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 ?

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.

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..

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

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

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.

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.

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

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! :)

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

WayneWayne, I have an MKH-60 and am very tempted to make an 8040 my next audio purchase. I read what you and Trew have to say about the 8040 being closer to the CMC641 than the 8050.

May I ask, how is the 8040 with handling room reflections (my main purpose for getting a companion for my 60)?

And how is the reach (I will sometimes be using it on a boom stand w/ no operator to reposition the mic)?

Thanks much. And anyone else with 804/50 experiences PLEASE chime in ;).

May I ask, how is the 8040 with handling room reflections (my main purpose for getting a companion for my 60)?

And how is the reach (I will sometimes be using it on a boom stand w/ no operator to reposition the mic)?


The interviews we did were medium and tight shots and I had no problem with them. Several people I know are using the 8040 now for concert mics (recording from stage lips and further back), and don't have a problem with the distance/reach of the mics.

The reflection is minimal from the recordings I used it on. I'll post some samples a bit later today from the interviews, so you can tell for yourself.

Wayne

Dear Ty,

The bands on the unit look just like the bands provided to me from my dealer, same size and thickness. I will double check this, today, if possible.

I have replaced two of the four bands already. I will be replacing the other two.

My dealer mentioned that it is nice to have the bands looser than one would normally expect.

I've been using the 416 for two years now, an excellent mic i must say. Off axis and the sound will be colored, good to get enough coverage of the scene so you can choose different recordings.

Dan, if you're still having problems with the zeppelin mount, try Rycote's pistol grip. It's obviously only good for foam/softie conditions, but it's been pretty forgiving for me. Then again, I think I get even less handling noise in my zeppelin, so your problem is definitely worth investigating.

Because of the great low-frequency response on the mic I often set the Cut 1 to somewhere between 1 and 3. Maybe rolling off a little more of the bass would help you too.

I use the softie donut as part of my modified boom mount. The 8050 has too much LF response for it. I have not tried the 8040.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty:

I'm not sure the 8040 would be any better. I really believe the issue most people are having is related to the mounts. I'm using the K-TEK mount, which isn't really all that wonderful, but the reality is there isn't much out there yet. I'm hoping to see the Rycote mount at NAB and I'll see if I go with that one. Sennheiser won't have their mount available until about NAB timeframe (or at least that's when they say they will ship my backorder), so we'll just have to wait a bit longer to see what happens.

In the meantime, here is a sample from an interview done with the 8040.

http://homepage.mac.com/wayneb/Interview8040.mp3
http://homepage.mac.com/wayneb/Interview8040.wav

No processing was done on this other than converting the one to an MP3 for those who just want a sample.

The room we did the interview in had hard concrete floors and a very large glass window on two sides of the room. Not the ideal location for an interview audio wise, but it had a nice look to it. So, Peter, this room would highlight the reflectiveness and I don't think it does. The mic is about 18-inches away from the subject.

Wayne

Ty:

The room we did the interview in had hard concrete floors and a very large glass window on two sides of the room. Not the ideal location for an interview audio wise, but it had a nice look to it. So, Peter, this room would highlight the reflectiveness and I don't think it does. The mic is about 18-inches away from the subject.

Wayne

How would you compare the reach of an 8040 with that of an MKH50 (or 8050)? What would you consider to be the approximate maximum distance of the 8040 from the subject before a qualitative dropoff? Do you think the 8040 pattern might be wide enough to capably pick up a two shot interview?
Thanks.

Ty:
I'm using the K-TEK mount, which isn't really all that wonderful, but the reality is there isn't much out there yet.
Wayne

Not all K-tek are the same. I asked K-tek weeks ago and they shipped me a K-GPSS (short). My experiments with the K-Tek K-GPSS (Short) show it to be usable.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Not all K-tek are the same. I asked K-tek weeks ago and they shipped me a K-GPSS (short). My experiments with the K-Tek K-GPSS (Short) show it to be usable.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I'm using the short K-SSM, which is barely usable, which is why I said I thought that people really are simply using what's on the market now, but hopefully a good solution will become available.

