Ok, I read everywhere that shotgun mics are not good indoors because of the interference tube.

I've learned the hard way, on an interview I used the ME67 inside an moderate sized empty classroom and I got lots of reverberations.

People claim the hypercardioids are the best for indoor usage, they say the Rode NT3 is a good choice and so is the AT4053.

But something crossed my mind: Cardioid and Hypercardioid patterns are basically the same, except that Cardioid doesn't pick sounds from the rear.

So, wouldn't a Cardioid mic be the best choice for quiet indoors? Or am I completely wrong, the Hypercardioids are the best for some reason I really don't know?

I've searched the forums but couldn't find any specific thought on how Cardioid and Hypercardioid patterns differ on indoor mic'ing.

Thanks in advance!

P.I.

assuming you are booming your indoor dialog then hypercardioid is the way to go and get that mic as close to the speaker as possible by riding the frame line

assuming you are booming your indoor dialog then hypercardioid is the way to go and get that mic as close to the speaker as possible by riding the frame line

My only difficulty is understanding why.

How a cardioid would capture sound indoors? Worse than a hyper?

The total lack of rear pick-up on the cardioids could affect my audio in a bad way?

The total lack of rear pick-up on the cardioids could affect my audio in a bad way?

No, it will affect your audio in a good way. It's called less ambient, room-reverb and bounce echo. Hyper cardioid is the standard for interiors.

Dan

No, it will affect your audio in a good way. It's called less ambient, room-reverb and bounce echo. Hyper cardioid is the standard for interiors.

Dan

Hey Dan, thanks for shedding some light.
But I think I didn't make myself clear enough.

My only doubt so far is:

Why so much love for the HYPERcardioids and no one talks about the Cardioids? Is it because the HYPERs have a more narrow pick-up than mere Cardioids? What about HYPERs picking up sounds from the hear?

Well, since no one ever recommends Cardioids (only HYPERs) I started suspecting that Cardioids could have a less satisfacting result, or some caveat I was not aware of.

So let me put in concrete terms: I was in need of a nice Cardioid mic (be it HYPER, Super or nothing). AT4053? Well, great choice! Not within my budget right now. So I ordered a AT3031 (Small Diaphragm Cardioid), since my AT897 would give me bad results indoors.

Trying to add some closure:

A Cardioid would give me a clean sound indoors with very little reverb and ambience.

A Super would give me a slightly more colored sound.

And the Hyper with the increased rear pick up pattern would give me an even more colored sound.

BUT... As the rear pick-up increases, the front pick-up narrows, so I'm not sure about the final result because I never get to test every polar pattern mic there is.

I'm sorry If I'm being a little exhaustive, these things are just new to me and I'm trying to get things as straight as possible.

A cardioid will in fact hear the side walls with as much sensitivity as it's front end so it will really only reject from the back. A hyper cardioid will reject the side (wall reflections) and let a little in from the rear but that is less significant than you might expect.

The side walls of a room give it that echo/box sound. The difference can be surprising. The cardioid will basically only reject the rear and not the sides. Look at the shape or speak into one and see how far of axis you go before the sound changes. Do the same with a hyper and you will then hear the difference.

Hypers lend themselves better to the way that videographers and filmmakers need sound recorded, mainly for isolating dialog. Personally I prefer to use cardioids when I can, but I have to be aware of my sound environment before using them. If I'm running around and I don't know exactly what type of sound environment I'm going to encounter, it's better for me to have a hyper ready to go so I can quickly isolate the audio source. And just in case, in my back pocket, I'll have a dynamic mic and an omni lav if I need to adjust.

But I'll switch to a cardioid in a heart beat if I find a situation where the sound environment is ideal. Recently had a gig where I needed to interview several people in a company. I knew the minute I walked in I'd be using a cardioid. The office had those soft padded cubicles with sound absorbing ceilings and nice office carpeting - a very nice environment for a cardioid.

