Sennheiser 8020... how does it compare to a Schoeps omni?

[joe h]

Hello,

I was wondering what the long-term reputation of the Sennheiser 8020
mic is. I saw a demo on youtube, and I thought it sounded good. The
guy went around the mic and kept talking and it really seemed to
maintain it's sound quality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUSy9VXB7RU

I also saw this demo on youtube with DPA mics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMTqe0L84E

I know Mr. Dorsey believes it's impossible to learn anything about a
mic off of youtube. But these demos point to good sound quality.
Definitely not low-budget sound.

So where does the Sennheiser 8020 rank in the world of omnis?

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/27/2010 11:57 PM, joe h wrote:

> I know Mr. Dorsey believes it's impossible to learn anything about a
> mic off of youtube. But these demos point to good sound quality.
> Definitely not low-budget sound.

I don't think you can tell anything from a YouTube video
about how a mic sounds in its most fundamental (and most
forgiving) operation, that is, on axis. Unless your goal is
to find a mic that you can use to make good sounding YouTube
videos, in which case you could do with a lot less costly
mic than what you're looking at.

What you might be able to tell from such a video is how the
sound of the mic changes off axis. Since this is an omni
mic, if someone walked around the mic while talking, being
careful to maintain the same distance (maybe tethered to the
mic stand with a string?) and always facing the mic, you
might be able to detect changes at different angles. But in
order for this to be valid, you'd need to do it in a room
that's either very dead or very large so reflections into
the mic would be essentially uniform regardless of the angle
of approach, or maybe in open space.

I would think that if you're going to rely on an on-line
video to demo a mic, you might get more useful information
for a directional mic than an omni. But of course the real
test is to actually use the mic for what you want it to do.
You're talking about mics that can be rented without too
much difficulty. I know that any rental money, unless you
have a paying job that you can use it on, will be sunk, but
it's going to cost less than what you'll lose if you decide
on selling the mic after using it and learning that it
doesn't give you what you need.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

joe h > wrote:
>
>I was wondering what the long-term reputation of the Sennheiser 8020
>mic is. I saw a demo on youtube, and I thought it sounded good. The
>guy went around the mic and kept talking and it really seemed to
>maintain it's sound quality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUSy9VXB7RU

It has some good points and some bad points. I didn't like it as much
as the older MKH-20. It is possibly the quietest microphone ever made
as far as perceived noise level goes. It is very good at handling humidity.
The top end is definitely not as clean as the Schoeps and it has some of
the lower midrange oddities of the MKH-20.

I reviewed the cardioid version (and contrasted it to the older cardioid
MKH-40) in the June 2008 issue of Recording magazine. You may want to look
the review up at your library; it goes into a lot of detail comparing it
with the Schoeps.

>I also saw this demo on youtube with DPA mics:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMTqe0L84E

DPA makes some very good mikes. But again, you can't really tell on youtube.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:57:36 -0400, joe h wrote
(in article
>):

> Hello,
>
> I was wondering what the long-term reputation of the Sennheiser 8020
> mic is. I saw a demo on youtube, and I thought it sounded good. The
> guy went around the mic and kept talking and it really seemed to
> maintain it's sound quality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUSy9VXB7RU
>
> I also saw this demo on youtube with DPA mics:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMTqe0L84E
>
> I know Mr. Dorsey believes it's impossible to learn anything about a
> mic off of youtube. But these demos point to good sound quality.
> Definitely not low-budget sound.
>
> So where does the Sennheiser 8020 rank in the world of omnis?

Dunno, but add the Gefell M296 to your omni list. Nickel membrane and a very
open and "real" sound. I have a wav file in my Audio>Mic Comparison folder in
my archive. Stunning is a word I don't use much with mics. I can use it on
the M296.

https://public.me.com/tyreeford

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[joe h]

Thanks everyone,

Thats great insights on the Sennheiser: very quiet but not as clean
on the top end. I'll have to check on the Gefell. I'm thinking if you
wanted three really good mics, you would get an excellent pair of
coincident cardioids and an excellent omni. That's probably the
minimum collection to have. I really like how omnis can be very flat
and not have proximity effect.

