Hi all,

I've loved the mic comparisons Dan Brockett has done. Since most of us do not have all the mics in the world, hearing some comparisons is very useful. As a follow up to the many threads about hypercardioid mics, I would like to submit my humble little mic comparison.

First of all, this is not an extensive test. I recently acquired an AKG C300B with the CK93 hypercardioid capsule. Prior to that, I had been using either a Sennheiser MKH416 or an Oktava MC012 with the hyper capsule for indoor situations. I did this test mostly for me, but since there have been many threads asking about various hyper mics, and a few that specifically mention the AKG, I thought I'd post the files. So the test is just these three mics. It's also just a test with the mics on a stationary boom, not following actors around a room. I do mostly ENG and corporate work, so a lot of interviews for news, entertainment TV magazines, documentaries, corporate videos, etc. I wanted to compare the Oktava to the AKG, but I also thought I'd throw in the Sennheiser 416 as it's so commonly used (and not in Dan's test arsenal). I'd love to have included a Schoeps CMC641, but unfortunately I don't have $2000 to buy one right now. You can hear that mic, as well as an Oktava and many others in Dan's comparison at kenstone.net.

I will not post any of my observations right now as I don't want to influence anyone's ability to listen objectively. I will however, say three things:

1) All three of the mics produce usable audio.
2) The Sennheiser, though not recommended for indoor settings where there are lots of relective surfaces, works just fine when there is carpet, furniture, etc. to soak up some of the sound.
3) I'm happy with my latest purchase.

The files can be found at:

Untitled Page (http://www.randrmedia.com/hypertest.html)

I have posted both mp3s, for quick listening, and WAV files, if you want to take the mp3 compression out of the equation and hear the highest quality.

Hope someone finds this useful. If not, at least it kept me off the streets for a couple of hours!

Rob

Nice job Rob, thanks for doing this.

Dan

Well I see a lot of people have viewed this thread, so I hope it has been helpful.

Dan, thanks for the kind words. I now have an even greater appreciation for what you did. One test just seems to lead me to want to do another. So...

Since my living room has hardwood floors, I thought using the same mics in there would be a fun comparison to the carpeted room. Same three mics, same set up. PLUS, it occurred to me that I see the AKG C1000 mentioned every once in while, so I threw that in there as well.

Files for BOTH tests can be found here:

Untitled Page (http://www.randrmedia.com/hypertest2.html)

I want to point out one thing about how I've done these tests. The mics are slightly in front of me but AS CLOSE AS I CAN GET THEM TO THE TOP OF MY HEAD WITHOUT BEING IN THE SHOT. Sorry for shouting, but I often see people setting up with the mic on a boom a couple of feet over the interviewee's head. Try the test yourself sometime - start at about two feet and gradually lower the mic until you are maybe 6 inches above the person's head and at the most about a foot in front. Obviously the framing of the video will determine how close you get, but it's amazing how much difference getting a few inches closer can make. Once again, booming dialogue for a feature might mean you can't get in that close all the time. This test is for fixed interviews only.

O.K., I think now I'll retire as a mic tester. Unless of course someone wants to send me a Schoeps, or some Neumanns, or a Sound Devices mixer and 4-track recorder.......

Rob

The AKG blueline series is an undiscovered gem.

I bought a pair to use as overheads when recording drums and they performed more than adequately. Then came a shoot on a beach, so rather than risk my mkh mics I got the fig8 capsule and used the bluelines... excellent sound!
Since then I've obtained the active cable and used the mics to solve a number of difficult or dodgy recording situations and am always impressed at how well they perform. In my worthless, humble opinion the AKG bluelines and the Audio Technicas are top value-for-money mics which are too often under-rated and overlooked by the video fraternity. At the risk of upsetting one of the forum's elders, the AKGs and the AT897 easily out-perform the Rode NTG 1 & 2 in this budget end of the market.