If you have no money, consider the full Oktava kit. For very little, it gives you cardioid, hyper and omni capsules, all in one nice little kit. You can hear it at http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html

Dan

I for one will use a cardiod inside. In fact, I and several other mixers/boom ops I know, use the cardiod over the hyper inside more often than not. I think it's all a matter of mic placement. Get good mic placement and you can a cardiod inside in almost every situation you can use a hyper in with results that are nearly identical.

Wayne

Wayne,

From your signature it seems like you've chosen the MKH-8040 over the MKH-8050. Essentially choosing a cardiod vs a hyper cardiod.

Wayne, were there other factors that went into your decision to choose that mic? Or did you feel the 8040 would perform best for indoor booming?

I'm choosing between those two mics right now, uncertain which will perform better indoors. I've heard Schoeps CMC641 is more like the 8040 than the 8050, but I'm unsure why... as the 8050 is the one that is the hyper-cardiod.

If you have no money, consider the full Oktava kit. For very little, it gives you cardioid, hyper and omni capsules, all in one nice little kit. You can hear it at http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html

Dan

Thanks for the advice Dan, I'll consider.

Your big mic review is just awesome! (I read it some months ago) It definitely made my mind about the AT4073, it'll be my 897's successor.

I for one will use a cardiod inside. In fact, I and several other mixers/boom ops I know, use the cardiod over the hyper inside more often than not. I think it's all a matter of mic placement. Get good mic placement and you can a cardiod inside in almost every situation you can use a hyper in with results that are nearly identical.

Wayne

Hmmm nice.

I'll need to boom dialogs with more than one person talking, so this might do well.

But... What would be the best placement for a cardioid in a regular interior?

Count me as another person who usually picks a cardioid over a hyper cardioid indoors.

The reason is simple: it sounds less boxy. Directional mics work by putting the sound that is picked up around the mic tube out of phase with the sound that is picked up at the end. Outdoors this works great because there is little reflected sound and all the sound comes directly from the sources of the sounds. Thus sound coming from in front of the mic hits the front mic primarily and less of it hits the side mics. Since less is hitting the side mics, less is subtracted and the front sound is left intact. Sounds originating from the sides are picked up by both the front and side mics. The side mic sound is subtracted from the front sound (by being out of phase) and thus less side sound is recorded.

This is great outdoors, but indoors, so much sound is getting reflected off the floors, ceiling and walls, that the side mics and the front mics are all pretty much picking up everything regardless of where the sound originates. All that the out of phase side mics really accomplish in this case is a bunch of wierd out of phase strangeness.

You can get away with a tiny bit of directionality indoors (a cardioid mic), but beyond that, a hyper cardiod sounds pretty boxy. A shotgun mic is even worse.

Yeah you get a little room ambience with a cardioid mic, but it is natural that sounds fine and nowhere near as horrible as the strange boxy sound you get with a more directional mic.

You can get away with a tiny bit of directionality indoors (a cardioid mic), but beyond that, a hyper cardiod sounds pretty boxy. A shotgun mic is even worse.

Yeah you get a little room ambience with a cardioid mic, but it is natural that sounds fine and nowhere near as horrible as the strange boxy sound you get with a more directional mic.

Funny, I came back here to say exact the same thing.

I was checking Dan's mega review again and I was comparing Oktava's Hyper and Cardioid.

I REALLY disliked the HYPER capsule, Dan's voice sounded so compressed.

PS: Impressive how the Schoeps CMIT5u has a nice clear balanced sound, comparing it to the AT4073 it puts it in the wall of shame, well you get what you pay for.

From your signature it seems like you've chosen the MKH-8040 over the MKH-8050. Essentially choosing a cardiod vs a hyper cardiod.

