Your opinion of the Neumann KMR81i ?

[Max Allen]

Hi everyone,

Considering a new boom mic and would thank you for your opinion on the KMR81i.

Took a listen here: As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Microphone to the Sanken CS3 and it sounded much too noisy for my taste in comparison to the 416 and KMR81i.

The Schoeps I've listened to in the field and it was too boomy or bassy if you will for my ears and not great for dialogue with that wide a pattern for what I do. That being dialogue, interviews and lots of run and gun for a bunch of TV shows. I prefer a tight pattern and long reach with no off aixs coloration. The KMR81i sounds like it colors but I like the no boominess on axis.

Is the Neumann reach comparable to the 416?

I'm most familiar with the Sennheiser 416 sound and happy with it, thinking the Neumann might be considered an upgrade?

How deficient is the ruggedness compared to the 416? Will I have to treat it with kid gloves much more than with than one would with the 416?

Those are two thing I wish the Neumann had, no off axis coloration and more rugged.

What do you think? Thank you so much in advance for any feedback.

Edit: Forgot to say the 416's off axis rejection is also something I like. Even more would be good for me. The Schoeps for one I've noticed doesn't match this for example. I've used the 416 for so long so I'm looking for something better aside from not wanting to own two of the 416.

[Ty Ford]

Max,

Which Schoeps is boomy? This is not a characteristic of any video production mic Schoeps makes that I have ever used. I've also never heard one too wide. Off-axis rejection not in a Schoeps?? None of what you're saying makes sense to me. What mic were you using?

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Max Allen]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Max,

Which Schoeps is boomy? This is not a characteristic of any video production mic Schoeps makes that I have ever used. I've also never heard one too wide. Off-axis rejection not in a Schoeps?? None of what you're saying makes sense to me. What mic were you using?

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hi Ty,

There is only one Schoeps shotgun isn' there? CMIT 5U

Of course adjectives describing sound quality are inherently lacking . All I can say is what my ears told me personally. I won't bore you with trivial numbers on how long I've worked in the industry.

Please reply if you can provide any feedback to the questions as it's coming down to the wire for me and my Producer is waiting for a decision. Any experience you've had with the Neumann would be very valued and very welcome.

Forgive me if I don't wish to engage in a subjective debate about sound quality between the mics. Maybe another time.

I clicked to watch you play guitar on Youtube but the video was removed.

[Ty Ford]

Max,

Schoeps only has one shotgun but their cmc641 is much more widely used.

The CMIT has some very unique EQ controls. One of which is commonly used to boost the HF to compensate for loss due to use in a zeppelin. There are also LF controls that can be used to roll off the bottom.

In my review article, I found the two schoeps agreeably similar, so that they could be used on the same shoot, depending on the situation. That was with the EQ of the CMIT neutralized. As such, I doubt you'd care for the cmc641 either. It is, however, one of the most used mics for interior film dialog. I've gotten to where I can hear it sometimes. Last time was on the most recent Pirates of The Carribean with Johnny Depp. A Sennheiser MKH 60 was used on exteriors. You might try one of those.

I agree, and don't care to argue. The 416 is ubiquitous. It has its sound. I have one. I use it sometimes. I DO find that one gets used to things. It took me about 2 years to stop liking the sound of compressed and limited audio; a preference which I developed in FM radio. I'm better now. The 416 has a rather prominent peak. The Neumann does not. It is closer to the Schoeps.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Dan Brockett]

Glad you checked out the article.

I agree with Ty, I find the sound of the Schoeps CMIT5U and the CMC641 to be pretty natural and neutral, I would never describe the sound of the CMIT5U as bassy or boomy. FWIW, I quite liked the Neumann as well, I would be happy with either but I think at that point, the sound you will gather will be based much more upon your technique than the sound quality of the mic. The Schoeps or Neumann are both superb shotguns, probably the best on the market. You should be able to record very good audio with either. But different strokes.

Dan

[Max Allen]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Max,

Schoeps only has one shotgun but their cmc641 is much more widely used.

The CMIT has some very unique EQ controls. One of which is commonly used to boost the HF to compensate for loss due to use in a zeppelin. There are also LF controls that can be used to roll off the bottom.

In my review article, I found the two schoeps agreeably similar, so that they could be used on the same shoot, depending on the situation. That was with the EQ of the CMIT neutralized. As such, I doubt you'd care for the cmc641 either. It is, however, one of the most used mics for interior film dialog. I've gotten to where I can hear it sometimes. Last time was on the most recent Pirates of The Carribean with Johnny Depp. A Sennheiser MKH 60 was used on exteriors. You might try one of those.

I agree, and don't care to argue. The 416 is ubiquitous. It has its sound. I have one. I use it sometimes. I DO find that one gets used to things. It took me about 2 years to stop liking the sound of compressed and limited audio; a preference which I developed in FM radio. I'm better now. The 416 has a rather prominent peak. The Neumann does not. It is closer to the Schoeps.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Thanks for that comparison of the Neumann to the CMIT. I think that is a very useful opinion.

You refer to the CMC641's use. I generally don't consider it interchangeable where I'd use a shotgun for my work. Indoors is a different story.

Having owned and used the progenitor of the 641, a CMC441 (MK41/4U) since the days when there was smoking allowed in domestic flights, I'd say I do care for the Schoeps sound. Same capsule as the 641.

I prefer EQ at the mixer where it's immediately accessible with visual confirmation anytime. The CMIT's EQs are handy but at a boom on the end of the pole inside a softie or zeppelin is not ideal for run and gun and is out of my sight. I also like to judge an EQ-able mic on its flat response not with its EQ engaged.

As you know the 416 cuts through a mix. For what I do "natural" is secondary to intelligibility. Now it is certainly possible the CMIT I heard a few times in work was EQd at the mic without my knowing. I was not the mixer. But EQ shouldn't have made it sound bassy (boomy), too open and undefined for speech work. This is comparing to the 416. In order of emphasis it was low end, then a little high end. Not enough mids. That much low end is not desired at all in my work. It was too wide with distracting off axis sources.

All said in a controlled environment another listen would certainly be deserved given your defenses of the mic.

Thanks for the chime in Dan. I'm going to listen again to the article and maybe bother you with a question or two if you don't mind.

[Max Allen]

double post please delete. thanks

[Max Allen]

I took another listen, realizing of course the MP3s are 192kbps.

The MKH60 sounds boxy but I never considered the 60 anyway since so many stayed with the 416 even after it came out.

The CS3 has over the board high end at the sibilance level.

The Schoeps again demonstrated what I've heard from this mic in practice, has the lows and highs with insufficient mid. The EQ helps but the Schoeps reserved, laid back sound is consistent through all the EQ modes which I don't want for run and gun work.

The MKH60 definitely has the best sound quality when off axis. The source sounds naturally off axis to my brain. The Neumann bass response off axis is quite disorienting not at all sounding natural. This is unfortunate. On axis I like a front and center presence over "natural". That is, what people call natural a la Schoeps. But off axis has to sound naturally off axis otherwise you can't translate the sound as off axis.

On axis the Neumann sounds like the right balance between an in your face 416 sound and the Schoeps.

Anybody concur or disagree or have I only offended even more owners of these mics now. :)

[Ty Ford]

Well to me the Schoeps is ALL about the mids, so I'm just going to have to stay where I am and wish you good luck.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[John Willett]

The KMR 81i is a very nice mic.(I have one myself); but,like he Schoeps, it is not an RF condenser and does not have the safety in damp conditions that the MKH 416 and MKH 60 have.