I would say that the SE391 combo (from the AKGH blueline series) is ideal for the budget sound recordist who makes an effort and intends to expand and experiment, with the Audio Technica at897 for those who like the shotgun approach.

Not posted in order to start an arguement, just my experience and opinion.

The AKG and indeed the AT have been discovered for about 7 years or more in my world.

Maybe they are more prolific here in the U.K.

I use both the AT897 for on camera work on one camera and the AKG 300/CK93 hyper on my #1 camera and I have to say IMHO they are a great combo together. I have had very few audio problems related to the mic over the last few years that I've been using these 2 and frankly if the is it's generally my fault.
Once again IMHO these 2 mics are a really good investment.

Don

Robin, Jimmy and Don, thanks for chiming in. I am impressed with the AKG. And I agree that Audio Technica mics are generally a great value. I believe Ty has mentioned the AT4053 as a great mid level hyper option ($400 - 500). I own an AT4047 large diaphragm, an AT815 shotgun and several AT803a lavaliers. I've also had a fair amount of experience with the AT4033, 4050 and 4060 - all very good mics.

Robin - I've been using the Oktava MC012s as drum overheads and been very happy. But now that I have the AKG, I may have to think about finding another one and getting the CK91 capsules. They really have a much more full-bodied sound than the Oktavas. And they also have the low-cut switch (which I did not have engaged for my tests, btw) if you feel like you're getting too much low end.

I better quit now, I'm starting to get GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome)!!

Rob

I just got the AKG with hyper module not too long ago. What is the "active cable"?

Just a quick follow up on why Audio Technica is not often considered in the video world. I don't think they really market themselves that much to video people. They do make some very good mics, but they also make a lot of lower level gear. So I think many people only know them for the "pro" line gear (isn't it funny that almost any time you see the word "pro" in a model name, the gear is anything but pro?).

I was talking to a sound guy about lower cost shotguns, and mentioned the 4073a to him. He told me (having never seen/used the mic) "Audio Technica does not make good shotguns". I said, "but it comes highly recommended," etc., and he again reapplied, "well that's great, but audio technica does not make good shotguns." So, that's probably part of your problem.

I work on a prime time 7 time award winning show with 4 million viewers 6 times a week.
Basically we have 35 mic's in the studio and 6 are radios. We have 7 Audio Technica ES933's on the audience and 22 Audio Technica 935 mic's for contributors.

So who says AT mic's are not used professionally?

Also seen them alot on live event stages. Used them for strings in orchestras too. MKH are better but I've only ever seen one company who have 20 of them. Most have 20 SE300 91/93 's

I was just pointing out that there might be a lot of pro sound guys who don't think much of the brand on principle.

Anyway, WHAT is the "active cable"?

The other point to consider is that AKG seems to be the only major manufacturer that I have approached who would NOT give me any mics to review. All of the other big manufacturers were on board, just not AKG .

I ran into the same thing with Countryman on the lav test. While I feel both companies make good products, if they refuse to participate in tests and reviews, I begin to wonder if they have something to hide.

Dan

I was talking to a sound guy about lower cost shotguns, and mentioned the 4073a to him. He told me (having never seen/used the mic) "Audio Technica does not make good shotguns". I said, "but it comes highly recommended," etc., and he again reapplied, "well that's great, but audio technica does not make good shotguns." So, that's probably part of your problem.

I pretty much agree, AT shotguns stink. they are pretty thin sounding compared to other shotguns in my ears. I can pick them out of mic comparisons most of the time because of their sound which I find just plain grating at times.