I don't use youtube to "decide", by the way. I use it to discover. I
"found" the Sennheiser 8020 on youtube. It's doubtful one would be
able to make reliable first-impression judgements on something like a
414 ii, versus a 414buls on a quick youtube demo. But it's pretty
obvious when you hear someone recording a U47-vf14 compared to someone
using an SE electronics.

I don't have even 1/10th the experience and knowledge that you guys
have. I know the obvious stuff like U47's, 87's, Fairchilds, etc.
Youtube helps me find stuff I've never even heard of before.

[joe h]

The rental thing is a good point. Ironically, when you look into the
more expensive stuff, it can sometimes be easier to find a rental
house for it.

[Scott Dorsey]

joe h > wrote:
>
>Thats great insights on the Sennheiser: very quiet but not as clean
>on the top end. I'll have to check on the Gefell. I'm thinking if you
>wanted three really good mics, you would get an excellent pair of
>coincident cardioids and an excellent omni. That's probably the
>minimum collection to have. I really like how omnis can be very flat
>and not have proximity effect.

If you're looking to do classical work, I would suggest the Schoeps as the
cheapest way to get into the top end, since you can get two mikes with
omni, hypercardioid, and figure-8 capsules which gives you the ability to
deal with a very wide variety of different rooms and configurations.

Gefell, DPA, Josephson, Pearl, and Sennheiser all make some good mikes
for those applications but none are as versatile and have as wide a
variety of possible capsules with one electronics package as the Colettes.
However, you may want to consider them as you expand, or if you are dealing
with the same halls over and over.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[joe h]

that's a great point about the interchangeable capsules. it allows
you to grow over time while still maintaining quality and consistency.

i've never heard of Pearl. i just found their website. i recognize
them by sight, now i know those are the "Pearl" brand. they have
rectangular diaphragms. so do milab. maybe it's a swedish thing. i
heard an awesome recording done with a pair of milabs.

i didn't see Pearl or Milab at BHphotovideo, Atlasprosound or
Mercenary. they are not on the dreamhire rental list either. maybe
the swedish don't market that ambitiously in the u.s. or something.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I've never heard of Pearl. I just found their website. I recognize
> them by sight, now i know those are the "Pearl" brand.

I used to use Pearl rectangular-capsule mics. They had an unusual feature --
/continuously/ variable patterns. This was really handy when making live
recorrdings.

Pearl has been around something like 60 years. I believe the name is a
reference their first mics, which were ceramic piezo.

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/28/2010 5:35 PM, joe h wrote:

> i've never heard of Pearl. i just found their website. i recognize
> them by sight, now i know those are the "Pearl" brand. they have
> rectangular diaphragms. so do milab.

PML (Pearl Microphone Laboratories) was the original
company, and that's where the rectangular capsule was
developed. After about ten years, the company split, with
the son of the original founder keeping the PML name and
facilities, and the original models were sold under the
Milab (Microphone Laboratories) name. The two companies
continued with their own new developments.

In the US, Vintage King distributes Pearl mics.
FDW-Worldwide distributes Milab mics (they also distribute
the Eastern European Violet .

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:35:45 -0400, joe h wrote
(in article
>):

> that's a great point about the interchangeable capsules. it allows
> you to grow over time while still maintaining quality and consistency.
>
> i've never heard of Pearl. i just found their website. i recognize
> them by sight, now i know those are the "Pearl" brand. they have
> rectangular diaphragms. so do milab. maybe it's a swedish thing. i
> heard an awesome recording done with a pair of milabs.
>
> i didn't see Pearl or Milab at BHphotovideo, Atlasprosound or
> Mercenary. they are not on the dreamhire rental list either. maybe
> the swedish don't market that ambitiously in the u.s. or something.

I only had one Pearl to review over the years, the cc22.

From my online mic review archives...