I basically had some conversations with both Glen Trew and one other mixer who was testing both. Both individuals really felt that the 8040 and 8050 were very similar, and that while a cardioid, the 8040 had a more similar pattern to the CMC641. Looks like you're in the GTA, so you might see if Trew Audio there has both or at least one of them, then go and test it yourself. I think you'll end up being surprised at what you like and don't like about the 8040.

Wayne

Well who am I to argue...?

Having said that I have found in dining rooms and reverberant rooms the choice between a Neumann 85 or CCm 41 is very different. The first is a cardioid second a hyper. With this cardiod one needs to be really close to get a dry sound and with the ccm 41 far less so.

That's where I am coming from. MKH 80000 series- no idea - never seen or heard one. I wonder how cardioid the 8040 really is though?

I USE THE Rode Videomic indoors all the time and it seems to work fine. The only thing I usually need to do is run it through a high pass filter at about 500-600Hz cutoff. For some reason this always makes it sound so much better.

I USE THE Rode Videomic indoors all the time and it seems to work fine. The only thing I usually need to do is run it through a high pass filter at about 500-600Hz cutoff. For some reason this always makes it sound so much better.

Most camera mics (including the excellent Rode Videomic) are really just cardioids, even if people call them shotguns.

Some high end short shotguns like the industry standard Sennheiser 416 sound quite good indoors in spite of their directionality. A lot of engineering goes into making a directional mic sound good indoors.

I was checking Dan's mega review again and I was comparing Oktava's Hyper and Cardioid.
I REALLY disliked the HYPER capsule, Dan's voice sounded so compressed.


Well if you compare the Octava hyper to the Schoeps hyper, you'll hear exactly why the mics cost what they do.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Well if you compare the Octava hyper to the Schoeps hyper, you'll hear exactly why the mics cost what they do.

Regards,

Ty Ford

What's your mic of choice for indoors Ty? And why?

Just wondering...

Ciao Pietro,

The answer to that question depends on the acoustical environment, the ambient noise and how close I can get the mic to the voice.

Sometimes lavs win over boom mics.

If a boom mic is indicated, I use a Schoeps cmc641. As I mentioned, there's a big difference among hypers. They are not created equal. There are many good reasons why the cmc641 is the mic of choice for dialog (and, yes, you can use it outside as well).

It has a tight pattern, it sounds great off-axis and on-axis, the sound from it sounds like the source you are recording (not many mics do that).

I'm not on some windmill tilting crusade here. Go to any movie set and see for yourself, go to any solid corporate/industrial shoot or good documentary. That's what's on the boom. That's why I tried one. I knew immediately (really ) that this mic was different. The experience was both sublime and profound. My thought was, "Oh, i get it. Everything I know is wrong. Wow, who'd a thunk it." Once I discovered the professional "secret" of the cmc641, i put that to work for me.

I began talking local production companies for whom I worked into using the cmc641 instead of my lavs. They were skeptical. I knew I was on the right track when I got a call from one of the shooter/editors. It was the next day after a shoot. He was reviewing the footage. "Just had to call you and let you know the dialog sounds great. You were right!"

Regards,

Ty Ford

I'm not on some windmill tilting crusade here. Go to any movie set and see for yourself, go to any solid corporate/industrial shoot or good documentary. That's what's on the boom.

The Schoeps cmc641 is the gold standard. Every mic manufacturer who is trying to get their mic in front of the camera wants their mic to sound like the cmc641. I think (and I know Ty will argue this point) that Sennheiser has come close with the 8000 series. Probably closer than any other company has to date. But that being said, it's still not the standard (at least not yet).

But, here is the real deal and this I know Ty will agree with. Regardless of equipment, you have to know how to use it. I could give all my equipment to somebody who doesn't know how to use it, and I could go straight to camera with the Oktava mic and probably end up with results that sound better. Yes, it's about the gear, but more importantly it's about learning how to use it. One of the biggest issues in the on-location audio field is unless you have a mentor, it's a long haul up the mountain. The few film schools that have audio as part of their coursework, tend to roll it all into a single day. That's not nearly enough time to really learn and understand on-location audio.

