Oktava MK-012-01 Movie Set

Chris Swanberg · May 28th, 2009, 06:46 PM

Interesting Ty, thanks for that info.

Chris

Boudewijn de Kemp · May 29th, 2009, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

The OP said "raving reviews." I haven't seen any. Where are these raving reviews?

For instance here As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Microphone or just google the model and the first hits besides the pages where you can buy them are all very positive.
Most forum posters (also here) are very positive about the prices and the quality it delivers.
I asked around in the Netherlands for some user experience and all where very positive.
Our 2 main broadcast production companies (NOB and DutchView) use them on a regular basis, and an sound enigineer I know was also very positive about the brand.
Hence my use of the word raving reviews.

After testing the mic for 3 days now, my first impression is that the reviews and user impression weren't lying.
I really like the sound of the mic and for me it was a bargain and a good step in building my soundkit.

Ty Ford · May 29th, 2009, 04:26 AM

As a technical journalist, I have HUGE problems with the use of hyperbolic adjectives. "Raving" or "Rave Reviews" are tops on my list.

quote: Dan's initial take on the microphone:
"Personally, I found the microphone to have very good quality sound for its price range. The Oktava, to my ears, presented a slightly more colored and high frequency emphasized sound quality than the Sankens and the Schoeps, it did not have the smoothness and natural sound quality of the Schoeps but it did sound very impressive. I would not hesitate to recommend the Okatava as a solid, low cost and versatile choice that is an excellent value since it is a microphone system for under $400.00 including three capsules and a -10dB pad, microphone holder and case. I very much enjoyed recording with the Oktava, it seemed like a relative bargain."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a complimentary review, but "rave?" I don't think so. The "for the price" and "relative bargain" phrases are obvious and very powerful disclaimers in review parlance. Dan put a lot of time into his piece. He's to be applauded for that. The broad brush required to cover as many mics as he did in such a short period of time is natural and obvious. I will take issue with his calling it a cult microphone. That's way too romantic. It's a throw away mic. If you have a Schoeps and the shot calls of it to be put in harm's way, you MIGHT use an MC012.

If it were a great mic, worthy of raving, location audio people would stop buying Schoeps.

I heard and reviewed the MC012 when it first came out years ago. I've heard several since. It's OK when you get a good one that stays good. But it doesn't approach a Schoeps CMC641.

I've been fortunate to work with CMC641 for almost ten years. I had been working with mics in the studio and on location for a long time before the CMC641 got here. I plugged it in, put on the cans and spoke a few words. From that moment on, everything changed.

Boudewijn, et al, rent one stick it in a Sound Devices 442 mixer and find out for yourself. Use a good mixer. Bad mixer compromise the sound of any mic.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Boudewijn de Kemp · May 29th, 2009, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

If it were a great mic, worthy of raving, location audio people would stop buying Schoeps.

I heard and reviewed the MC012 when it first came out years ago. I've heard several since. It's OK when you get a good one that stays good. But it doesn't approach a Schoeps CMC641.

I've been fortunate to work with CMC641 for almost ten years. I had been working with mics in the studio and on location for a long time before the CMC641 got here. I plugged it in, put on the cans and spoke a few words. From that moment on, everything changed.

Boudewijn, et al, rent one stick it in a Sound Devices 442 mixer and find out for yourself. Use a good mixer. Bad mixer compromise the sound of any mic.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Point taken about the word rave.
But I do hope you realize that there is a HUGE difference between a mic of 170 dollar and a mic that is 10 times that expensive?
Sure if I had the money I would buy the $1,739.00 Schoeps CMC641, and I would also shoot all my material on film instead of HDV.
But unfortunally I am not in that position, so I have to make choices.
I am trying to make the choices according to my own budget and that of my clients.
And I just can't justify the purchase of a 1700 dollar mic at this time.
When I shoot interviews I have to do the lighting, camera and audio which is huge amount to take care of. Because I do it by myself also means I can do alot of jobs cause I only have to pay myself and my equipment which makes it affordable for my clients.
But I am also in the running for a funded documentary.
When that project will start, I have the luxery of hiring a boom operator and maybe even a DoP.
So a different set of standards will apply for that project, but again according to budget.

Ty Ford · May 29th, 2009, 06:11 AM

Boudewijn,

In mics, cameras and a lot of things, getting from 80% to 85% costs as much as getting from 10% to 80%. Getting from 85% to 87% may cost another 100% price increase.

The good news is that with a Schoeps, you can pretty much expect to use that mic for the next 20+ years. I doubt HDV cameras will enjoy anywhere near that sort of life. The bad news is that I'm told by the distributor that, in the US, the price of the CMC641 will go up to about $2400 by the end of the year.

Your film vs HDV comparison is well taken. I am very price sensitive as well. Since my clients are too, I still shoot on a Canon XL2. (I could have gone HDV, but I had real concerns about HDV's compressed audio) My clients only need web exposure, so that's how I justify my SD camera. Here's a clip. Neil Harpe on a Stella Harp Guitar at Ty Ford's Studio on Vimeo Notice I'm using a Neumann TLM 103 on the guitar. The guitar was sort of dark sounding and I wanted to brighten it up. The TLM 103 has an elevated top end.

