On the Brink of Mic Decision
 

I know this is fine tuning already fine tuned discussions elsewhere, but I'm still double checking my microphone inventory before possibly getting one last major addition.

I have, as primary mics:

Senn ME 64/66
Oktava capsules
Rode NT4

(plus AT 866)

As you can see (or hear), these are three distinct mics. I'm mainly concerned with upgrading the Senn ME66, and I have plenty of reasons to get the 4073a, but the siren call of the Sanken CS-1 seems more "logical" as a strong accessory. Would then the CS-1 be the most robust choice in rounding out the above list? I say that because I fear that if I settle for the first rate 4073a, I might still always covet the Sanken, so why not skip a step? How would the CS-1 complement the Oktava caps in usage?

For my purposes I'm looking for a mic that can excel indoors (Sanken) and hold its own outdoors (again Sanken). I've heard various opinions about the Sanken's "thin" sound compared to the 4073a's apparently more mellow lilt, and I do prefer warmer mics in general, but the Sanken CS-1 nonetheless sounds the most versatile and perhaps kickass of 'em all. For this I can see justifying the added $$$ over the 4073a, and I'm wondering if said experts here think it's the swellest way of rounding out the above collection of mics.

Sanken's is not really a thin sound. the perceived difference in bass is really due to the remarkable off axis rejection of the low frequencies. Most mics become an omni at low frequencies, not the CS-1

I say if you can afford the Sanken... get it.

IMO the Sanken and 4073a aren't really all that comparable... the 4073a is an outdoor mic that will sometimes work well indoors and the Sanken is an indoor mic that will sometimes work well outdoors.

If you find yourself in a lot of situations... indoors or out... where it's no problem getting the mic to within 3' or so of the speaker... either by booming, or simply having close shots... then the Sanken should be the hands down winner.

You may occasionally find yourself wanting/needing a longer reach when you're trying to get audio that's a ways away... and in those times the 4073a would be better, but in my experience it's FAR easier getting the sound you want by AVOIDING the sound you don't want.

THAT is the Sanken CS1's merit. You are basically GUARANTEED perfect sound indoors... regardless of how live the room is... and if you just make a little effort to close the mouth to mic distance outdoors... then you'll be happy there too.

I've ALWAYS wanted a CS1... and I still do... in spite of having a few mics that cost even more. The CS1 would just be a great tool to have... and it's a mic you wouldn't have to experiment with too much in a given situation. Just point it and get good sound.

I was hoping I'd hear from you guys. :)

Yes, I'm virtually convinced that the Sanken CS-1 would be the most distinctive new addition to my collection, and the only delay if any is figuring out the financial equation, since there are always other neat things in digital video to have on my wish list. I recently got a DVD duplicator which actually cost more than a Sanken CS-1, but its use is very much practical and ongoing, so I'm pleased with that decision. I think the Sanken would make my audio setup pretty much set but for the indulgence someday of getting one of those supremo ultimo mics discussed here; for the most part those kind I don't exactly need right now, given their cost. The Sanken seems like the best of the upper leagues at a relatively bargain price. I never thought of those prices as a bargain in the long ago, but.... ;D

Did you listen to the CS-1 clips?

Yes; not sure how acute I am at judging such clips but I was certainly impressed by the CS-1's primary specialty.

Been on a bit of a detour, investing in Photoshop and related stuff for editing etc. purposes. I'm glad for the break, since I never want to hurry major mic purchases, especially since I see this purchase as the capper of 'em all. :D

The CS-1 sounds terrific, but as a further fine point, what advantage would the Senn mkh 416 have over it? Would it be worth the extra dollars? Outdoors, indoors, it's all pretty equal, and I know the CS-1 is up for that, but the 416 seems quite the equal in glowing endorsements. The search for a first class, as-nearly-as-I-can make-it-all-around-mic for shotgun and occasional boom purposes, I'm still nicking away at the comparative details.

The 416 is in a different class. It's more gooder ;) You'll never get any one mic that will do everything. The CS-1 is a short shotgun with almost no rear lobe and it costs $700.

The MKH416 hasn't got much of a rear lobe either, it has a tighter pattern and it sounds much better. it has more "reach" as they say. It's also $300 more
Go back and listen agin. Get someone to play the clips in a blind test.

Barry, do you want Matt and I to notify you of the next Gear Slutz Anonymous meeting?

Sure; I'm all ears. :D

Thanks for saying the 416 is "gooder" Beas... since that's the one I opted for.

But in fairness to the CS1 I'd really just say the 416 is DIFFERENT rather then better. I'm almost tempted to get a CS1 myself... at some point I expect to have one of those also.

Here's the facts. I got a 416 because it's warmer sounding then the CS1 and it's got a similar pattern. It's SIMILAR but not the same. A CS1 will outperform a 416 in a live room indoors and it's a nice mic for on-cam use... but a 416 will outperform a CS1 outdoors and it still works pretty good on-cam. The other thing about the 416 is I've had GREAT luck using it indoors. I've read various people claim that it's not good indoors... Pfff sheesh... this thing works EVERY bit as good as any of my hypers indoors. Still, as far as room interraction is concerned... the CS1 will always sound LESS affected by the room then a 416. So the CS1 gets the nod for indoor use.

For me the 416 really has been a "does it all" mic. It has very low handling noise and works great as an interview mic off-cam... even if it's handheld.

All things considered I couldn't be any happier with the 416.

The CS1 has even MORE off-axis and rear rejection though... so it could be a really valuable tool in many uses.

Also (in terms of "warm" and "cold")... the CS1 isn't a COLD mic... it's really just NEUTRAL... whereas the 416 is kind of warm.

So I have nothing bad to say about the CS1. I think it's a very desireable mic... but I just think the 416 is worth the extra cost.

I had a SUPER tough time deciding between the 416 and CS1.

I've been out of the audio clip stuff for a while guys, but Matt, are there CS1 clips around that compare the rejection versus say a 416, or even they old ME66? I wouldn't mind a good indoor mic for live rooms. My Me66 struggles for sure, so i usually have to boom from below so carpet bounce is removed. I was surprised how well that worked when I tried it - was quite chuffed actually.

Aaron

Almost everything but the me66 requires phantom... I always hear people looking for battery powered mics... and those work fine. I had an me66 and a Rode nt3 (both battery/phantom).

But the fact is a whole new world of mic choices opens up once you accept phantom requirements.

Even a simple phantom box which supplies power is only around $50.

I'm on the cusp of buying a mic too. However I was considering the sanken cs3. Would you guys think it would be more versatile to get the at4073 and the cs1 for a combination of indoors and outdoors use or would you just get the cs3. The cost would come out the same.
In most respects the cs1 sounds very similar to the cs3 except less reach, shorter, and better suitability indoors.

Absolutely... Positively... if you have the budget for the CS3e... GET THAT.

The CS3e will make BOTH the CS1... AND the 4073a POINTLESS.

The CS3e has all the rejection of the CS1 which makes it work indoors... plus it's MUCH warmer sounding... which makes it similar/better then the 4073a sound (which I prefer to the CS1)... AND the CS3e has more reach then the 4073a outdoors. And in all fairness to the CS3e... it will DEFINITELY outperform the 4073a outdoors... sound AND off axis rejection.

So if you can have 2 mics which add up to do 2 jobs really well... or 1 mic which does 1 of those jobs almost as well (indoors) and the other job much better (outdoors)... why would you get anything BUT the 1 really good sounding and versatile mic?

If you get the CS3e you won't have to think, "which mic is better for this particular use?" You'll just use the CS3e all the time that you would have had to choose between the CS1 or 4073a.

Plus you only need 1 windshield system.

"In most respects the cs1 sounds very similar to the cs3 except less reach, shorter, and better suitability indoors"

Thre CS-3 sounds nothing like a CS-1 but that's only my opinion. It does a good job as stated, the sound just isn't for me though.

If you spend that much money, you should find a way to try one.

I agree that the CS1 and CS3e don't sound alike... hardly at all. The CS1 is much thinner, but because of that it's really crisp on vocals... The CS3e is much warmer... but it's got something going on that I can't explain... like a "fuzz" or something... but that's not a deal breaker for me... read on.

There are definitely other mics I like the sound of better. The 416 and Mkh60 are two of my favorite shotguns that I'd put in the class of the CS3e.

In my opinion the issue comes down to this.

FIRST the mic must get clear, intelligible audio. SECOND the mic must be usable in the conditions for which it's required. THIRD the mic must sound good to me.

I see all 3 of these objectives almost equally... so if a particular mic isn't perhaps my favorite sounding mic... but it excells in the other two areas... that still bumps up it's desireability.

The CS1 has a clean and lean sound to it. No fat whatsoever... that makes it high in area 1. Also it has excellent side and rear rejection... that makes it high in category 2. And finally... even though it sounds really clean... it does sound fairly lean... so even though I've strongly considered the CS1 twice now... I ended up choosing something else.

I went with a 416 and a hyper to cover indoor and outdoor use... at a total cost of much more then a CS3e would have been alone. This was an evolution over the course of buying, selling, and trying out a lot of mics.

If I were in a situation where I really just wanted ONE mic for a broad use... I probably would go with the CS3e though... even though it's not my favorite sounding mic... it excells SO much in "area 2" of my criteria that it's still a solid choice.

If you slip off the deep end, and join the GSA by committing stupid money to mics... then I'd suggest the Mkh60 and a really good hyper... but this is a financially dangerous animal to begin feeding... the hunger never goes away until you end up with the best mics available. So unless you want to increase your budget by 40% I think you may be satisfied with a CS3e as a "do it all" mic.

Of course, as Beas stated... for this kind of money you should check out these mics before making a commitment.

I just posted a rather long (but good) story about my experiences using the 416, 4071, and the early CS3 on the DV board - http://www.dv.com/jive3/thread.jspa?messageID=300100546&#300100546

To address the issues raised here, the AT4073 is physically comparable to the CS-1 in length, but both are shorter than the 416 and the CS-3, which put them in a different class as medium shotguns. The 4071 is the longest of the crop.

Longer USED to equal higher directivity, but the Sankens broke down that rule. The AT's are great values for the money, but the Sanken do outperform them.

If you are looking for a main boom mike, I would recommend the CS3 over the CS1 unless you work primarily indoors. If you do work outdoors and can't afford the CS3, then there is a real compromise to make. The CS1 . while certainly adequate outdoors, will not "reach" as far as you may need. Nor will the 4073. The 4071, a good outdoor choice, will not sound as good indoors as the shorter mics.

I am a dealer for all three (AT, Sennheiser, Sanken), and each have their market and pro's and con's. which I am happy to discuss as having used all of them.

Well, well...I've been devouring all this plus whatever else over at the DV forum, and now I'm at a point where I think I might just set aside fifty cents a week into a CS3 fund. ;D I'd just as soon wait and get a uber-hotcha-whammo mic of my dreams than get a merely excellent but still short of doing as much as the CS3 does. I already have some quality mics to use, so maybe I'll step back from the brink for awhile and add to the fund.

You guys are a priceless guide!

Marty I wish you'd REALLY expound on this.

Better yet... I wish you had enough interest in this to do a quick comparison of several mics.

We are a humble lot... those of us testing these mics... and our funds are obviously limited. I can't just keep buying thousand dollar mics to hear what they REALLY sound like... but the problem with these forums is this very issue.

I can describe any meal in the world on and on... but it doesn't compare to giving you a TASTE.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... well I figure a 30 second sound clip is worth more then 500.

It takes one minute per mic... or even per TWO mics to do a "This is a comparitive demonstration of the BLANK on channel one and the BLANK on channel two... we're listening for sibilance, tone, and over-all sound of each mic." Then if you want to show us just how much better one mic is then another at off axis rejection... you rotate the mics while counting and announce 90 degrees and 180 degrees. Simple, no?

I'm sorry to make a request like this... but here's what's in it for you. Credibility, loyalty, and appreciation. If you REALLY want to sell me a mic, why not take advantage of a PERMANENT free promotion of your store? You can even say, "This is Marty from..." and then continue the mic test.

Eventually a LOT of people will hear it and you'll do more to promote your business then a lot of other avenues provide... plus you'll be HELPING us all out. Win-win.

I've put my money where my mouth is over and over again... and more importantly I've put my MOUTH where my mouth is.

EDIT: I appologize if I this sounds arrogant or "jerky" of me... I didn't think that at all when I typed it but I think it may not sound as noble and hopeful as I intended it to.

If you go on RAMPS and read the personal tstes of the many pros, there are thos that swear by the CS-3, The 416, MKH60, The neauman KMR81 and the CK69. All of these people make their living at this game and all of these mics are in the $1000 to $1450 range.

I was the one that started the mic comparison clips and I did it NOT to be used as a final purchase criteria, but for some guidance in finding direction. Which mics do I want to rent and try out. Pleas do not read anything else into mic comparisons. To be usable the clips should be recorded simultaneously and by a decent recording medium. they should be uncompressed wav and listened to on a decent set of monitors or headphones. They should also be played through a prefessional audio card and amp.

If you play the clips through a creative labs card through a plastic gamers powered speaker you may not even hear the difference between a Schoeps and an Oktava. If you can't then why spend the extra money for a mic.

In my little world, I like the Schoeps MK41 and the MKH60. They are similar enough to be intercut with not EQ required. Others swear by the Neaumanns, The Sanken, even the AKG CK69. I just don't like the CS-3, but that's my ( and eeveryone elses) privilidge, others love it.

All of the mics I've posted clips for have been in my hands and I feel to make a proper choice that's what it takes.

Just to throw a curve into the proceedings, I've backtracked among several threads and my interest has been piqued by the Rode NT3. I know it isn't meant to be matched up against the $1k + gang, but in indoor and outdoor use how is it? As much as I crave the heights of a CS-3e, I also want to re-evaluate the lesser priced, perhaps overlooked mics. By the way, I own a Rode NT4 and think it's absolutely wonderful. What a tank!

P.S. I've listened to Bease's clips too. The Rode NT3 sounds solid.

For me the mic A/B tests aren't the end all proof of a mic... but to return to my food analogy... they give you a fair taste.

If we know what mic A sounds like and we intercut mic B... we can with some degree of certainty make a value judgement about mic B.

After that it all becomes opinion and practical use. A "taste" is not a recipe for perfection... but it's a hell of a lot more then a worded description.

The other thing about these little comparisons is while they may not be "law" for deciding what mic to get... they work pretty good in deciding which mics NOT to get.

If only it were that easy... to record some MP3 clips demonstrating the differences between microphones. If only.

There are research laboratories, multi-million dollar recording studios, major label music recording engineers, and trade journalists who have attempted to record the "Ultimate Mic Shoot Out". The problem is, that each mic will have a different sound character depending on which mic preamp it is paired with, in which room it is being used, even which speakers or headphones, amplifier, etc. you listen to them on.

While utilizing the technology of the internet for multimedia files is tempting and somewhat informative, there are way too many variables to trust what you hear on any sound file as being "accurate" enough for a valid comparison.

Microphones are tools like any other. Pick up a Craftsman hammer, pick up a Stanley. They will feel different. They will balance different. How can I demonstrate that to someone unless they pick them up for themselves? You wouldn't buy a car based on a videotape of a test drive would you? As you would any set of tools, you accumulate them over time. If you aquire one you don't like, you either send it back or sell it off, and aquire another. Over time, you build up your mic kit with the ones you like.

But no one will suggest that you buy a mic in order to hear it. Most of the mics we are discussing are rentable. A dealer may even rent a demo piece if they had it. Or they may offer a demo return policy. Ask a fellow shooter or sound tech who has one to loan or rent it to you for a couple of days. You should be prepared to put up a security deposit and pay for round trip shipping, but you get a mic you can use and evaluate for yourself with your own camera or mixer.

There is no substitute for personal experience, and no one can give theirs to you. I can relate mine, tell you of my impressions, explain my preferences, but all of that is subjective. Even though professional audio engineers have strived to develop a common "language" by defining terminology to describe intangible experiences such as audible impressions (ie: timbre, warmth, muddiness, crispness, edge, sparkle, etc.), preferences vary widely as to which widget sounds "best", even among the most experienced professionals.

Every recorded piece you hear is a demonstration of how the same widget may sound different when used by a different engineer. The Shure SM58 is the most common vocal mic in the world. How many live bands have you heard at clubs and concerts? How different do they sound?

Forgive my drivvling, but sound clips mean very little. I cannot simulate or recreate the situation or environment of any other time, place, or group of people.

Tell you what, Here is an open offer. I'll rent out any mic I have for $10.00 per day (not including shipping time) and apply full credit to what ever mic you purchase from me within 30 days. I'll even quote the price in advance. You pay the freight in both directions.

Marty said"If only it were that easy... to record some MP3 clips demonstrating the differences between microphones. If only."

Marty, if you read my post i stated that only a full and uncompressed file played on a pro system would give you some indication of a mics worth.

The intent of Matt and myself was only give people that had NO ACCESS to professional quality microphones a taste of what they might be missing. While not scientific my clip[s of a MKH60 and a Schoeps MK41 show a similar tonal quality and a seamless and open air. It's certainly enough to make them want tpo hear the mics first hand.

Some of your past posts indicate a less than perfect knowledge of the various mics and their characteristics. Do you want me to highlight these I will be happy to.

I have a new project, show how for a few bucks you can improve your sound imeasurably. I'm guilty along with others of constantly carping on the Schoeps perfection and the premise that the very best is a must.

Horse cookies to that notion! Barry has mentioned a mic that can really improve his sound a great deal. I'd like to present a comparison of audio from built in mic through the very best, in increments that start at 100 to 200 dollars.

The Rode NT3 is a heavy mic yet it's powered by a 9 volt battery(no phantom required) and it sounds as good as an Audio Technica 4053 (or so I'm told) $152 at B&H and your well on your way to excellence. It's not tiny, or cool but it sounds great.

What I'd like to do is quantify the value of certain entry level mics in the path to audio nirvana. I can already show that a $50 Oktava can almost equal an 850 dollar Neumann.

It's unfair to expect everyone to strive for the same level. If their work will be shown to people on a small screen TV via a standartd VCR then why risk heart failure and personal bankruptsy.


Barry if I can help than email me. maybe together we can do a service to the more moderate user.

I will admit that I'm a lost cause. Like my good buddy Matt G, I'm doomed to an lifetime of poverty in my search for audio excellence. You see, like Matt I can hear the difference and it means a big difference to me. To some it's meaningless and that shouldn't be a big deal.

I agree that the quest for the perfect mic must be tempered by its eventual level of showcasing...for me, I'm now outputting to DVD, which offers quite a noticeable leap in audio resonance, which is why I've entertained the notion of ultra-pro mics. Then too, I'm not producing a TV show or movie. The majority of viewership will be on ordinary DVD players, though occasional auditoriums will be sometimes utilized (some approach damn impressive movie theater levels). Still, for all I know a Rode NT3 brick will do just fine in a crunch and save me alot of $$$$ for other stuff, so I must consider that too. I'm impressed with Rode, and feel its more accessible price does not preclude quality sound if budget ultimately influences the final decision. Ideally I'd have a bunch of stellar mics if I had the cash, but I can see that a smart compromise ain't so bad either.

<<<-- Originally posted by Marty Atias : If only it were that easy... to record some MP3 clips demonstrating the differences between microphones. If only.

There are research laboratories, multi-million dollar recording studios, major label music recording engineers, and trade journalists who have attempted to record the "Ultimate Mic Shoot Out". The problem is, that each mic will have a different sound character depending on which mic preamp it is paired with, in which room it is being used, even which speakers or headphones, amplifier, etc. you listen to them on.

While utilizing the technology of the internet for multimedia files is tempting and somewhat informative, there are way too many variables to trust what you hear on any sound file as being "accurate" enough for a valid comparison.

Microphones are tools like any other. Pick up a Craftsman hammer, pick up a Stanley. They will feel different. They will balance different. How can I demonstrate that to someone unless they pick them up for themselves? You wouldn't buy a car based on a videotape of a test drive would you? As you would any set of tools, you accumulate them over time. If you aquire one you don't like, you either send it back or sell it off, and aquire another. Over time, you build up your mic kit with the ones you like.

Tell you what, Here is an open offer. I'll rent out any mic I have for $10.00 per day (not including shipping time) and apply full credit to what ever mic you purchase from me within 30 days. I'll even quote the price in advance. You pay the freight in both directions. -->>>

Marty, I sincerely appreciate your offer. Depending on shipping turnaround I may actually take you up on that. If it ends up costing me $100 to do a 10 minute test of a CS3e then I probably would only do it if I really intended to KEEP the CS3e... in which case I'll end up just buying the damn thing as usual... and if, after doing the 10 minute test I don't like it (which I probably will like it anyway) then I could return it (I assume that's a normal policy) and we'd still have a little tidbit about the mic in comparison to another mic.