So, buy your gear wisely, but more importantly understand how to use it.

Wayne

[QUOTE=Wayne Brissette;877061]The Schoeps cmc641 is the gold standard. Every mic manufacturer who is trying to get their mic in front of the camera wants their mic to sound like the cmc641. I think (and I know Ty will argue this point) that Sennheiser has come close with the 8000 series. Probably closer than any other company has to date. But that being said, it's still not the standard (at least not yet).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the Audix SCX-1 HC may be closer at the moment. I do like the 8000 for its diminutive size, but the smiley-face EQ is problematic if you are out to capture human voice.

But, here is the real deal and this I know Ty will agree with. Regardless of equipment, you have to know how to use it. I could give all my equipment to somebody who doesn't know how to use it, and I could go straight to camera with the Oktava mic and probably end up with results that sound better. Yes, it's about the gear, but more importantly it's about learning how to use it. One of the biggest issues in the on-location audio field is unless you have a mentor, it's a long haul up the mountain. The few film schools that have audio as part of their coursework, tend to roll it all into a single day. That's not nearly enough time to really learn and understand on-location audio.

>>>>>>>>>>>Pretty much. There's a professor at a university here in the US who pays usage rights for three chapters of a book I wrote in the mid 1990s. The first two chapters are about listening, hearing and how we make sense out of what we hear. The last chapter is about how to run a session and is a wonderful Q&A with two long-standing studio engineer/producers. These three chapters were my favorites.

>>>>>>>>>>>As it has been noted before; take an Oktava and a Schoeps hypercardioid (although Schoeps calls the cmc641 a supercardioid), pull them back far enough and you really can't hear as much difference. That's misuse. Put them in the right place and, provided you know what to listen for, there's a world of difference.

>>>>>>>>>>>That begs the question of whether we know what to listen for. Because we all can hear, many assume that we all know what things should sound like. It's really about critical listening; how I analyze what I hear. That's totally different than simple hearing. Critical listening doesn't happen over night. It's the result of cumulative experience. Some will learn, others will not.

>>>>>>>>>>>Someone recently shared this parallel thought with me. We all know what a pencil is and know how to use one. That doesn't make us writers.

So, buy your gear wisely, but more importantly understand how to use it.

>>>>>>>>>> Yup. and if you can't, (meaning you try, but can't seem to get your sound to sound like the big guys) then hire a good sound person. I'm pretty handy around the house, but if there's a water problem, I call the plumber. Been there, tried it, don't like it.

Regards,

Ty Ford

.......................................

I wonder whether it would be useful if the forum adopted some kind of profile tag along the lines of "I do this for profit" versus "This is an idle hobby" versus "This is a hobby I take seriously".

That way we'd cut out the number of times someone says "I'm on a budget, will the Oktava do?" and gets the reply back "Stop insulting me by thinking my job as a sound man is easy. Either get an expensive mic or don't bother making your film".

I completely understand where that attitude could come from. Someone, I forget who, brought up a personal anecdote about a teacher and a nurse that encapsulated the basis for it. If we think we have a skill, we tend to be offended if this skill is seemingly undervalued by someone else. But I really don't think any of the new people to this area mean it that way.

Though one possibly implication of something that was brought up a few posts up is the idea that, if you're not skilled, you might as well use a cheaper mic, since a good one is "wasted" on a beginner. After all, if you're starting out, I firmly believe that lots of practice (preferably in an apprenticeship arrangement, but not sure how easy it is to find those) has got to be so valuable, that getting started soon is better than holding off while you scrimp together the pennies. Given that the different kinds of mic perform in very different ways, it could also be argued that getting, say, *just* the Schoeps might result in worse audio than getting a cheaper HC mic plus a lav, or whatever. If you were really confident your production had the potential to make money, then hiring a sound guy who was willing to impart the tricks of the trade (if they're mostly like you chaps, they'll be willing to chat at length about technique) might be one way to get a crash course.