OTH I've been doing some interesting listening. using several different headphones to listen to mic samples has led to some interesting results. while the CMC641 is the gold standard mic, I found the Okatava and AKG C300/93 sounding at least as good if not _better_ when listening for noise floor and room slap. overall tonal quality I'd be inclined to go with the CMC641, but the other two were very close, and it wasn't a $1500 difference. at least on the samples I had around. the head phones leading me to this conclusion where senn HD280's. the HD280's seem to be the most detailed headphones around for the price, plus thier isolation from room tone let me hear some of the sublte bits of room noise that I didn't hear as well.

listening with AKG 244 (?) I came to different conclusions generally giving the CMC641 the vote.

trying them again on some B&W speakers, and then on BA-5A's the differences where far less pronounced. with the speakers, being a few feet back most of the room tone one could hear on the headphones was not nearly as pronounced. perhaps blending into the tone of the room I was in.

perhaps the CMC641 with its lower sensitivity then the other mics means you need a bit more gain, and therefore bring up the mic self noise, mixer noise, and room tone more.

what I;d really like to hear is several different schoeps mic capsules compared - the 2, 4, 41, 8 and CMIT5 with M & F voices on and off axis in a real room ( bored this weekend TY :) ). I"ve got a CMC64 and I'm wondering whether I may be perfectly happy the with C300/93 or spending 3X for a 41 capsule which may be more name brand sell then any major performance difference. its to bad their are no pro audio dealers in my corner of the world I could take both out for a day or two on a test drive.

I've not used their shotguns.

I, too, am an advocate for AKG Blueline... A while back I posted some comparison recordings between the AKG CK93 / Schoeps / AKG C535EB / Beyer MC740 (studio condenser), and some lavs. If anyone's interested, they're still in my Public folder for review.
The thread was here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/all-things-audio/113110-more-mic-tests.html
Regards, Ross.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Based on the price, I think AT shotguns and hypers perform well. I've listened to a lot of them. I think they fit in the spot between a mkh 416 and me66 or me67.

Thin? Well thinner than a 416, but in almost every occasion I know, the high pass filter is used when using the 416. We humans make a lot of noise. A lot of it is LF noise with our machinery. That stuff gets in the way of dialog. It's better to get rid of it before it gets into the mixer. The Sanken CS3e, for example, was designed with a slimmer low end because of this. If you are on an acoustically designed sound stage, then you may be able to use the 416 without rolling off the bottom.

The evaluation and comparison of mics is not a simple thing. I struggle with it with every mic I review to make sure I get it right. I've talked about the process a lot over the years, here and elsewhere. Frequency response, irregularities in frequency response, pattern shape, off-axis response, selfnoise, sensitivity, low level distortion are all a part of what I'm listening for.

I've reviewed a lot of mics. My main conclusions are made using Sony MDR7506 headphones. They accentuate the low end and high end, but I know this and account for it. Lately I have been using the AudioTechnica ATH-M50 phones. They are flatter in response, fit well and can be worn a long time. The Sony MDR7509 are also quite good.

While I do eventually listen on monitors, there way are too many variables with monitors that mask the truth. Then too the chain between the mic and the headphones can also be problematic. Not all preamps are alike. If you're plugging in to a Mackie or Behringer mixer, you're done before you start. Low cost preamps and mixers compromise the sound of great gear. As a result the differences between a great mic and a not so great mic are diminished or obliterated.

Just checking....What a shock! :) the AT and Audix mics below sell for the same price. 1/4 the cost of a Schoeps cmc641.

Audio Technica AT4053a Condenser ... $499.99
Audix SCX1/HC - Hypercardioid Condenser ... $499.00

Price is seldom proportional with audio (and other) gear. What I mean is that you pay X to get 80% performance. To get to 90%, you may have to pay 2X, not just X + 10%. That, and an out of whack dollar, explains the difference in price between a cmc641 and a 4053a or SCX-1 HC.

Steve said, "perhaps the CMC641 with its lower sensitivity then the other mics means you need a bit more gain, and therefore bring up the mic self noise, mixer noise, and room tone more."

Steve, I've just never had a problem with a cmc641 and sensitivity.
Also, I compared the MK4 with mk41 capsule before I bought. I went with the mk41 because it's tighter and therefore hears less room or ambience. My advice, FWIW, buy the MK41 capsule. Use the MK4 for uncontrollable two shots.

