DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   All Things Audio (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/)
-   -   you have helped me narrow it down to a shotgun: Sanken CS-1 or mkh416? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/101654-you-have-helped-me-narrow-down-shotgun-sanken-cs-1-mkh416.html)

Lonnie Bell August 19th, 2007 04:51 PM

you have helped me narrow it down to a shotgun: Sanken CS-1 or mkh416?
 
Hi,
It's time to add a shotgun to my arsenal. I have a decent hypercardoid (akg ck93 - and will eventually look at the cmc641 when i can afford it), but am presently looking for that longer reach item - thus a shotgun. Probably will use it mostly outdoors and always on a boom (probably in a blimp) in a variety of conditions or at least when a hyper is not appropriate...

and at the same $700-$800 that puts me at a Sanken CS-1 or a used Senny mkh416...

what would you pros recommend?

thanks,
Lonnie

Mike Peter Reed August 20th, 2007 04:16 AM

The CS-3e has a great reputation and would be my mic of choice if I were buying today. I'd have to do more research on the CS-1 (which I guess is what you're doing) but "blind" I'd go for a 416, and probably a second-hand one at that.

From Microphone Data:
"The CS-1 is a short rifle microphone intended for film and TV but likely to find uses elsewhere too. The microphone is exceptionally short and light while retaining high directivity that is remarkably consistent - greater than 20dB front-to-back ratio across almost the entire frequency response. The CS-1 is small enough to fit onto ENG cameras but can also act as a high-quality boom microphone. The capsule is a Sanken original using a square diaphragm DC biased condenser design which can sustain SPLs as high as 137dB with only 1% distortion."

Ty Ford August 20th, 2007 04:11 PM

cs-3e

Ty Ford

Dan Brockett August 20th, 2007 11:32 PM

I agree...
 
With Ty. Doing a huge mic article/review/test right now and the Sankens are emerging as an early front runner. Although those Schoeps are sweet but double your budget.

Dan

Wayne Brissette August 21st, 2007 04:37 AM

Also look around at the used market. I was able to pick up a nice Neumann KMR-82i that was gently used (OK, not as gently used as I wanted, but it was from a rental house that was going out of business) in this price range, and shotgun mics do show up from time to time on the market.

Wayne

Lonnie Bell August 22nd, 2007 12:33 AM

Alright guys...
If I extend my budget to the price of the CS-3e, that also puts us in the same price bracket as an MKH60.

So which is it MKH60 or CS-3e for an all around exterior location mic with reach?

Mike Peter Reed August 22nd, 2007 01:41 AM

CS-3e in my book

Steven Fokkinga August 22nd, 2007 11:57 AM

I got a used, but pristine 416 for 400. If you buy from a soundguy who knows how to treat his/her equipment, you'll find them in pretty good state for that price.

Steven

Meryem Ersoz August 22nd, 2007 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonnie Bell (Post 732329)
Alright guys...
If I extend my budget to the price of the CS-3e, that also puts us in the same price bracket as an MKH60.

So which is it MKH60 or CS-3e for an all around exterior location mic with reach?

is anyone willing to elaborate on why the CS-3e wins out over the mkh-60? i've been eyeing the mkh-60 but have really not had good luck finding much info about it. lots of folks seems to say "not as good as the mkh416" or "not as good as sanken" but i really can't get a handle on why this is the prevailing wisdom....

dan, when/where will you be posting your findings?

Steve Oakley August 28th, 2007 04:58 PM

I really really really dislike 416's. they are thin and cold sounding. the mkh60 was the replacement for the 416. I got to hear some side by side comparisons and the 416 was the worst sounding one of the bunch. sankens are nice, shoeps better.

Ty Ford August 28th, 2007 07:16 PM

With all due respect, if you think 416s are thin and cold, something is wrong with the particular 416s you have been exposed to .

The 416 has quite a bottom boost. I normally roll it off just to get it out of the way. The MKH 60 OTOH, to me and others, while obviously quieter, sounds very sterile.

More reviews in the Article Archive on my website.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Steve Oakley August 28th, 2007 07:58 PM

I'd have to say about a dozen or more 416's. rentals, personal gear of audio guy, ect. A few months ago a side by side with several other shotguns. In that particular side by side, the 416 was the least pleasing and consistant with other times I've used them. 60 had more bottom in that one, and warmer sounding.

Ty Ford August 28th, 2007 11:12 PM

Um, rentals, that may answer the question. What mixer(s)?

It would be interesting to confer with the guys over on ramps about your reaction.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Lonnie Bell August 29th, 2007 01:32 PM

ramps? what is ramps - another reference site?

googled "ramps" to no avail... what's ramps?

Steve House August 29th, 2007 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonnie Bell (Post 736415)
ramps? what is ramps - another reference site?

googled "ramps" to no avail... what's ramps?

A Usenet newsgroup where a lot of film industry and broadcast sound folks hang out - rec.arts.movies.production.sound

A lot of good info to be found in rec.audio.pro as well.

Greg Bellotte August 29th, 2007 01:40 PM

i'll chime in also, to say your "thin" 416 is either suffering from a damaged element or a 1/2 pair audio cable. the 416 is definately not in the thin category. you'll find it's a staple for most live televised sports events. i have a box of 20 that i use on a regular basis...

Steve House August 29th, 2007 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley (Post 735920)
I really really really dislike 416's. they are thin and cold sounding. the mkh60 was the replacement for the 416. I got to hear some side by side comparisons and the 416 was the worst sounding one of the bunch. sankens are nice, shoeps better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley (Post 736017)
I'd have to say about a dozen or more 416's. rentals, personal gear of audio guy, ect. A few months ago a side by side with several other shotguns. In that particular side by side, the 416 was the least pleasing and consistant with other times I've used them. 60 had more bottom in that one, and warmer sounding.