Oh, and Ty- I see that Audix SCX-1 HC going for about half the total cost of the Schoeps CMC641, so that, erm, sounds like a bargain. Unless you make films for a living, in which case, that difference in price isn't really a factor. Until and unless I make any money, I have to consider everything I buy as an indulgent present to myself, and that puts a cap on what I can spend.

Apologies if this sounds petulant. I had some hot chocolate, but looks like that wasn't enough. Time for a cup of tea (having the tea first then thinking better of posting this was an option...foolish Philip).

Phil,

Nice amiable rant. :)

I admit I do get tired of seeing posts that basically say, "I want to sound (or look) like the real thing but I don't have any money." Or, "What's really good for really cheap?"

If you have a $4K+ camera, I don't think that precludes you from having really good mics. Most people agree that sound is a very important part of what they do.

On the issue of choosing to get by with cheap mics at the beginning. Well lets open it up to all gear. If you're a hobbyist and not a pro, it cold be argued the cheap stuff is fine for you -- because it really doesn't matter.

What's weird is, making that statement really raises the hackles of some hobbyists.

So it does matter...to them.

This is a log-standing discussion that isn't going away any time soon.

Phil, how much do you have invested in gear?

Regards,

Ty Ford

Well I am in the "I can't spend too much money but still want good quality" camp.

What I find is that in the moderate priced gear, a cardiod works better indoors than a more directional mic. My indoor mic of choice is a Sennheiser ME64. It costs a couple of hundred dollars, has a hemisphere pattern, has a little emphasis in the vocal frequencies that helps clarity, and sounds completely natural indoors. Yes there are some more directional mics that sound good indoors but they cost quite a bit more.

Among the budget mics, the Sennheiser ME66 or the Rode short shotguns sound way too boxy for me indoors although I think they're fine outside.

Yeah I know the audio purists might laugh at my choice of mics, but I get sound that is about as good as what I hear on TV and DVDs... sometimes better!

"a cardiod works better indoors than a more directional mic."

Laurence, your comment may be misleading. A hyper or super cardioid mic is the pattern of choice for most indoor dialog. A cardioid mic can be too wide.

A shotgun mic with an interference tube is not a good choice for interiors, not because it is more directional, but because it is very non-directional at mid and low frequencies.

Actually a shotgun in exteriors when there's a lot of ambient noise is also a poor choice. I just had a countryman B6 omni lav beat out a 416 on an exterior shoot two weeks ago because the ambient noise was just too loud.

You said: "Yeah I know the audio purists might laugh at my choice of mics, but I get sound that is about as good as what I hear on TV and DVDs... sometimes better."

I'm not laughing and I'm not a purist, whatever that is. Well "broadcast quality" used to mean very good quality. Sadly, it doesn't anymore and hasn't for years. It doesn't take much to beat what's on TV.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty,

You say, "A hyper or super cardioid mic is the pattern of choice for most indoor dialog. A cardioid mic can be too wide."

Under what circumstances would a cardioid be too wide? In my shots, only the people who should be talking are talking, so I don't need isolate someone in a group of people or from a crowded area where there is a lot of background noise.

My main setup is a sitdown interview in the subject's living room with a duvetyne backdrop. The kids are outside, the dog is at the neighbors, the A/C is turned off, the fish are breathing unfiltered water. But sometimes the living rooms are small and/or highly reflective.

A lot of times the boom is fixed on a stand, so I'm tempted to go with a cardioid b/c it will help when the interviewee turns their head off axis. But I don't know if room reflections will be more problematic with a cardioid as opposed to a hyper cardioid.

Cardioids are much wider than some people think. They don't just point forwards but often include everything at 90 degrees off axus too which is pretty much all 4 side wall reflections in a hard walled space.