I do have different mic sample in my online archive, including the Schoeps CMIT. They are in the Audio folder here.
.Mac - iDisk (http://idisk.mac.com/tyreeford-Public?view=web)

Regards,

Ty Ford

.
If you're plugging in to a Mackie or Behringer mixer, you're done before you start. Low cost preamps and mixers compromise the sound of great gear. As a result the differences between a great mic and a not so great mic are diminished or obliterated.

we can very much agree on this :)

.
Audio Technica AT4053a Condenser ... $499.99
Audix SCX1/HC - Hypercardioid Condenser ... $499.00


dollar to euro has gotten more even as of late, maybe schoeps will have a price adjustment. I got my CMC64 right before the price increase and had to wait 2 months for it to come in because they saw such a surge in orders.

.
Steve said, "perhaps the CMC641 with its lower sensitivity then the other mics means you need a bit more gain, and therefore bring up the mic self noise, mixer noise, and room tone more."
Steve, I've just never had a problem with a cmc641 and sensitivity.
Also, I compared the MK4 with mk41 capsule before I bought. I went with the mk41 because it's tighter and therefore hears less room or ambience. My advice, FWIW, buy the MK41 capsule. Use the MK4 for uncontrollable two shots.
Ty Ford

I'm using the MK4 for exactly what you are talking about, SFX recording, B roll ambience, especially if several people are involved with unscripted dialog. it works great for this. last shooter I worked with commented how good it sounded on his in ear monitor from the camera. it also works well with two people going back and forth as you say.

as much I may get the MK41 cap, I was also looking at the MKH8040 and MKH8050. they have a higher level of sensitivity 30ma/pa vs 17ma/pa for the 4/41. if thats about 6db or so hotter, thats a useful amount of gain. its of course helps push down self noise & mixer noise. they are very small light mics as well. this is all figuring into some near purchases, a new rycote S series ( do I get the short 330 or longer 375 or the 330 + a longer module ). my immediate need to to get rid of my sony shotgun. its not that it doesn't work or sound ok, its just a big heavy mic, especially on a boom. its actually a little less sensitive then the MK4.

I'd love to try out the 8040 and 8050 next to the 641 for a day or two and then decide, but again there are no dealers anywhere near here to do this :( so I figured maybe some test might give me a little bit better idea how these mics compare. in particular the differences between the 8040 and 8050's pickup pattern. the 8050's tighter pickup pattern then the 641 might be preferable for more live environments. without any hands on tests though.... I guess I could shell out for a rental and fedex :(

Steve,

Tried the 8050 and reviewed it. Way more bottom end than anyone needs. I don't think they had booming in mind when they designed it.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ross - Somehow I missed your tests back when you posted it. Nice job. I like that you used the different voices as well. There's no doubt the quality of the Schoeps comes through, but for the money difference, right now I'm loving the AKG SE300B/CK93. Would love to hear the Audix SCX-1. I use Audix mics all around on my drums (D1, D2, D4 and the awesome D6 on kick) and have been extremely happy with them. I also own a pair of OM-5 vocal mics that are great, too.

I listened to all these in the edit suite, then I listened again in the studio - and came to the conclusion that they are all different (and ignoring the C1000, and B6) I'd not be concerned about using any of them - on the right voice. We have a deep 'character' voice with a nice resonance to it, plus a typical female voice to listen to, and while some are tonaly different, small eq tweaks can make them quite similar. I've always worked with a fairly full, and quite random mic box - and just pick a mic I know will complement a voice. No mics in the box will produce unusable sound on the wrong person. For what I do, I have piles of SM57 & SM58s - because they do an average, but rarely poor job, close in.