A thought occurred to me, Steve said his 416s that sounded bad were mainly rentals. I wonder if he might have gotten hold of some T-powered 416-Ts and tried to run 'em on regular phantom power. Don't have a clue what that would do to the mic but I'd wager that if you got anything out at all it would sound pretty awful.

Steve Oakley August 29th, 2007 09:53 PM

nope... fp33 & SD442 mixers btw. also did a sound gig a few years back with a G&L mixer. I think its certainly possible to find one or even two bad mics, but I've been thru enough of them with the same results to not like them nor allow them on any shoot I'm producing.

Ty Ford August 29th, 2007 10:00 PM

Fascinating, given that they are still a staple of the industry even after all these years.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Steve Oakley August 29th, 2007 10:23 PM

well, thats a more intesting thought. they are a staple, but that doesn't mean they are good - at least to me. I think it has more to do with knee jerk purchasing that everyone else has one so should I, the senhieser name, and 416 is a easy model # to remember. When they first came out, maybe it was also better then other models in its price range, but now, I just don't like the sound of them. there are enough other much better sounding mics to pick from.

I think that perhaps the reason there is a preference is just for their thinness - it tends to naturally cut rumble from wind, and upper end ambient hiss which makes vocals pop out more but at the price of warmth and low end. I can get the same effect in post with some hard eq, but not what I would want to commit to in the original recording. I think another factor is that these mics date back far enough that in the not so good old days of video, where the analog tracks where less then great, the thinner mic recorded better on tape.

Ty Ford August 30th, 2007 10:04 AM

Hello Steve,

Apparently we will disagree on this. They are a staple because of their hardiness and the aggressive nature with with they dig dialog out of soup.

If you don't liken 'em, fine, but I have never found them thin. I saw one just yesterday in a radio studio in Santa Rosa. (It also works well as a VO mic.)

We obviously have different definitions of "thin."

Regards,

Ty Ford

Mike Peter Reed August 30th, 2007 12:22 PM

both the 416 T and P48 supposedly can resolve from 40Hz to 20kHz, according to data posted at microphone-data. The P48 is rated as kicking out an additional 5mV/Pa over the T, so a little hotter.

Quote:

is anyone willing to elaborate on why the CS-3e wins out over the mkh-60?
the CS-3e has a very even rejection across frequencies and kicks out 40mV/Pa which means it's pretty hot. all stuff I like, but can't afford to buy (I still get good use out of my ancient 416T which to my ears sounds much better than the indie staple ME66). interestingly the CS-3e is rated as only resolving down to 50Hz which means it is thinner on the low end than the 416 ....

Steve House August 30th, 2007 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Peter Reed (Post 736986)
both the 416 T and P48 supposedly can resolve from 40Hz to 20kHz, according to data posted at microphone-data. The P48 is rated as kicking out an additional 5mV/Pa over the T, so a little hotter.



the CS-3e has a very even rejection across frequencies and kicks out 40mV/Pa which means it's pretty hot. all stuff I like, but can't afford to buy (I still get good use out of my ancient 416T which to my ears sounds much better than the indie staple ME66). interestingly the CS-3e is rated as only resolving down to 50Hz which means it is thinner on the low end than the 416 ....

Not that I'd expect anyone to risk a mic to try it, but what would be the result of plugging a 416-T into a regular P48 mic input?

Brooks Harrington August 30th, 2007 01:06 PM

We have half a dozen 416Ts here, and students are always trying to power with 48 phantom. The result is no sound at all. They claim the mic doesn't work, and I remind them of what I previous said in class 'T-POWERED MIC DOES NOT RUN ON PHANTOM!!" Some of them have been so bold (stupid) as to start banging the mic on a desk to see if it's a loose connection. I then have to go through my speel about how microphones are probably the most reliable piece of equipment in your kit, and will probably outlast every other piece of gear we have.........which they have, and is why we still are using these T-powered mic.

Steve House August 30th, 2007 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooks Harrington (Post 737015)
We have half a dozen 416Ts here, and students are always trying to power with 48 phantom. The result is no sound at all. They claim the mic doesn't work, and I remind them of what I previous said in class 'T-POWERED MIC DOES NOT RUN ON PHANTOM!!" Some of them have been so bold (stupid) as to start banging the mic on a desk to see if it's a loose connection. I then have to go through my speel about how microphones are probably the most reliable piece of equipment in your kit, and will probably outlast every other piece of gear we have.........which they have, and is why we still are using these T-powered mic.


LOL - catch any of them trying to "swordfight" with a pair? I didn't think any sound would result with mismatched power supply type, just trying to think of things that might have led the other Steve's 416s to misbehave so as to give the results he described so at odds with others impressions.

Ty Ford August 30th, 2007 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Peter Reed (Post 736986)
both the 416 T and P48 supposedly can resolve from 40Hz to 20kHz, according to data posted at microphone-data. The P48 is rated as kicking out an additional 5mV/Pa over the T, so a little hotter.



the CS-3e has a very even rejection across frequencies and kicks out 40mV/Pa which means it's pretty hot. all stuff I like, but can't afford to buy (I still get good use out of my ancient 416T which to my ears sounds much better than the indie staple ME66). interestingly the CS-3e is rated as only resolving down to 50Hz which means it is thinner on the low end than the 416 ....

Yes it is, but consider usable lowend. Most of the time, when used outside, I roll off the bottom of my 416 while recording anyway just to scrape off the metropolitan "dunnnh". The CS-3e is more "natural" sounding than the "aggressive" sounding 416. Don't bother with the ME66.

I compered the 416 and CS-3 (before the CS-3e) for one of the trade magazine's I write for when it came out. That review is inthe articles archive of my site. Help yourself.

Regards,

Ty Ford


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:04 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network