KM120 vs MK8 for mid/side?

[Emanuel Zorg]

I'm trying to decide between Neumann KM120
and Schoeps MK8 as a figure 8 for mid/side
recording of music and dialog. My impression
is that Schoeps is somewhat better quality at
a somewhat higher price. Is that the typical
view?

One problem I've noticed is the lack of
websites selling just the Neumann capsules.
I would like to have the flexibility to
add capsules later without purchasing more
bodies.

In fact, it's surprising to me that Neumann
offers this "modular" line without a lot of
apparent outlets for components.

Am I missing something? Do most people just
buy entire packages so they have a one-to-one
relationship between capsules and bodies?
Or are most outlets not online?

[Scott Dorsey]

Emanuel Zorg > wrote:
>I'm trying to decide between Neumann KM120
>and Schoeps MK8 as a figure 8 for mid/side
>recording of music and dialog. My impression
>is that Schoeps is somewhat better quality at
>a somewhat higher price. Is that the typical
>view?

The MK8 is the only small diaphragm figure eight mike I have ever used
which actually works right.

The KM120 just doesn't sound right at all on the lower midrange.

It's true that I have not used the Sennheiser MKH series figure-8 though.

>One problem I've noticed is the lack of
>websites selling just the Neumann capsules.
>I would like to have the flexibility to
>add capsules later without purchasing more
>bodies.

So, call them on the phone and ask them. The KM100 system isn't bad it
is it very handy to have around, even if the KM120 doesn't live up to the
rest of the line.

>In fact, it's surprising to me that Neumann
>offers this "modular" line without a lot of
>apparent outlets for components.
>
>Am I missing something? Do most people just
>buy entire packages so they have a one-to-one
>relationship between capsules and bodies?
>Or are most outlets not online?

Why would ANYONE buy any of this stuff online? You can't audition it. I
would never spend this kind of money without doing some extensive auditioning.

Incidentally, check out the Beyer M130. It's not a condenser, but it's
flatter than most small figure-8 condensers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Emanuel Zorg]

Thanks for the info!

I have heard, and really like, the Sennheiser MKH-30,
but am attracted to the interchangeable capsules.

Calling on the phone seems so old-fashioned. Last
week I talked to a store employee on the phone and
was told three different contradictory things! It
seems harder for them to weasel out if they have
it on their website, so I've gotten in the habit
of dealing with people who make a commitment to
some product / price / policy / whatever on their
website.

One attraction of the KM120 is that it is offered
by B&H, so I know I can return it if I don't like
it. But I'd rather start with the one I have the
most confidence in to minimize the chance of having
to return. You have just increased my confidence
in the MK8!

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...


> The MK8 is the only small diaphragm figure eight mike I have ever used
> which actually works right.
>
> The KM120 just doesn't sound right at all on the lower midrange.
>
> It's true that I have not used the Sennheiser MKH series figure-8 though.


> So, call them on the phone and ask them. The KM100 system isn't bad it
> is it very handy to have around, even if the KM120 doesn't live up to the
> rest of the line.


> Why would ANYONE buy any of this stuff online? You can't audition it. I
> would never spend this kind of money without doing some extensive auditioning.
>
> Incidentally, check out the Beyer M130. It's not a condenser, but it's
> flatter than most small figure-8 condensers.
> --scott

[ScotFraser]

<< One problem I've noticed is the lack of
websites selling just the Neumann capsules.
I would like to have the flexibility to
add capsules later without purchasing more
bodies.
>>

The capsules for the KM100 series are about 2/3rds the price of the entire mic,
so it's not quite as economically sensible to think in terms of buying a bunch
of caps for a KM100 body as it is with the Schoeps Collette series.


Scott Fraser

[David Satz]

Emanuel Zorg wrote:

> I have heard, and really like, the Sennheiser MKH-30,
> but am attracted to the interchangeable capsules.

The Sennheiser MKH 30 has more extended low-frequency response than the
Schoeps CMC 58 or 68, but the Schoeps is slightly quieter and its low-
frequency rolloff has a classic single-pole (6 dB/octave) slope which
makes it amenable to simple equalization. In fact the Sennheiser has
exactly that type of equalization built into its amplifier circuitry.

The thing is, a figure 8 with flat low-frequency response doesn't quite
do what you might expect. A bidirectional microphone with flat response
down to any given frequency still won't pick up as much low-frequency
sound energy as a pressure (omni) microphone with flat response down to
that same frequency. The difference in effect can be quite substantial.

