to stay with the Sennheiser line, the 416 isn't bad, but it's also not great for certain things. I have the 418s, which basically is the 416 along with a mid-side microphone so you have stereo. I have started using this primarily when I'm doing multi-people interviews where you have absolutely no idea who is going to speak next and many times multiple people start talking all at once. For this the 418S is an awesome mic. For other things, not so much. For a commercial recently, I used just the gun because I needed a short gun and had it handy. It sounded fine for that application, but if I had my choice of other short guns, I would seriously look at the Schoeps CMIT 5U or Sanken CS-3 (I have nothing against the Nuemann 81, I own the longer version 82, but feel the Sanken and Schoeps provide a better short gun sound).

Wayne

[Vegard Paulsen]

Tnx alot for your tips.
Time will tell what i end up with.
Read alot of reviews on the other mics, but so far the sennheiser still seems the best alternative.

is there any other cheaper models that do almost the same job ?
maybe the mk 70 or similar

[Dan Keaton]

I recently received a private email asking if I was happy with my Sennheiser MKH-60. I thought it would be better to answer this on-line, as others could join in the discussion. The person asking the question has high-end gear including a Sound Devices 744t, Sound Devices 442, Schoeps CMC-641, lectrosonics, etc.

I have been using a Sennheiser MKH-60 as my primary microphone for dialog since 2004. I have used it in outdoor environments as well as indoors.

The strengths of the MKH-60, in my opinon, is that it is a low noise microphone, works exceedingly well when boomed, and I have never had any problems with high humidity conditions. I have always liked the way it sounded.

It, in my opinion, is less well suited for a highly reflective indoor environment.

In December I purchased a Schoeps CMC-641 and then proceeded to perform an unscientific comparision between the two setups.

Both were mounted on the end of a K-Tek graphite boompole with the appropriate full Rycote setup.

The MKH-60, which has a built-in infrasonic filter, is much easier to work with on a boom. The Schoeps CMC-641 (without a Cut 1 filter) requires, in my opinion, much more careful handling to avoid handing noise. Also, I never hear any "swoosh" when just moving the microphone in still air.

The Schoeps CMC-641 has a lot going for it. It does a great job of eliminating off-axis sound and sounds natural under all conditions.

On axis, my initial impression is that both microphones are great for recording dialog. (Please understand that my tests were only initial impressions, the tests only lasted a couple of hours.)

The next day we started a five day shoot in which the audio was exceptionally critical. I used the Schoeps CMC-641 (without a Cut 1 filter). Whereas I never had any problem with handling noise on the MKH-60, the Schoeps (without the Cut 1) was extremely critical. I had to be very careful to avoid handling noise.

However, the sound that I obtained was superb. We shot indoors in a simulated hospital and had no problems with reflections or unwanted noise. We were recording a DVD to accompany a language-training textbook. Every word had to be precise.

In one scene, we had a battery operated clock that made a click every second. This was about eight feet from the microphone and it was not a problem as the sound was off-axis and rejected by the Schoeps. I firmly believe that the MKH-60 would have heard the clicks.

In my area, humidity can be a real problem. I have heard that the Schoeps are not suited for high humidity, but I have no first-hand knowledge so far. I have used the MKH-60 in unbearable high-humidity conditions without any problems.

In side by side tests, I felt that both microphones were great for dialog.

The Schoeps is more versatile in that it has more low frequence response, whereas the MKH-60 is limited in this area. Thus the Schoeps can be used in more situations than a short shotgun microphone such as the MKH-60.

I find the MKH-60 very easy to use on a boom. Due to the handling noise, the Schoeps, without a Cut 1, takes much more care and expertise.

I understand that the Cinela mounts make a great match for the Schoeps.

If one already has a Schoeps CMC-641 and has been using it successfully both indoors and out (and in all weather conditions), I would not be recommending the purchase of a MKH-60. On the other hand, I like having the MKH-60 in my kit as it gives me confidence in handling high humidity conditions and is very easy to handle.

[Jimmy Tuffrey]

Depends what you intend to use it for...

If you are doing drama a 416 is great, has a lot of suck and is industry standard and will likely match what others are using.

If you are doing doco stuff then a 60 is a bit wider, better for waving about and more suitable.

Then there is the other mic's as well. The 416/60 debate is pretty clear cut though.

[Oleg Kaizerman]

the cs-3 e bit them all almost for every situation
it hAVE WIDER PATTERN THEN THE 416 , HAS BETTER LOW FQ REGECTION , WORK GRATE INDOORS IN REVERB SPACE AND GENERALLY SOUNDS BETTER FOR MY YERS ( MORE NEUMAN 81)
best bang for the buck

[Vegard Paulsen]

Looks like im going for the mkh 416 for now. Im shooting a drama show soon and need a reliable mic that does the job! :)

[Peter Moretti]

If you are shooting indoors, the 416 or 60 are really not the recommended Sennheiser mics, the MKH-50 is. It will eliminate room reflections much better than the 416 or 60 will. Senn also has the new 8050 and 8040, but handling noise is apparently an issue with them.

[Wayne Brissette]

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

Senn also has the new 8050 and 8040, but handling noise is apparently an issue with them.

I think this is the case only because of the mount, more than anything. Most everybody is using something that "kind of works"... I did use the 8040 on a job last week and was VERY happy with it, but it was a lot of interviews.

Wayne

[Rob Katz]

anyone using the audio technica at4073a, instead of the threes esses (senn/schoeps/sanken) that were mentioned?

and where does the sanken cs1 fit in?

with all this talk of indoor dialogue (sorry for the obvious pun), what about something like the akg blue line series with the ck93 hyper mated to the se300b.

i've read over and over again, that a quality hyper like the akg ck93/se300b combo on a good boom will do wonders on indoor dialogue.

since i do many talking head interviews in small office spaces, i'd be interested in the collective wisdom of those who have more experience than i.

as always, thanks in advance for sharing

be well

rob

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

The Schoeps CMC-641 (without a Cut 1 filter) requires, in my opinion, much more careful handling to avoid handing noise.

Dan,

A fair (as in balanced) comparison. I went from a 416 to a cmc641 on a 16 foot carbon K-Tek pole with a modified Rycote Softie rubber mount (no softie, just the rubber donut). I find that I don't really have any handling noise problems. I think I must have learned to handle the boom gingerly enough somewhere along the line.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Ty,

I am beginning to think that I have an unusual handling problem with my Rycote Suspension. It was new- old stock when I bought it last year.

It looked brand new, but it was the old style (horseshoe shaped) supension (I was alterted to this by the seller before I purchased it.)

I suspect that the elastic suspension may be harder or stiffer than normal.

The unit, with the Cut 1 filter (on 1) is still very prone to handling noise. I have been working with my audio dealer to get to the bottom of this problem. I plan on replacing all of the elastic or switching to rubber bands.

I am using a K-Tek with an internally coiled cable. I route the cable through the hole and around the post on the Rycote suspension, as is the proper procedure. I have two K-Tek graphite boom poles, both with the internally coiled cable and the noise problem is present on both.

Just for reference, I have similar suspensions for my MKH-60 and MKH-70 and I do not have any handling noise.

I have not yet tried mounting the CMC-641 in the much larger Rycote suspensions for the MKH-60 or MKH-70.

[Ty Ford]

Hey Dan,

Yes, something sounds not quite right. I have heard of some elastic parts being too thick on some mounts, given the weight of the mic.

It'd be great to see and hear exactly what you're doing to make the noise.

Maybe your NOS unit had the bands replaced and they are too coarse. Is there anyway you can confirm that they are the right ones?

Regards,

Ty Ford