The Pearl CC 22

A Remarkable Cardioid Condenser Mic

Ty Ford
Baltimore, MD

The CC 22 dual membrane, cardioid condenser microphone, from Pearl
Microphone Laboratory in Astorp, Sweden (http://www.pearl.se), is a
remarkable
device for a number of reasons. First, like several of the Sanken shotgun
mics, it
uses rectangular capsules instead of the round ones we've all become used to.

This is the same capsule used in the Pearl TL 4,TL 44, DS 60 and CC 30 studio

microphones. The capacitance of each side is 90 pF at 80 volts polarization
voltage.
The CC 22 has no pad or roll-off. List price is $1,228 which includes the mic
in a
study, foam-lined aluminum casket. in a box. The 1927 shockmount ($85.00) is
optional. Independent Audio, who market the Pearl , note that the CC 22 will
fit in
a standard Shure mic clip.

When you peer through the single layer of metallic head grille, you can
plainly
see the gold colored rectangular plates, each with a system of holes in it.
According to Pearl's Bernt Malmqvist, the perforated plates are gold-plated
brass
and are used to hold the two aluminum vaporized membranes. The membranes
are glued to the plates. The plates are attached to the capsule body by
screws in the
corners. Malmqvist also noted that the plates do act as a mechanical filter
in a
minor way.

The third remarkable feature is the very sexy red LED within the capsule that

glows to indicate the presence of phantom power. No one walked into the
studio
without noticing and commenting on the glowing LED. The shape and size of the

CS 22 also deserve remark. The cylindrical body is 6.5 inches long and 1.25
inches
in diameter. A size that makes it easy to get into places that a large
diaphragm
condenser just won't fit.

Some people have questioned the fact that I usually use my voice as the
primary
test source on microphones. I frequently do use other sources, bit there's a
compelling reason that I use my own voice as a test instrument. In my other
life,
I'm a member of both AFTRA and SAG, and have been doing voice work for
commercials, narrations and multimedia projects for twenty-five years. I shy
away from generalizations that a mic may be good for one instrument and not
good for another because of the extremely wide variations in performance that

result from mic condition, placement, preamp coloration and monitor response.

The truth is, there are no absolutes in this area. As interested as I was in
Allen
Side's Mic cabinet CD a few years ago, it's obvious that moving a mic a half
an
inch can make a huge difference in the sound. Maybe with DVD, Allen can
reissue the guide with further excursions.

We first benchmarked the CC 22 against an older Neumann U 87 (not the newer U

87 ai) at Flite Three in Baltimore using API preamps and Urei monitors. With
engineers Mills and Patey at the control we found the level of self noise of
both
mics to be about the same in level. The noise is broader in the CC 22, with
more
low frequency content. The noise of the U 87 had more high frequencies. The
CC
22 was several dB hotter (more sensitive) than the U 87 and had more
proximity
effect. In fact, the bass response began to rise at a distance of two feet.
At 8" the U
87 was broader sounding. At a distance of eight inches, the mics sound
incredibly
similar, with the U 87 slightly smoother and slightly crisper. At 4" the
Pearl is
peakier, even though it has more bottom due to proximity. The cardioid
patterns of
the two mics were basically the same side to side with audible effects past
forty
degrees off center. The U 87 had wider vertical angle. The Pearl 1927 rubber
ring
suspension mount was no match for the Neumann suspension mount. It also
doesn't cost anywhere near as much.

Back at my studio with GML mic preamps against an old but Neumann-
refurbished U 89 and a Gefell UM 70. The CC 22 had about 2dB greater
sensitivity
than the U 89. After adjusting the gain stages for equal loudness, the CC 22
produced about a dB more self noise than the U 89. Whereas the U 89 had more
chest, the CC 22 had more cut in the presence range.