Wayne

Do you think the 8040 pattern might be wide enough to capably pick up a two shot interview?
Thanks.

The reality is, I haven't used it enough, or tested it enough to answer these questions for you. My rule of thumb is to get the mic as close as I can without being in the shot. In my sample, that was about 18-24 inches (closer to 18 for that part of the interview).

However, I think in general you have to be careful with multi-person interviews. I suspect you're thinking of mounting the mic on a C-Stand or something, right? I haven't tested it in this situation, but my gut feeling on this mic is that it should be OK depending on the way people are seated (or standing). If I ever do anything like this I can give you a real world report, for now, I can only give my best guess.

Wayne

I'm using the short K-SSM, which is barely usable, which is why I said I thought that people really are simply using what's on the market now, but hopefully a good solution will become available.

Wayne

I spoke to K-tek and they agreed that the bands on the K-SSM were too thick for the 8000 series. That's why they sent me the K-GPSS. Its bands are lighter gauge. It works. You don't have to wait.

You may have to wait for a better pop filter. The foam one that comes with the mic is insufficient. Quick boom moves flutter the diaphragm.

Given these two obvious problems, it seems apparent to me that Sennheiser was NOT thinking about this mic as a boom mic.

I'm concerned that they may have suffered "generational loss" (GL). By that, I mean that every twenty (or so) years, people retire or move on and new people come in to an organization. Surely there are people who work for a company for longer, but there are fewer people in this category. When the experienced people leave, the assumption is that the company continues along, pretty much the same way. This is not always the case.

In some cases these folks end up being the guardians of certain aspects of technology. In the worst of cases, they hold on to "old ways" that have been outstripped by new and better ways. In the best of cases, they invented the "secret sauce" for a lot of a company's technology. When they leave, the full value of the knowledge may go with them. When changes to the recipe are made after their departure, the full impact of those changes may not be instantly recognizable in terms of quality or performance deficits.

Even if the "secret sauce" folks remain employed, other people in the company may take or be given control of the product. If these new people don't fully understand the nature of the technology or are more guided by other motives, the product may suffer.

Sometimes recipe changes are the result of forced manufacturing changes. The Sennheiser 421 is an interesting case. I was told that the main reasons for the 421 II were that the molds used to make the mic bodies were worn out and could no longer be used. The making of molds is very expensive. This forced a new design. They also changed the construction of the capsule (I'm not sure why. Perhaps they found a cheaper way to make it). The result was a presence peak that made voices (mine included) sound sibilant. The 421 is a valid vocal mic, the 421 II isn't.

Beyer did something similar with the M260. It is/was a very nice mic. The M260.80 just isn't.

As I continue to watch these isolated events, I keep asking "What were they thinking?"

My guess is that a lot of it has to do with manufacturing costs; either because the company wants to make a piece more profitable or because the cost of manufacturing for that piece has gone up and they are trying to hold the line against wholesale and retail price increases.

The other option is that there may be people in a company who rise to a position of control who don't really understand the product. They may make changes for many reasons without fully thinking through the implications. The audio inputs of the RED camera are an obvious example; what a non-standard mess!

Regards,

Ty Ford

The audio inputs of the RED camera are an obvious example; what a non-standard mess!

:)

I have to call Ron Scelza soon about a piece of my gear that got left in his trailer, and I'll have to ask him about the RED rep who was on-set recently. He is working on a feature in New Orleans and they are shooting on two RED cameras (I still don't understand production companies...This is a tier one shoot and he offered me a gig working with him again on it, but the pay was horrible, yet they have two RED cameras, go figure).

According to one post I saw, the RED technical rep upgraded the firmware and did something that now turns the unit's fans off when shooting. That's a big step forward, but I don't know what if anything they did to fix any of the audio issues.

Wayne