Cardioid vs. Hypercardioid? INDOORS at DVinfo.net

Pietro Impagliazzo · May 12th, 2008, 07:15 PM

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.

Mark Viducich · May 12th, 2008, 07:30 PM

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

Pietro Impagliazzo · May 12th, 2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Viducich

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?

Dan Brockett · May 12th, 2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo

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

Pietro Impagliazzo · May 12th, 2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

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.

Jimmy Tuffrey · May 13th, 2008, 01:21 AM

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.

Michael Wisniewski · May 13th, 2008, 01:24 AM

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.

Dan Brockett · May 13th, 2008, 08:06 AM

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..._brockett.html

Dan

Wayne Brissette · May 13th, 2008, 08:11 AM

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

Craig Irving · May 13th, 2008, 08:35 AM

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.

Pietro Impagliazzo · May 13th, 2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

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..._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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Brissette

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?

Laurence Kingston · May 13th, 2008, 10:13 AM

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.

Pietro Impagliazzo · May 13th, 2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Kingston

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.

Wayne Brissette · May 13th, 2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Irving

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

Jimmy Tuffrey · May 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM

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?

May 12th, 2008, 07:15 PM	#1
Pietro Impagliazzo Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rio de Janeiro, BR Posts: 170	Cardioid vs. Hypercardioid? INDOORS 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. __________________ Pietro Impagliazzo flickr.com/photos/impagliazzo

May 13th, 2008, 01:24 AM	#7
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	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. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

May 13th, 2008, 08:11 AM	#9
Wayne Brissette Major Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 383	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 __________________ Mics: KMR 82 i, NTG-1, MKH418S, MKH8040, SR77, QTC1, QTC40, SR30 Recorder: Zaxcom Deva 5.8 & MIX-12. Wireless: TRX900 stereo, Lectro 411

May 12th, 2008, 07:30 PM	#2
Mark Viducich Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pleasant Grove, CA Posts: 86	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

May 13th, 2008, 01:21 AM	#6
Jimmy Tuffrey Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bristol U.K. Posts: 244	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.

May 13th, 2008, 08:06 AM	#8
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	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..._brockett.html Dan

May 13th, 2008, 08:35 AM	#10
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	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.

May 13th, 2008, 10:13 AM	#12
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	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.

May 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM	#15
Jimmy Tuffrey Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bristol U.K. Posts: 244	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?