I found the proximity of the CC 22 to be too great to use in close micing my
Martin
D28S. My usual starting point of 12-14 inches out from the soundhole and
angling
the capsule at about 35 degrees resulted in way too much low end. It made the

D28S sound more like the more bottom heavy D28. It took a distance of 16-18
inches
before the guitar began to sound balanced. I got the best sound by micing at
that
distance, but aimed at the shoulders of the guitar, above the soundhole. The
self
noise of the CC 22 was similar in level to the Gefell UM 70, but of different
spectra.
The sensitivity of the CC 22 was about 2dB lower than the UM 70. The Pearl
was a
bit darker sounding with the UM 70 was a bit brighter with somewhat of an
edge.

IN CONCLUSION
The Pearl CC 22 has been out for about two years and has a lot going for it.
Good
sound and a size that will let you get it fit into tighter places than larger

microphones. If it has a weak spot, it's that it's self noise figures are
above that of
some of the more recent FET and tube mics on the market. In a very quiet
studio
with a low level source (like finger-picked guitar) into a recording system
with no
analog tape hiss, you may hear the noise if you have the monitors cranked up.

Pearl also makes a one channel, battery-powered phantom supply (BA48M/$310)
and a two channel supply (BA48S/$328.00) and a two channel AC-powered supply
(PS248/$356.00). The current capacity of the power supplys is about 2.8 mA.

Applications: project and pro studio recording
Pluses: Sounds like the big-time mics
Minuses: slightly noisy, only one pattern, no roll-off or pad.

http://www.tyford.com

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Doc]

On Oct 27, 11:57*pm, joe h > wrote:

> I know Mr. Dorsey believes it's impossible to learn anything about a
> mic off of youtube. *But these demos point to good sound quality.
> Definitely not low-budget sound.


Youtube's compression absolutely alters the sound. The best way to see
for yourself how much of a difference it makes is to take a recording
you've made of something that has a variety of frequencies in
evidence, upload it and see how it compares to your original.

One thing that's very obvious is that it takes much of the sheen off a
recording. It may sound decent referenced to itself, a casual listener
might think it sounds great, but it won't sound like what you
uploaded.

So I would say if you really want to make a critical evaluation of a
mic compared to others, Youtube isn't going to be really useful,
you're just not going to hear the whole sound of the mic. For example
it will almost surely mask high-end brightness and give a misleading
notion of the character of a mic.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:32:25 -0400, Doc wrote
(in article
>):

> On Oct 27, 11:57*pm, joe h > wrote:
>
>> I know Mr. Dorsey believes it's impossible to learn anything about a
>> mic off of youtube. *But these demos point to good sound quality.
>> Definitely not low-budget sound.
>
>
> Youtube's compression absolutely alters the sound. The best way to see
> for yourself how much of a difference it makes is to take a recording
> you've made of something that has a variety of frequencies in
> evidence, upload it and see how it compares to your original.
>
> One thing that's very obvious is that it takes much of the sheen off a
> recording. It may sound decent referenced to itself, a casual listener
> might think it sounds great, but it won't sound like what you
> uploaded.
>
> So I would say if you really want to make a critical evaluation of a
> mic compared to others, Youtube isn't going to be really useful,
> you're just not going to hear the whole sound of the mic. For example
> it will almost surely mask high-end brightness and give a misleading
> notion of the character of a mic.

But even with compression, you can tell something about patterns and gross
frequency response.

http://gallery.me.com/tyreeford#100038

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Doc]

On Oct 27, 11:57*pm, joe h > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering what the long-term reputation of the Sennheiser 8020
> mic is. *I saw a demo on youtube, and I thought it sounded good. * The
> guy went around the mic and kept talking and it really seemed to
> maintain it's sound quality.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUSy9VXB7RU


Well, if that guy would shut up while he's doing the demo. I do hear
some differences, maybe due to varying reflections from elsewhere in
the room, but the sound is NOT consistent.


> I also saw this demo on youtube with DPA
> mics:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMTqe0L84E


Typical burbliness, distortion and loss of high freq sheen due to
Youtube flv conversion. I'd say it hints at decent quality but isn't a
full demonstration of it.