Large diaphragm mics sound fuller and more intimate close in. Rifle types aren't really hyper-cardioids at all, pick-up wise compared to a non-interference tube hyper-cardioid. Great at a distance, but used too close in don't really sound quite right, to my ears. I really like Beyer M201s - small, heavy and pretty good at off-axis rejection.

I'm never snobby about mic brands, being willing to try anything and let my ears decide.

Unusual 'catches' over the years are Oktava MK-319, just a nice warm sounding mic, great on girls.

I guess the point is that they're all different - and there's probably a voice for each mic in existence.

These tests are valuable because they show the good matches - but the Countryman B6 sounds rubbish doesn't it? Yet it's a really popular mic for what it's designed for. Most of my work revolves around theatres, and I'm constantly trying to find a solution to my cast wrecking Countrymans - which gets expensive - BUT - the sound people love them, because they do the job properly.

Perhaps we should just be widening the search - I bought a single Chinese origin, distributor branded rifle mic - for a jib where I knew it was going to be stamped on. I lost a 416 on the same job a few months before. It did get trashed, but cost was really low. I have bought quite a few more. When I get a free moment, I will set one up side-by side with a 416 and record both to separate left and right tracks - then we will see who can correctly identify one as costing 8 times as much. They will sound different, but what is the test for?

A static test of mics seldom really tells a lot about what they all do.

If you want to add a shotgun mic to the mix, though, add the Rode NTG-3. Not the NT3, but the NTG-3. Wider than a 416, very well shielded, $699.

BTW, although I might use an AKG C1000 on a guitar for PA work, I'd never use it on voice unless it was the last mic in the box.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I knew this would happen... An arguement about the merits of different mics.

My post was based on a boring week last autumn.
I did a "blind test" at work with a bunch of soundies. These are guys who each day, every day spend half their time annoying me and the other half recording sound. I try to spend half my day annoying them because I'm still interesed in sound (which is very rare for a Lighting Cameraman but then I did start in the sound dept.).
Some of them also had the "Audio Technica don't make good shotguns" mentality but since they all put the AT897 above the Sennheiser K6 combo, and most of them even put it above the 416, a lot of opinions were changed that afternoon.
In a side test the Stereo Audio Technica (a mid-side mic, the 4029) was preferred to the Sennheiser MKH418S every time. That result caused a lot of raised eyebrows as well.

The clear winners were the Sennheiser MKH60 and wierd blue Schoeps CMIT5 in the shotgun category and the Schoeps 41 in the hypercardiod test. The At897 also scorea high in the blind test and was constantly above the 416 however.... when the younger soundies could see what the mics were, a lot of them then said that the 416 was better and the AT was "thin".... hmmmm, says more about the younger soundies than the microphones in my opinion. It wasn't until the end of the day (and the start of rehearsals) that I told them the results of the blind test.

When playing with all sorts of mics from the cupboard it became obvious that for mid budget mics the Audio Technica and AKG were the most preferred. The Sennheiser K6 (and an old K3) sytem came next and the Rodes at the bottom. We didn't have an NTG-3 (and still don't) so I don't know if that would be any better.

The mics were run through an SQN4 as the sound director wouldn't let us play with his desk!

Secondly, the AKG "active cable" is an extention cable which goes between the capsule and the pre-amp unit. It's called something like the "H28" and means that you can use the capsule, on its own with a ten foot (or thereabouts) thin cable. So it's a lot easier to hide on sets.

I'd just thought I'd chime in on my thoughts of the Audix SX-1 HC. In short, I love it, but it seems to be extremely sensitive, especially boom mounted, and boom movements. I know I need to look for a better shock mount, and was curious if anyone had a recommendation; it's an extremely small HC mic, compared to the only other HC I own, which is the Rode Nt-3.

Chris,

The Sennheiser 8000 series are a lot more sensitive to motion and handling noise.

Rycote's invision mount is very good and affordable. I think you want the 7.
http://www.rycote.com/products/invision/

Regards,

Ty Ford