Schoeps fig 8?

[Nate Najar]

Hi guys,

Does anyone have any experience with the schoeps fig 8 capsule? I'm thinking of trying one for MS capture of solo instruments. I often do xy here with the mk41's but MS will give me more control over the ambience component. I know you can de matrix the xy, fooling around with that is kind of what led me here.

I'd use the mk2 or mk22 most likely and then the fig 8 for the S component. The reason I'm asking is that I don't think I've ever come across someone who has used the schoeps, and I know the senn mkh is sort of a standard here. Is there a reason to get the senn over the schoeps or what are your experiences?

Thanks!

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>Does anyone have any experience with the schoeps fig 8 capsule? I'm thinki=
>ng of trying one for MS capture of solo instruments. I often do xy here wi=
>th the mk41's but MS will give me more control over the ambience component.=

It works well. It is a good match for the MK2 and MK22.

It is really only one of two small diaphragm figure-8 microphones that I know
of which actually work worth a damn. It is very, very hard to make a small
figure-8 and get a good null.

> I know you can de matrix the xy, fooling around with that is kind of what=
> led me here. =20

That works just as well. The only disadvantage is that the center of the
soundfield is off-axis on both mikes so it'll be a little more colored,
but there's no reason not to do it and it works just fine and won't require
buying anything additional.

>I'd use the mk2 or mk22 most likely and then the fig 8 for the S component.=
> The reason I'm asking is that I don't think I've ever come across someone=
> who has used the schoeps, and I know the senn mkh is sort of a standard he=
>re. Is there a reason to get the senn over the schoeps or what are your exp=
>eriences?=20

The Schoeps is more neutral and will better match an MK2 or MK22. The
Sennheiser is quieter. If I were you I wouldn't buy either, but both are
excellent mikes.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/8/2017 5:34 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> I'd use the mk2 or mk22 most likely and then the fig 8 for the S component. The reason I'm asking is that I don't think I've ever come across someone who has used the schoeps, and I know the senn mkh is sort of a standard here.

I can't say which mic would be better, but to follow on to what Scott
said about processing X-Y stereo as M-S and then putting it back
together . . . What you might find when you start with an M-S mic setup
is that you'll end up with a placement a little different than for an
X-Y setup.

Even though mathematically, the two arrangements are equal, due to
differences in polar patterns, you'll hear distance and spaciousness
differently for each setup in a given position. I find that it's easier
to hear when an M-S pair is in the wrong place than with an X-Y pair. If
I'm free to put the mic and source wherever I want within the given
space, I tend to be more fussy with an M-S setup. But if I'm happy with
what I get when I'm recording, I find that I'm less inclined to fool
around with it in post-production.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Richard Kuschel]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-7, Nate Najar wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the schoeps fig 8 capsule? I'm thinking of trying one for MS capture of solo instruments. I often do xy here with the mk41's but MS will give me more control over the ambience component. I know you can de matrix the xy, fooling around with that is kind of what led me here.
>
> I'd use the mk2 or mk22 most likely and then the fig 8 for the S component. The reason I'm asking is that I don't think I've ever come across someone who has used the schoeps, and I know the senn mkh is sort of a standard here. Is there a reason to get the senn over the schoeps or what are your experiences?
>
> Thanks!

I don't know why you would go to that much work for a mono X-Y equivalent. If you are looking for a spacious sound, a pair MK2's would be much more usable. I have a pair of MK2S's that I can use individually or as a stereo pair with a Jecklin disc.

That said, I could see a lot of use for the figure 8 with my cmc6/41's or a set of cardioids or sub cardioids.

[Nate Najar]

I've never been able to get a close miked spaced omni pair to work for me. It's always too spacious. The MS thing is attractive for this application because it's essentially a mono point source with an adjustable spaciousness. That's also why I'm considering it over XY- get the actual sound with the M mic and then add spaciousness to taste with the S component.

What I have been doing in practice is to just use the mk22 (or mk2 if I don't need rejection) in mono and add some spaciousness form an ambience program in the bricasti. It works very well, but, while i have other ambiance programs that suffice, the bricasti one sounds the best by a large margin. But I also want to use a plate and chamber in the bricasti which means now I need to print the ambience program and now we're over complicating things. The bricasti plates and chambers are also the best!

So I can buy another bricasti-that's a whole lot of money- or do a whole lot of extra work, both of which would give me the correct result but a new microphone is less money, more useful in more applications, and will give me a more organic and realistic result, which is the aim.

Like I said, the XY with the mk41 does work, but I have to dematrix it to get the result/adjustability I'm looking for.

[Nate Najar]

Also, thanks guys for the discussion

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 09-11-2017 20:33, Nate Najar wrote:

> I've never been able to get a close miked spaced omni pair to work
> for me. It's always too spacious.

Move them closer to each other if too spacious or exhibit hole in the
middle, move them farther apart if too mono. What is very important is
that they have the same background center (!) image, which is to say
that as all omnis (but 1/8th inch) are not omnis it is vital - in my
experience - to keep the capsules parallel. If you angle the outwards
you get a spit back carpet.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen