Schoeps low-cut filter??? at DVinfo.net

Stephen Pruitt · February 25th, 2007, 08:53 AM

Hi all. . .

I'm about to purchase a third Schoeps CMC6 with an MK41 capsule for boom use, but want to know if you recommend the Schoeps low-cut filter, as well. I'll be running the mic into a very nice Yamaha digital mixer/recorder (where I could also engage EQ) and then into the camera, but want to know if it would be better to purchase the Schoeps filter.

Thanks much!

Stephen

Daniel Epstein · February 25th, 2007, 09:44 AM

I haven't owned a Schoeps for a few years but I remember the Low Cut being very effective. What happens when you use the mic with some other mixer? You should try it before you buy it if possible.

Ty Ford · February 25th, 2007, 06:15 PM

I know people who swear by it. I know those who have tried it and don't care.
I have yet to venture there. I use the high-pass filter on my 442 mixer. Some say that's fine, others still think the cut is better. It's more stuff to hang on the end of the boom.

Regards,

Ty

Steve House · February 26th, 2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Pruitt

Hi all. . .

I'm about to purchase a third Schoeps CMC6 with an MK41 capsule for boom use, but want to know if you recommend the Schoeps low-cut filter, as well. I'll be running the mic into a very nice Yamaha digital mixer/recorder (where I could also engage EQ) and then into the camera, but want to know if it would be better to purchase the Schoeps filter.

Thanks much!

Stephen

If you're capturing sound where the levels are so high that there's a danger of overloading the mic's own electronics, then it would be it would be a good thing to have. Like a parachute it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Marco Leavitt · February 26th, 2007, 03:09 PM

We've just been using the low-cut filter on the MM-1 or the SD302 and it seems to work just fine.

Ralph Keyser · February 27th, 2007, 03:56 PM

The argument for using the Schoeps low-cut is that it removes the low frequency signal before any sort of electronic amplification. Removing it before the preamp gives you a cleaner signal to work with down the line.
In addition, the Scheops filter is pretty steep (18dB/octave?), and some folks find that helpful. Some mixers (I know this is true for the SD442) have their high-pass filters ahead of the pre-amps, so that covers one of the bases. The Scheops filter is fixed at 60Hz. They do have a 120Hz version too, but it has a noticable impact on voices.

Marco Leavitt · February 27th, 2007, 04:01 PM

I do kind of want one, but I'm a little skeptical that the improvement over the mixer's onboard low-cut filter is going to be that noticeable, if at all, let alone to people with untrained ears.

February 25th, 2007, 08:53 AM	#1
Stephen Pruitt Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Overland Park, KS Posts: 228	Schoeps low-cut filter??? Hi all. . . I'm about to purchase a third Schoeps CMC6 with an MK41 capsule for boom use, but want to know if you recommend the Schoeps low-cut filter, as well. I'll be running the mic into a very nice Yamaha digital mixer/recorder (where I could also engage EQ) and then into the camera, but want to know if it would be better to purchase the Schoeps filter. Thanks much! Stephen

February 25th, 2007, 06:15 PM	#3
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	I know people who swear by it. I know those who have tried it and don't care. I have yet to venture there. I use the high-pass filter on my 442 mixer. Some say that's fine, others still think the cut is better. It's more stuff to hang on the end of the boom. Regards, Ty __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

February 25th, 2007, 09:44 AM	#2
Daniel Epstein Trustee Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,267	I haven't owned a Schoeps for a few years but I remember the Low Cut being very effective. What happens when you use the mic with some other mixer? You should try it before you buy it if possible.

February 26th, 2007, 03:09 PM	#5
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	We've just been using the low-cut filter on the MM-1 or the SD302 and it seems to work just fine.

February 27th, 2007, 03:56 PM	#6
Ralph Keyser Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico USA Posts: 287	The argument for using the Schoeps low-cut is that it removes the low frequency signal before any sort of electronic amplification. Removing it before the preamp gives you a cleaner signal to work with down the line. In addition, the Scheops filter is pretty steep (18dB/octave?), and some folks find that helpful. Some mixers (I know this is true for the SD442) have their high-pass filters ahead of the pre-amps, so that covers one of the bases. The Scheops filter is fixed at 60Hz. They do have a 120Hz version too, but it has a noticable impact on voices.

February 27th, 2007, 04:01 PM	#7
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I do kind of want one, but I'm a little skeptical that the improvement over the mixer's onboard low-cut filter is going to be that noticeable, if at all, let alone to people with untrained ears.