Hello Peter.

"Under what circumstances would a cardioid be too wide?"

Pretty much most. The cmc641 is a super cardioid. In my studio when I compared the cmc64 cardioid to a 641, my choice was the more narrow 641. I'm not alone in that by a long shot. I do know that in some situations where two or three people are in a scene, all talking, and in the right environment, that a cardioid has to be used, but normally you get better direct dialog with the hyper or super.

"My main setup is a sitdown interview in the subject's living room with a duvetyne backdrop. The kids are outside, the dog is at the neighbors, the A/C is turned off, the fish are breathing unfiltered water. But sometimes the living rooms are small and/or highly reflective."

Sounds like some of my setups.

"A lot of times the boom is fixed on a stand, so I'm tempted to go with a cardioid b/c it will help when the interviewee turns their head."

I understand the problem of severe head turns and with some overly animated folks, I have experienced that. The majority of the time, after the person settles down, it's fine, but you don't want to EVER use a swivel chair. That's asking for trouble.

The cmc641 is not like most supercardidoids. When the sound source goes off axis, the sound remains very smooth. You don't hear the edge of the pattern because there just isn't one. It's just as if the sound is turned down some. The Schoeps mics are not just like any other mic. I suggest that people rent one for a few days where you have some time to get to know it. Once I actually heard them, I understood the justification for price.

I have "learned" to recognize the sound of a Schoeps cmc641. A few months ago I bought a download of the most recent Pirates Of The Carribean movie from iTunes. After the hour download, I put on my headphones and began to watch the movie on my laptop. My ears perked up on the interior dialog scenes. I was thinking, "That sounds like a cmc641!" I reached out through my network and found that, indeed, it was. So if you want to hear what one sounds like, rent the DVD and pay attention to the interior dialog.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Last December, I did audio for a very demanding shoot.

We were recording dialog to accompany a language book. The book's purpose is to teach English language medical professionals effective communication in Spanish.

We shot indoors, in a hospital environment.

Every word had to be precisely spoken, with the proper accents, with all the nuances clearly heard. Of course we had professional actors performing the roles.



I used a Schoeps CMC-641.

The author of the book was present.

His comments: "Your audio sounds better than it does in person".

In fact, it did. That is the beauty of the Schoeps. This one shoot justified the full cost of the mic.

I was able to capture the voices with clear and natural sound and reject the sounds that I did not want, such as a ticking clock that we could not shut off.

You both are really good spokes-people for Schoeps.
Every time I consider purchasing the new Sennheiser MKH-8000 mics, you guys always say stuff like this to suck me RIGHT back into the CMC641.

It's a constant back and forth between saving money and sacrificing quality or spending more and getting the best.

Dear Craig,

I have other good microphones for various purposes.

I like the Sennheiser MKH-60 for outdoor booming. The MKH-70 is a special purpose microphone that also has its uses.

But, the indoors, the Schoeps CMC-641 is superior to the Sennheiser MKH-60 and the MKH-70 is useless in a reverberant environment.

One could use the Schoeps outside (and many do), but the MKH-60 is much less sensitive to handling noise.

So, for indoor dialog, the Schoeps CMC-641 is the "gold standard".

As Ty stated, once you use one, it becomes obvious that it is a better, much better microphone for indoor use.

Dear Craig,

The new Sennheiser 8000 series may be the gold standard or considered fully equal to the Schoeps some day.

But today, the Schoeps has instant credibility for those in the know.

Right now my grand total is around £5k, maybe £5,500. So what's that, close to $10k?
Around half is on audio, the rest is on the camera (Panasonic DVX100B, Indicam Pilot sled, Vinten Pro6 tripod and a lightstand + reflector. That's right, no lights yet, except for that really really big one in the sky).