I do have the thought that there is the "relative versus absolute" argument. Yes, a CMC641 is relatively expensive. What's a MC012 with hypercardioid capsule cost today? $170.00? I don't know. If so, by your comparison that's a tenfold increase.

Relatively, that's very significant. The actual price difference is about $1500. But once bought, your audio improves immediately on every shoot. If you buy the $170 mic now, when will you buy the $1700 mic? Having bought the $170 mic, your investment in mics will be $1900 (cheap one plus expensive one).

Here in the US we are plagued by our penchant for instant gratification. We'd be better off saving and getting what we really SHOULD buy. This is especially important when you start doing professional work. For these reasons, there is the thought that when you enter the professional arena you can't afford to buy cheap.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Boudewijn de Kemp · May 29th, 2009, 06:53 AM

I understand your point Ty.

But still my take on the subject is a different one.
Since I make documentaries, I am not getting paid alot for my passion. Most of the time I will be happy with a return on investment. But because I also have to eat, I do some interviews and editting (used to be a editor for 12 years) on the side.
So my clients get what they pay for.
For instance if someone wants an interview for their website or big meeting and has about a 500 till 750 Euro to spend.
I will go over there, do the lighting, camera and audio myself.
Will directly import the footage into my MacBook Pro and edit the interview on the spot. Burn a DVD and make a MP4 and say goodbye.
How many different disciplines or professions have I done in that relative simpel job?
I myself count 5 different proffessions.
In the ideal world I would have rented 4 people to assist me, but then I would never been able to do the job for that price.
Same goes also for the professional argument. As soon as there is budget, one of the first things I outsource it is the audio.
This because my equipment lacks abit in that department and that is the one thing that requires the most attention during the actual shooting.
I am still building my gear and have such a big wishlist, but rest assured a Schoeps is on it :) Getting there eventually...

Ty Ford · May 29th, 2009, 07:04 AM

Boudewijn,

I think we are not so far apart. :)

Ty

Dennis Kane · May 29th, 2009, 11:43 AM

I agree with Ty completely. I bought my first Oktava a few years ago after reading many "rave reviews " here on this website. I have since learned, it really matters who is doing the raving. If someone the of the caliber of Ty Ford is raving, then I listen. For others, not much. I bought my Oktave because the " rave reviews " by "experts". What these experts failed to mention was the hidden costs of having that "good for the money" mike fail on location. The money I have invested in repairs, lost time and bad PR are hard to quantify. We can't all afford a Schoeps, but I do believe there is a minimum. I have learned my lesson. When my Oktava fails again, I will throw it away, and in the future, I will only listen to people like Ty.

Rick Reineke · May 29th, 2009, 08:39 PM

Some of us (at least in NY) have Oktavas as a "stand in.. or disposable" mic where more expensive mics may be put in harm's way, due to physical or SPL damage. They do sound sort of like a Schoeps. It ain't fun losing a $1000+ Sennheiser or Schoeps. Losing a $200 012 ain't fun either but easier to swallow considering.

Lee Sharp · December 20th, 2009, 06:34 PM

Hey folks,

Ive been running shooting a tv series, and resorted to using my pair of km184s well one of them for indoor dialiogue, of course these are cardioid but they seem to be doing well.

Would any one like to compare them to the Oktava mk012, Id love an MKH 50 really but as Rick said, £1000 is hard to swallow in some cases when they risk danger.

So summarise

Dialogue whats better KM184 or Oktava mk012?

May 29th, 2009, 04:26 AM	#18
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Rave - a word of caution As a technical journalist, I have HUGE problems with the use of hyperbolic adjectives. "Raving" or "Rave Reviews" are tops on my list. quote: Dan's initial take on the microphone: "Personally, I found the microphone to have very good quality sound for its price range. The Oktava, to my ears, presented a slightly more colored and high frequency emphasized sound quality than the Sankens and the Schoeps, it did not have the smoothness and natural sound quality of the Schoeps but it did sound very impressive. I would not hesitate to recommend the Okatava as a solid, low cost and versatile choice that is an excellent value since it is a microphone system for under $400.00 including three capsules and a -10dB pad, microphone holder and case. I very much enjoyed recording with the Oktava, it seemed like a relative bargain." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a complimentary review, but "rave?" I don't think so. The "for the price" and "relative bargain" phrases are obvious and very powerful disclaimers in review parlance. Dan put a lot of time into his piece. He's to be applauded for that. The broad brush required to cover as many mics as he did in such a short period of time is natural and obvious. I will take issue with his calling it a cult microphone. That's way too romantic. It's a throw away mic. If you have a Schoeps and the shot calls of it to be put in harm's way, you MIGHT use an MC012. If it were a great mic, worthy of raving, location audio people would stop buying Schoeps. I heard and reviewed the MC012 when it first came out years ago. I've heard several since. It's OK when you get a good one that stays good. But it doesn't approach a Schoeps CMC641. I've been fortunate to work with CMC641 for almost ten years. I had been working with mics in the studio and on location for a long time before the CMC641 got here. I plugged it in, put on the cans and spoke a few words. From that moment on, everything changed. Boudewijn, et al, rent one stick it in a Sound Devices 442 mixer and find out for yourself. Use a good mixer. Bad mixer compromise the sound of any mic. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

