MKH 8040 vs. 8050
 

Between these two mics, which would one recommend for indoors, with reflective surfaces? On a parallel topic, could a fixed position 8040 properly cover a 2-shot? Thanks.

why not a scheops?

Ty Ford

Which would you recommend for the environment I'm describing? (My only experience with Scheops is the CMIT5, which may not be the best choice in a closed, reflective environment.) Should I stick with a hypercardiod capsule to minimize reflections, or would the cardiod capsule be best for that? Thanks.

Because there are a lot of other microphones that work. I know it's sacrilegiousness to say anything bad about Schoeps (actually I love Schoeps), but the pro audio world doesn't revolve around the brand. There are many acceptable and in some cases better mics than Schoeps. I've only had the 8040 long enough to do some basic testing this weekend, but so far I'm very impressed with it and think both the 8040 and 8050 are suitable as replacements for the Schoeps MK41.

Now as far as the question of which one to use? I went with the 8040 based on discussions with Glen Trew's testing of both of them, and some things Scott Farr has said about the 8050 he purchased. As I stated in an earlier thread, I'm going to see how well the 8040 works for me, if I find the cardioid pattern to wide, then I'm going to go with the 8050.

Wayne

Hello Dan,

The cmc641 is the supercardioid, the cmc64 is the cardioid. I use the cmc641.

What I found interesting about your question is that it was 80xx specific. Since it's a relatively new mic, I was curious as to how it appeared on your radar given the other mics available to do the job.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Although "newness" is no guarantee of superiority, I do happen to have an MKH8050 being held for me to try, and was wondering if I should attempt to get ahold of an MKH8040 as well, for comparison purposes. I'm not aware of any company that's currently offering either of these mics for rental, otherwise that would make choosing (or rejecting) much easier.

An ongoing film project that I'm dealing with involves shooting two, sometimes three actors doing improv. It would be near impossible for a boom operator to anticipate which moves to make. So far, I've put a lav on each actor, with one additional mic to pick up the room. The players don't move laterally too much, covering at most a 10-foot width. I was wondering, especially in the cases where I'm shooting a two-shot, if I would be best off using a single fixed mic with wider coverage, such as a cardioid, or putting a separate fixed hypercardioid over each player. I'm trying to anticipate which arrangement will help the post mix, or which will make it more difficult.

I would appreciate any recommendations regarding the one mic approach, and which specific mic(s) might work out best for that. Or, if the two-mic approach is recommended, which mic(s) might be best for that? (I'm open to any microphone, regardless of manufacturer.) Thank you.

I don't see the benefit in a third mic to pickup the room if both actors are laved and you split track them.

I do see a problem if you try to record two lavs and a room mic to two tracks of a camera.


Regards,

Ty Ford

I put all mics on a separate track. (I've been using the SD744t/442 combination.) I do prefer the overall sound when mixing the overhead with the lavs. I've used a Sennheiser 415T for overhead, backed off far enough to cover a wider area, although I would expect there to be better mic choices for this form of coverage. As we are generally indoors in reflective, hard-walled areas, I'm looking for a mic that would be best suited in that capacity, or a pair of mics (for two-shot situations), that might work out well.

Also, I'm curious as to whether P48 microphones tend to be any less susceptible to RF interference than "T" powered mics. Thanks.

Dan,

Do you then time align the lavs with the overheads in post?

Ty Ford

Make sure you test boom swing speed and handling noise. My experience with the 8050 is that due to a very sensitive LF response, you need a very good suspension mount to prevent handling noise. For some locations the LF response indicates a high pass filter like a Cut 1 may be required.

The foam pop filter that comes with the mic is not effective when the boom is moved quickly. Quick moves ruffle the diaphragm.


Regards,

Ty Ford

I just got in the KTEK mini boom shock mount, which I'll use until the Senn. shock mount comes in. At NAB, I want to look at the Rycote setup and some other windscreens. You're right the foam windscreen isn't wonderful.

The nice thing is I plan on using the 8040 with the Deva, so I can program in the HPF and even do some notch EQ if required on the spot, so I don't have use a HPF like the cut 1.

Wayne

Wayne,

One thing I noticed abut the 8050 is that the frequency response is sort of smiley faced; big bottom, big top.

I can't hear the lift on the top end on voice because the lift happens higher than most voice frequencies. Don't know how that would work with someone who has excessive sibilance.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I love the KTEK stuff...But, I think there is a serious design flaw with the K-SM. It uses a wider, rigid rubber mount that easily transfers the low frequency handling to the mic.

I have the same exact handling noise problem w/ the Schoeps CMT5U and the KTEK mount.

Looks like the thinner K-GPS suspension system would do a better job in NOT transferring the low-freek noise...but, I haven't tried it.

The K-Tek is more expensive than the Sennheiser. I suppose the Sennheiser is still the best match for this microphone? The quality would not be inferior to the K-Tek?

From what I've been told by one person, the Rycote is going to be the shockmount to get with these mics. I want to see them in person, so I'm going to wait until NAB in April before I spend any more money. Although the Rycote mounts are less expensive than either the KTEK or Sennheiser.

Wayne