But otherwise, both the Sennheiser and Schoeps microphones have flat
response up to fairly high frequencies, which you definitely want for M/S
recording. The Neumann KM 120 has something of a plateau in its upper
midrange response which I would not choose for M/S purposes. Both of
these manufacturers (I had originally written "all three" until I thought
about it ...) publish honest response curves overall, though of course
they're smoothed considerably for publication.


> One attraction of the KM120 is that it is offered by B&H, so I know I
> can return it if I don't like it. But I'd rather start with the one
> I have the most confidence in to minimize the chance of having to
> return. You have just increased my confidence in the MK8!

If you establish a relationship of trust with any pro audio dealer, you
should be able to at least discuss the possibility of borrowing a pair
of microphones to try out (at your own risk). Assuming that you're in
the U.S. or in Germany, Schoeps definitely keeps around a certain number
of microphones for customers to borrow and try; the option of letting a
customer do that is up to the dealer/distributor's discretion, of course.

[Garthrr]

In article >,
(David Satz) writes:

>A bidirectional microphone with flat response
>down to any given frequency still won't pick up as much low-frequency
>sound energy as a pressure (omni) microphone with flat response down to
>that same frequency. The difference in effect can be quite substantial.

This statement perplexes me. I'm sure it's my lack of understanding but this
seems to be self contradictory. Isn't the "response" simply a measure of how
much of any given frequency the mic picks up? And therefore two mics which pick
up different amounts of any particular frequency would necessarily have to have
different responses, right? David, can you clarify this for us? (maybe just for
me...)

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[David Satz]

Garthrr wrote:

> Isn't the "response" simply a measure of how much of any given
> frequency the mic picks up? And therefore two mics which pick
> up different amounts of any particular frequency would necessarily
> have to have different responses, right?

I'm not the best person to explain this, I'm afraid, due to my
lack of having studied acoustics formally. I'll do the best I can
given the way I understand it, and then maybe someone here who
actually has the proper background can try to clean up what I'm
saying. (Mercy, please.)

First of all, as far as I know, the premise of your question was
entirely valid; there's no hidden contradiction there that I know of.
So, good on you for asking.

This comes down to the fact that any room which is shaped as some
kind of rectangular solid will have resonances along three different
axes (height, width and depth). At low frequencies, standing waves
will tend to form along all three of those axes, creating points of
differing sound pressure at various spots throughout the room.
They're complex and not constant, but they are strong. Thus they
have a lot to do with our perception of how much low frequency energy
is present in a recording or a live experience--as they should,
because they're entirely real.

A pressure microphone which is anywhere near those spots will pick
them up regardless of which room axis the standing wave is occurring
on. But a pressure gradient microphone will only pick up the ones
formed by standing waves that occur along the microphone's axis of
sensitivity.

Thus even if you equalize a figure-8 to be dead flat down to 20 Hz,
in a rectangular-shaped room it will ignore (on average) about 2/3
of the "Eigenton" (standing wave) energy at its location, whereas
a true omni would pick up basically all of it.

Of course there are pressure "troughs" as well as "peaks" due to
standing waves, and a figure-8 should be insensitive to those 2/3 of
the time, too. That's gotta imply something--but I don't know what.
All I know is that back in the 1970s I experimented with a bass boost
that exactly matched the low-frequency rolloff of my then brand-new
Schoeps MK 8s, and while the effect could definitely be heard, it
was still nothing like the low-frequency response of a pressure
transducer (single-diaphragm omni) that had flat low-frequency
response within the same low-frequency range.

Of course, typically one places a pair of figure-8s together for
stereo while one spaces a pair of omnis apart, where you get
interchannel low-frequency difference information, so that has a
big effect, too.

[Karl Winkler]

(David Satz) wrote in message >...
> Garthrr wrote:
>
> > Isn't the "response" simply a measure of how much of any given
> > frequency the mic picks up? And therefore two mics which pick
> > up different amounts of any particular frequency would necessarily
> > have to have different responses, right?
>
> I'm not the best person to explain this, I'm afraid, due to my
> lack of having studied acoustics formally. I'll do the best I can
> given the way I understand it, and then maybe someone here who
> actually has the proper background can try to clean up what I'm
> saying. (Mercy, please.)
>
> First of all, as far as I know, the premise of your question was
> entirely valid; there's no hidden contradiction there that I know of.
> So, good on you for asking.
>
> This comes down to the fact that any room which is shaped as some
> kind of rectangular solid will have resonances along three different
> axes (height, width and depth). At low frequencies, standing waves
> will tend to form along all three of those axes, creating points of
> differing sound pressure at various spots throughout the room.
> They're complex and not constant, but they are strong. Thus they
> have a lot to do with our perception of how much low frequency energy
> is present in a recording or a live experience--as they should,
> because they're entirely real.
>
> A pressure microphone which is anywhere near those spots will pick
> them up regardless of which room axis the standing wave is occurring
> on. But a pressure gradient microphone will only pick up the ones
> formed by standing waves that occur along the microphone's axis of
> sensitivity.
>
> Thus even if you equalize a figure-8 to be dead flat down to 20 Hz,
> in a rectangular-shaped room it will ignore (on average) about 2/3
> of the "Eigenton" (standing wave) energy at its location, whereas
> a true omni would pick up basically all of it.
>
> Of course there are pressure "troughs" as well as "peaks" due to
> standing waves, and a figure-8 should be insensitive to those 2/3 of
> the time, too. That's gotta imply something--but I don't know what.
> All I know is that back in the 1970s I experimented with a bass boost
> that exactly matched the low-frequency rolloff of my then brand-new
> Schoeps MK 8s, and while the effect could definitely be heard, it
> was still nothing like the low-frequency response of a pressure
> transducer (single-diaphragm omni) that had flat low-frequency
> response within the same low-frequency range.
>
> Of course, typically one places a pair of figure-8s together for
> stereo while one spaces a pair of omnis apart, where you get
> interchannel low-frequency difference information, so that has a
> big effect, too.

David,

Interesting! I haven't formally studied acoustics either, so I can't
refute what you are saying. There's another factor, though, of which
I'm aware. All directional mics, including figure 8 types, exhibit
proximity effect. As a result, the frequency response measurements of
directional mics are very dependant on distance. Usually, they are
measured in the free field at 1 meter, and thus at greater distances,
the bass falls off. Room reinforcement (reflections) make up for this
somewhat, but as you point out, not enough to compensate for the loss.
Thus, generally, if you want deep LF information, omnis are the only
way to go.

A neat trick, by the way, is to set up MS with an omni for the M
channel and the usual figure-8 for the S channel. Best of both worlds.
That is, unless you consider MS to be "maybe stereo" as some people
do.

Regards,

Karl Winkler
Sennheiser
http://www.sennheiserusa.com

[David Satz]

Karl Winkler wrote:

> All directional mics, including figure 8 types, exhibit proximity
> effect. As a result, the frequency response measurements of
> directional mics are very dependant on distance. Usually, they are
> measured in the free field at 1 meter, and thus at greater distances,
> the bass falls off. Room reinforcement (reflections) make up for this
> somewhat, but as you point out, not enough to compensate for the loss.

Hi, Karl. We're in total agreement about the influence of measuring
distance. At only one meter, proximity effect would still be noticeable
particularly for figure-8 microphones.

However, I think we each ought to check with our respective technical
backup. It's my impression that the curves published for microphone
response are supposed to represent "plane wave" conditions, which would
approximate a theoretically infinite distance from the sound source.
Proximity effect should then raise the low (and low-mid) response above
that which is obtained by this method.

Low-frequency response does keep decreasing with increasing distance,
but the published curve should represent the "asymptote" which is being
approached as distance continues to increase. Thus there should be no
possible miking distance at which the low-frequency response of the
microphone is less strong than that indicated by the published curve.

Does this way of stating things make sense to you? I believe that it's
correct. If either of us finds that it isn't, let's please agree to
meet here and clarify further.


> Thus, generally, if you want deep LF information, omnis are the only
> way to go.

In practice, if you want not only the low-frequency range but also the
gut-level _feel_ of full low-frequency response, this tends to be true.

It is also possible to use directional microphones for the main pickup
while crossing over to a spaced pair of pressure transducers for the
lowest octave or two.

--best regards

[David Satz]

Karl Winkler wrote:

> All directional mics, including figure 8 types, exhibit proximity
> effect. As a result, the frequency response measurements of
> directional mics are very dependant on distance. Usually, they are
> measured in the free field at 1 meter, and thus at greater distances,
> the bass falls off. Room reinforcement (reflections) make up for this
> somewhat, but as you point out, not enough to compensate for the loss.

Hi, Karl. We're in total agreement about the influence of measuring
distance. At only one meter, proximity effect would still be noticeable
particularly for figure-8 microphones.

However, I think we each ought to check with our respective technical
backup. It's my impression that the curves published for microphone
response are supposed to represent "plane wave" conditions, which would
approximate a theoretically infinite distance from the sound source.
Proximity effect should then raise the low (and low-mid) response above
that which is obtained by this method.

Low-frequency response does keep decreasing with increasing distance,
but the published curve should represent the "asymptote" which is being
approached as distance continues to increase. Thus there should be no
possible miking distance at which the low-frequency response of the
microphone is less strong than that indicated by the published curve.

Does this way of stating things make sense to you? I believe that it's
correct. If either of us finds that it isn't, let's please agree to
meet here and clarify further.


> Thus, generally, if you want deep LF information, omnis are the only
> way to go.

In practice, if you want not only the low-frequency range but also the
gut-level _feel_ of full low-frequency response, this tends to be true.

It is also possible to use directional microphones for the main pickup
while crossing over to a spaced pair of pressure transducers for the
lowest octave or two.

--best regards

[Karl Winkler]

(David Satz) wrote in message >...
> Karl Winkler wrote:
>
> > All directional mics, including figure 8 types, exhibit proximity
> > effect. As a result, the frequency response measurements of
> > directional mics are very dependant on distance. Usually, they are
> > measured in the free field at 1 meter, and thus at greater distances,
> > the bass falls off. Room reinforcement (reflections) make up for this
> > somewhat, but as you point out, not enough to compensate for the loss.
>
> Hi, Karl. We're in total agreement about the influence of measuring
> distance. At only one meter, proximity effect would still be noticeable
> particularly for figure-8 microphones.
>
> However, I think we each ought to check with our respective technical
> backup. It's my impression that the curves published for microphone
> response are supposed to represent "plane wave" conditions, which would
> approximate a theoretically infinite distance from the sound source.
> Proximity effect should then raise the low (and low-mid) response above
> that which is obtained by this method.
>
> Low-frequency response does keep decreasing with increasing distance,
> but the published curve should represent the "asymptote" which is being
> approached as distance continues to increase. Thus there should be no
> possible miking distance at which the low-frequency response of the
> microphone is less strong than that indicated by the published curve.

Interesting... you've given me reason to brush up again on my
understanding of proximity effect and the published specs for
microphones. Here's one thing, though: I think that in actual practice
the response on the low end does indeed fall off. It's most noticable
with content containing really low bass (I suppose this is an obvious
statement) such as big bass drum, upright bass, etc. And I think part
of the reason is that at a distance of 1M, the microphone is NOT in
the planar wave output area of this sound source. Such a planar wave
area would be much further from the source.

>
> Does this way of stating things make sense to you? I believe that it's
> correct. If either of us finds that it isn't, let's please agree to
> meet here and clarify further.

For the most part, yes. I just wonder how much theory differs from
actual practice and how much the measured spec depends on the "planar
wave front"
>
>
> > Thus, generally, if you want deep LF information, omnis are the only
> > way to go.
>
> In practice, if you want not only the low-frequency range but also the
> gut-level _feel_ of full low-frequency response, this tends to be true.
>
> It is also possible to use directional microphones for the main pickup
> while crossing over to a spaced pair of pressure transducers for the
> lowest octave or two.
>
Yes, I agree. There are various ways to do it, and I've seen several,
including the MS with omni I mention, and just about every other type
of array. It's also one of the reasons I think the DECCA tree method
is still popular. Omnis happen to sound good on orchestras!

-Karl

[David Satz]

Karl Winkler wrote:

> Here's one thing, though: I think that in actual practice
> the response on the low end does indeed fall off. It's most noticable
> with content containing really low bass (I suppose this is an obvious
> statement) such as big bass drum, upright bass, etc. And I think part
> of the reason is that at a distance of 1M, the microphone is NOT in
> the planar wave output area of this sound source. Such a planar wave
> area would be much further from the source.

Yes, that's right. If you read German, maybe have a look at the article
by Dr. Bore' in the Neumann Infopool under the filename "lect0031.pdf".

According to Dr. Bore', proximity effect isn't the only phenomenon that
causes a boost in low-frequency response when you measure a pressure
gradient microphone in an anechoic chamber. There's also a kind of
bending of wavefronts which occurs along the boundaries of the room.
This reduces the rate at which the waves gradually flatten out as they
propagate. Thus at any given measurement distance, they're "curvier"
than they would be at the same distance in a true free-field setting.
And that in turn boosts the pressure gradient--just as proximity effect
does. So it becomes yet another bothersome factor to determine and
correct for.