May 29th, 2009, 06:11 AM	#20
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Boudewijn, In mics, cameras and a lot of things, getting from 80% to 85% costs as much as getting from 10% to 80%. Getting from 85% to 87% may cost another 100% price increase. The good news is that with a Schoeps, you can pretty much expect to use that mic for the next 20+ years. I doubt HDV cameras will enjoy anywhere near that sort of life. The bad news is that I'm told by the distributor that, in the US, the price of the CMC641 will go up to about $2400 by the end of the year. Your film vs HDV comparison is well taken. I am very price sensitive as well. Since my clients are too, I still shoot on a Canon XL2. (I could have gone HDV, but I had real concerns about HDV's compressed audio) My clients only need web exposure, so that's how I justify my SD camera. Here's a clip. Neil Harpe on a Stella Harp Guitar at Ty Ford's Studio on Vimeo Notice I'm using a Neumann TLM 103 on the guitar. The guitar was sort of dark sounding and I wanted to brighten it up. The TLM 103 has an elevated top end. I do have the thought that there is the "relative versus absolute" argument. Yes, a CMC641 is relatively expensive. What's a MC012 with hypercardioid capsule cost today? $170.00? I don't know. If so, by your comparison that's a tenfold increase. Relatively, that's very significant. The actual price difference is about $1500. But once bought, your audio improves immediately on every shoot. If you buy the $170 mic now, when will you buy the $1700 mic? Having bought the $170 mic, your investment in mics will be $1900 (cheap one plus expensive one). Here in the US we are plagued by our penchant for instant gratification. We'd be better off saving and getting what we really SHOULD buy. This is especially important when you start doing professional work. For these reasons, there is the thought that when you enter the professional arena you can't afford to buy cheap. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

May 29th, 2009, 07:04 AM	#22
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Boudewijn, I think we are not so far apart. :) Ty __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

December 20th, 2009, 06:34 PM	#25
Lee Sharp Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: England Posts: 27	Neuman km184 for dialogue or Oktava mk012 Hey folks, Ive been running shooting a tv series, and resorted to using my pair of km184s well one of them for indoor dialiogue, of course these are cardioid but they seem to be doing well. Would any one like to compare them to the Oktava mk012, Id love an MKH 50 really but as Rick said, £1000 is hard to swallow in some cases when they risk danger. So summarise Dialogue whats better KM184 or Oktava mk012?

May 28th, 2009, 06:46 PM	#16
Chris Swanberg Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 904	Interesting Ty, thanks for that info. Chris

May 29th, 2009, 06:53 AM	#21
Boudewijn de Kemp Regular Crew Join Date: May 2009 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 63	I understand your point Ty. But still my take on the subject is a different one. Since I make documentaries, I am not getting paid alot for my passion. Most of the time I will be happy with a return on investment. But because I also have to eat, I do some interviews and editting (used to be a editor for 12 years) on the side. So my clients get what they pay for. For instance if someone wants an interview for their website or big meeting and has about a 500 till 750 Euro to spend. I will go over there, do the lighting, camera and audio myself. Will directly import the footage into my MacBook Pro and edit the interview on the spot. Burn a DVD and make a MP4 and say goodbye. How many different disciplines or professions have I done in that relative simpel job? I myself count 5 different proffessions. In the ideal world I would have rented 4 people to assist me, but then I would never been able to do the job for that price. Same goes also for the professional argument. As soon as there is budget, one of the first things I outsource it is the audio. This because my equipment lacks abit in that department and that is the one thing that requires the most attention during the actual shooting. I am still building my gear and have such a big wishlist, but rest assured a Schoeps is on it :) Getting there eventually...

May 29th, 2009, 11:43 AM	#23
Dennis Kane Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: san francisco, ca Posts: 106	I agree with Ty completely. I bought my first Oktava a few years ago after reading many "rave reviews " here on this website. I have since learned, it really matters who is doing the raving. If someone the of the caliber of Ty Ford is raving, then I listen. For others, not much. I bought my Oktave because the " rave reviews " by "experts". What these experts failed to mention was the hidden costs of having that "good for the money" mike fail on location. The money I have invested in repairs, lost time and bad PR are hard to quantify. We can't all afford a Schoeps, but I do believe there is a minimum. I have learned my lesson. When my Oktava fails again, I will throw it away, and in the future, I will only listen to people like Ty.

May 29th, 2009, 08:39 PM	#24
Rick Reineke Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: New York Posts: 2,038	Some of us (at least in NY) have Oktavas as a "stand in.. or disposable" mic where more expensive mics may be put in harm's way, due to physical or SPL damage. They do sound sort of like a Schoeps. It ain't fun losing a $1000+ Sennheiser or Schoeps. Losing a $200 012 ain't fun either but easier to swallow considering.