Cheaper alternative to Sennheiser MKH-50

John Willett · January 1st, 2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Franco

I had anticipated getting the Sennheiser MKH-50 to record interior speaking vocals (typical "living room" setting). At this point, I'm needing to save some money. I'd like some suggestions on lesser expensive mics for recording interiors.

The MKH 50 is a pure super-cardioid mic.

So the best and nearest equivalent is the new MKH 8050 - about £400 cheaper in the UK and just as good.

Ty Ford · January 1st, 2009, 10:20 AM

John,

my experiences with the 8050 was that it had a big low end, resulting picking up a lot of LF and requiring a Rycote lyre suspension mount to prevent boom handling noise.

What have you found?

Regards,

Ty

John Willett · January 1st, 2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

my experiences with the 8050 was that it had a big low end, resulting picking up a lot of LF and requiring a Rycote lyre suspension mount to prevent boom handling noise.

What have you found?

True, the MKH 8050 extends about 10Hz lower than the MKH 50, down to about 30Hz turnover.

There will be a module in the new year that screws between the mic. head and XLR module to give a bass ro;;-off and 10dB pad - both switchable.

Ty Ford · January 1st, 2009, 04:13 PM

John,

Good to hear about the add-on, I don't hink the folks had any idea the mic would end up on a boom. My evaluations here with showed the low end to be problematic.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Sherif Choudhry · January 2nd, 2009, 04:01 PM

[QUOTE=Tyler Franco;986477]I had anticipated getting the Sennheiser MKH-50 to record interior speaking vocals (typical "living room" setting). What do you guys think about the Rode NTG-2? Is it a correct mic for interiors? QUOTE]

NTG2 for interiors? NO, by my experience, just tried it on an interview in a typical living room and it clearly sounds "hollow". You'll waste your shot.

Tyler Franco · January 2nd, 2009, 04:42 PM

This thread has become very informative. Thanks to all who are posting! So if Hypers are better for interiors, I was thinking of the Rode NT3 perhaps. Anyone have experience with this mic? I've listened to some comparisons online it sounds very good and would save a large amount of money.

Oh and Greg, something goofy did happen. I hit submit and it erred out and then I hit the back button and hit submit again. Then I reloaded the forum and saw the double posts.

Ty Ford · January 2nd, 2009, 04:49 PM

Tyler,

If you hate your boom op. get an NT3. Please check its weight.

Ty Ford

Ken Campbell · January 3rd, 2009, 11:43 AM

I think the NT3 would be a good choice for internal shooting on more limited budgets, like mine. I think a lot can be done with lower rung mics like the NT3. A lot of great sound is independent of the mic used and has to do with getting the room acoustically set up, getting the mic in just the right position, and knowing what to do in post production.

Steve House · January 3rd, 2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Campbell

I think the NT3 would be a good choice for internal shooting on more limited budgets, like mine. I think a lot can be done with lower rung mics like the NT3. A lot of great sound is independent of the mic used and has to do with getting the room acoustically set up, getting the mic in just the right position, and knowing what to do in post production.

The point is that while it a decent mic, the NT3 is a real heavyweight, far too big and heavy to be slung out on the end of a hand-operated boom. When it can be mounted on a mic stand it's not bad sounding, but there are other hypercardioids in a similar price range that are quite a bit more appropriate to boom mic use.

Tyler Franco · January 3rd, 2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve House

The point is that while it a decent mic, the NT3 is a real heavyweight, far too big and heavy to be slung out on the end of a hand-operated boom. When it can be mounted on a mic stand it's not bad sounding, but there are other hypercardioids in a similar price range that are quite a bit more appropriate to boom mic use.

Could you give some examples please? Thanks!

Steve Oakley · January 3rd, 2009, 05:08 PM

You know these online demos are helpful, but shouldn't be a sole deciding factor. They can give you a basic idea of how a mic sounds, but you really need to spend a few days with a mic to really get to know it. Off axis sound is what can really sepeate on mic from another, as does how much proximity effect a mic has. In post, a good mic with low proximity effect means different takes of the same scene will cut with little to no eq to match. I just cut some stuff recorded with a 416 and it was a real PITA to match. OTH stuff I record with my cmc64 cut without effort outside of basic level adjustments. Even when a bit off axis, it still works, and that's why it's worth the price.
For sit down work, a cheaper mic may indeed work very well because it's easy to be consistent with it. With hand booming for reality / docs a more forgiving mic will save time and money in post by needing less work to mix

Steve House · January 3rd, 2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Franco

Could you give some examples please? Thanks!

Audix SCX1/HC, AKG Blueline SE300b/CK93, Oktava M012

Ty Ford · January 4th, 2009, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

You know these online demos are helpful, but shouldn't be a sole deciding factor. They can give you a basic idea of how a mic sounds, but you really need to spend a few days with a mic to really get to know it. Off axis sound is what can really sepeate on mic from another, as does how much proximity effect a mic has. In post, a good mic with low proximity effect means different takes of the same scene will cut with little to no eq to match. I just cut some stuff recorded with a 416 and it was a real PITA to match. OTH stuff I record with my cmc64 cut without effort outside of basic level adjustments. Even when a bit off axis, it still works, and that's why it's worth the price.
For sit down work, a cheaper mic may indeed work very well because it's easy to be consistent with it. With hand booming for reality / docs a more forgiving mic will save time and money in post by needing less work to mix

Well said Steve,

CAN SOMEONE MAKE A STICLY OUT OF THIS!!

REgards,

Ty Ford

Ed Kukla · January 9th, 2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve House

AKG Blueline SE300B/CK93 modular combo

I own this combo. Work with a lot of different soundies. They are all impressed with this setup. Easy/quick switchout to the short gun when needed.

January 1st, 2009, 10:20 AM	#17
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	John, my experiences with the 8050 was that it had a big low end, resulting picking up a lot of LF and requiring a Rycote lyre suspension mount to prevent boom handling noise. What have you found? Regards, Ty __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

January 1st, 2009, 04:13 PM	#19
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	John, Good to hear about the add-on, I don't hink the folks had any idea the mic would end up on a boom. My evaluations here with showed the low end to be problematic. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

January 2nd, 2009, 04:49 PM	#22
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Tyler, If you hate your boom op. get an NT3. Please check its weight. Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

January 2nd, 2009, 04:01 PM	#20
Sherif Choudhry Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: London Posts: 222	[QUOTE=Tyler Franco;986477]I had anticipated getting the Sennheiser MKH-50 to record interior speaking vocals (typical "living room" setting). What do you guys think about the Rode NTG-2? Is it a correct mic for interiors? QUOTE] NTG2 for interiors? NO, by my experience, just tried it on an interview in a typical living room and it clearly sounds "hollow". You'll waste your shot.

January 2nd, 2009, 04:42 PM	#21
Tyler Franco Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 172	This thread has become very informative. Thanks to all who are posting! So if Hypers are better for interiors, I was thinking of the Rode NT3 perhaps. Anyone have experience with this mic? I've listened to some comparisons online it sounds very good and would save a large amount of money. Oh and Greg, something goofy did happen. I hit submit and it erred out and then I hit the back button and hit submit again. Then I reloaded the forum and saw the double posts.

January 3rd, 2009, 11:43 AM	#23
Ken Campbell Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Milan, Italy Posts: 140	I think the NT3 would be a good choice for internal shooting on more limited budgets, like mine. I think a lot can be done with lower rung mics like the NT3. A lot of great sound is independent of the mic used and has to do with getting the room acoustically set up, getting the mic in just the right position, and knowing what to do in post production.

January 3rd, 2009, 05:08 PM	#26
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	You know these online demos are helpful, but shouldn't be a sole deciding factor. They can give you a basic idea of how a mic sounds, but you really need to spend a few days with a mic to really get to know it. Off axis sound is what can really sepeate on mic from another, as does how much proximity effect a mic has. In post, a good mic with low proximity effect means different takes of the same scene will cut with little to no eq to match. I just cut some stuff recorded with a 416 and it was a real PITA to match. OTH stuff I record with my cmc64 cut without effort outside of basic level adjustments. Even when a bit off axis, it still works, and that's why it's worth the price. For sit down work, a cheaper mic may indeed work very well because it's easy to be consistent with it. With hand booming for reality / docs a more forgiving mic will save time and money in post by needing less work to mix