But few microphone manufacturers really seem to do that in practice.
This creates an unfair advantage for less honest manufacturers, and
for manufacturers outside of Germany (to whom DIN 45 591 would not
have applied). They could show artificially extended low-frequency
response curves for their cardioid and other directional microphones.
The article shows three different response curves for the same
microphone--I'm guessing a KM 84--obtained in three different ways;
they differ by 12 dB at 40 Hz! Similarly, two remarkably different
polar response diagrams are shown for the same small cardioid.

The article charitably suggests that some non-standard ways of
displaying a directional microphone's low-frequency response may in
fact give a closer approximation of the microphones' response in
actual use, since general studio practice over the decades has
tended toward closer and closer miking.

Then the article proposes an approach that perhaps is what Neumann has
decided to use: finding the distances for each of a set of spot (low)
frequencies at which a given anechoic chamber behaves similarly to a
free-field setup at a 1-meter measurement distance.

So the "1-meter measurement distance" would not represent a 1-meter
distance in the anechoic chamber, but whatever distance (which would be
quite different at different frequencies--see the table in the center
column of page 4 of the article) would give the same results as a 1-meter
distance would give under free-field conditions. It's a little tricky.

Still, there would definitely be proximity effect in the result, and
quite a bit more so for figure-8 microphones than for cardioids. This
means that you were right, if this is the procedure Neumann is following;
and I'm still trying to find out exactly what procedure Schoeps follows.

--best regards

[Emanuel Zorg]

Thanks very much!

I really appreciate the commentary by Karl, David,
and Garthrr on this thread, as well as by Scott K.
and Scott D. on the original thread!

You haven't just helped me decide on a microphone,
but have also educated me a little bit about your
thinking and the issues!

Clearly, I will purchase the Schoeps MK8 due to
two reasons: no one says the KM120 sounds
as good as or better, and because it's more
practical to buy multiple Schoeps capsules since
capsule cost is a smaller fraction of
the total microphone cost. Also, I see the
value of using an omni in my M/S arrangement to
better model the lower frequencies, so I'm looking
ahead at getting an omni later. I'm also planning
to think more carefully about mic placement than I
have in the past!

Although it would be nice to audition, I will
probably just purchase the MK8 from a dealer
who'll let me return it if I'm dissatisfied. It's
difficult to audition due to my distance from
dealers and the commentary suggests that it is
highly unlikely that I would select the KM120.

[David Satz]

I wrote (referring to an article on the measurement of low-frequency
performance of pressure gradient microphones by Dr. Bore' from Neumann):

> Then the article proposes an approach that perhaps is what Neumann has
> decided to use: finding the distances for each of a set of spot (low)
> frequencies at which a given anechoic chamber behaves similarly to a
> free-field setup at a 1-meter measurement distance.
>
> So the "1-meter measurement distance" would not represent a 1-meter
> distance in the anechoic chamber, but whatever distance (which would be
> quite different at different frequencies--see the table in the center
> column of page 4 of the article) would give the same results as a 1-meter
> distance would give under free-field conditions. It's a little tricky.
>
> Still, there would definitely be proximity effect in the result, and
> quite a bit more so for figure-8 microphones than for cardioids. This
> means that you were right, if this is the procedure Neumann is following;
> and I'm still trying to find out exactly what procedure Schoeps follows.

The long delayed follow-up: As far as I can determine without being at
Schoeps to watch the procedure myself (assuming that they'd even let me--
last time I was at the factory, there was a large guard dog patrolling
the hallway in the part of the building where the capsules are assembled
and tested), Schoeps follows the same or a very similar procedure to
Neumann in this regard. The curves shown in the product literature
should essentially correspond to the conditions at a 1-meter distance.

When people discuss dual-membrane, large-diaphragm microphones they often
comment on whether or not the microphone "seems to have much proximity
effect." With Schoeps microphones, all of which use single-membrane,
small-diaphragm capsules, it's quite simple: the omnis have no proximity
effect at all, the figure-8s have the most, and the cardioids are right
in between. The "wide cardioids" are somewhere between omni and cardioid,
while the supercardioids are somewhere between cardioid and figure-8.

Also, a correction: The self-noise level of the Sennheiser MKH series
figure-8 microphone is _not_ higher than that of the Schoeps, contrary to
what I posted earlier in this thread. (And no, Karl Winkler didn't ask
me to say that, though he'd have had every right to.)

Lastly, a query: This thread started with a question about the Neumann
KM 120 figure-8 versus the Schoeps MK 8. Has anyone here ever actually
used the Neumann KM 120? Specifically, has anyone used it as the main
forward-facing microphone, rather than as the "S" of an M/S pair? I just
wonder how it sounds; no one here said anything about that.