Don't get me wrong, the very best audio can be yours for stupid amounts less than the best cameras. Okay, I went for a last gen SD camera, but even now, it puts a very credible image on screen. To better that in SD, how much would I have to spend? Quite a bit. On the other hand, while the difference isn't much as a percentage (compared with the difference between, say, my camera and a CineAlta F90), it is still something. And when you've heard the difference between the on-cam, built-in mic from a £100 camcorder, and, say, one of Rode's offerings, the gulf between them is so staggering that people think they're reached audio nirvana.

I don't doubt that if I had money coming in that I'd upgrade from my Oktava, and yes, the Schoeps would be very high on the list if was chosing from what's out there now. I wouldn't have lost much, as I can sell mics for not a massive loss, and what I have should last, with care, for many years, whereas the camera I might need to upgrade a great deal sooner.

Now I have my DPA and the AT899s (the way I look at it, they came free with the wireless kit- seriously, if I'd bought the bits of the kit separately, to avoid buying those mics, I'd have saved £2.), I'm in no rush to buy more audio kit. Maybe a large diaphragm mic for VO at some point, and only after that might I dip into my pocket to finance something extra. I think a basic lighting kit has to come next.

Oh, though I wouldn't have it any other way, this mix of pros and amateurs, since if we had some kind of apartheid imposed, the latter would definitely miss out...and I dare say that once in a blue moon the latter get to demonstrate some mother-of-invention ingenuity that the pros can make use of. Or if not that, then provide some nostalgic chuckles.

Love to know what the DPs make of all this though. Do they have conversations where they tell people off for not spending more on the camera? I can just imagine it- "it's the picture, stupid". And what about the deaf? I'm only very slightly joking.

And the wardrobe department probably think that we should be spending 90% of the budget on clothes, what with them makething the man...

Pfff- I've done it again. Never let it be said I let lack of experience stand between myself and voicing my opinion, such as it is.

Phil,

You and I are more alike than not. I bought the Canon XL2, a $2K tripod and enough lights for 4 point lighting. I saw the HDV cameras and, while stunned by the picture, I knew the math behind them was weak due to the amount of compression of both audio and video. Spank me, but that's what I did.

I'd keep the oktavas for perilous use or plant mics rather than sell them. You won't get much for them anyway.

You don't really need a LD mic for VO. A good SD works fine.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Going definitely OT now, but I do recall that with VO either you or Bill Davis maybe, going back and forth about good mics to use, I seem to recall other people at least claiming sizable professional experience too, and there being very little agreement on what was best to use- from that I took that there is no right answer, and that what's right for one voice is posion for another, and that all you can do is try it out. Unlike being in the wild, VO has to offer you the best* chance for controlling all the variables, so you can get away with your favourite choice.

But I also recall someone saying that, when you can't experiement, a LD mic is most likely to give you that close sound. I liked me on the DPA 4061 actually, out of everything I've got- though naturally, that could be the "I always sound best on my most expensive mic" syndrome. The Oktava (there I go again) is good to my ears, but even with the omni is sensitive to its position reletive to the talent. I think the pop filter could work well if I use it to assess the best place for them to put their lips. If only I could get the poets to stand still and not be pacing about like if they were on stage! Superglue might be called for.

I suspect though, that the intimate feel is as much, if not mostly, a function of the room. I really need to start looking around for where I can most economically treat for that sound. At least for what works for my voice.

Oh, also OT, but Ty- was watching repeats of Homicide...and guess who I saw tipping clams into the water?

* For varying values of "best".

I think another strong point in favor of the Schoeps is the fact that it's a modular system. Once you have the amplifier module, the price of additional individual modules, while still definitely expensive, is a lot less heart stopping, and with a few capsules in your kit, you have great flexibility.

For what I do, I use mostly M/S setups and with two amps, a figure 8 and a couple of different modules, I've been a pretty happy camper so far. I recently added a 41 capsule and maybe next year will add an additional capsule or a 3rd amp

DNR Officer Guskie?

Shhhh!

Regards,

Ty Ford