Which brings me back to my main point.

Obviously I LIKE analogies... I use them all the time. In my use I think the analogy is logical and in your examples I don't think it is. You can't demonstrate a hammer over the internet... you can't demonstrate the FEEL of a car over the internet or via videotape. Now what do we use microphones for? Yes... SOUND. If I pit mic A against mic B... and we all know what mic A sounds like... as long as the test is IDENTICAL... which it is... they are ch1 and ch2 split recordings from equal distance under equal conditions... then we CAN in fact make a value judgement about mic B. Simple as that.

If one day we have a little box with a "wammer" inside and virtual reality gloves which can simulate gravity, inertia, and resistance... then I suspect you could in fact demonstrate a hammer over the internet... but we're simply talking about SOUND in an A/B environment. And what do we DO with that sound? We RECORD it and play it back for people in hopes of recreating a SONIC EVENT... now what do these A/B tests do for people? Exactly.

"Every recorded piece you hear is a demonstration of how the same widget may sound different when used by a different engineer. The Shure SM58 is the most common vocal mic in the world. How many live bands have you heard at clubs and concerts? How different do they sound?

Forgive my drivvling, but sound clips mean very little. I cannot simulate or recreate the situation or environment of any other time, place, or group of people. ">>>>

All clips are dialog and recorded flat. There is also a description of the equipment and circumstance. All due respects Marty, but a mic A/B comparison will be an accurate comparison of the sound of that mic. This is at least a start and will give the neophyte some idea of what the various mics will sound like.
"Tell you what, Here is an open offer. I'll rent out any mic I have for $10.00 per day (not including shipping time) and apply full credit to what ever mic you purchase from me within 30 days. "

Great idea. That's all the samples were designed for. Someone can get their selection down to a relatively small short list. Many of the people interested may not have a mixer or adequate cabling or suspension at this point.

I left out two litlle but key words in my post, so please allow me to restate:

"... sound clips mean very little TO ME." in the context of evaluating a purchase.

However, I do want to say that Bryan and Matts efforts to catalog the characteristics and differences of various microphones is to be applauded. Taken on an individual basis, there is valid information to be garnered from these clips. However, I wish that there were more information available regarding the equipment used, their settings, the room environment, the mic positioning, position of other objects in the room, etc.

I believe I was asked to directly compare certain microphones in a sound clip that demonstrate what I hear as the differences between them. Forgive me if my standards are too high, but to me doing it right represents a major project involving carefully controlled and repeatable conditions involving a group of people, and carefully selected equipment including a multitrack recorder. It would be a noble project to be sure, but also a major investment.

It is not how a recording is distributed, but how it is done that measures it's validity.


I am getting the impression that I am being somewhat misunderstood in terms of my equipment preferences, and my knowlege of gear is even being called into question, so I feel compelled to respond.

I have worked in professional audio for over 30 years in a wide variety of venues including music recording, live sound reinforcement, network and local radio, video studio production, video field production, and remote broadcast production. I've held both technical and production positions. Each venue presents different challenges and I've learned different things from each.

I have used more microphones than I can remember in all price categories from those under $100.00 to those over $3000.00. However, I do not profess to have used every mic available, and there are many current mics I am unfamiliar with. I do talk with a lot of people about thier experiences with the gear they use and have tried, and I try to gather certain concensus from that. I am careful to specify what is personal experience and what is not.

I am not so snobbish to insist that a good microphone cost more than any given dollar amount. I have several $80.00 MXL 603S (small subcardioid) mics that I think are wonderful for certain situations. I believe in using the right tool for the job, given what is available.

And there is A LOT available. At last count, I carry microphones from 14 manufacturers. I can think of at least a half dozen major brands I do not carry for a variety of reasons - the least of which is what I personally think of them.

Being an equipment vendor is an extremely competitive business. Mine is a very small company. I do not have the financial resources to match larger competitors like the B place in NY (and others). But they do not have the real world experience that I do. They are very profit oriented, I am customer oriented. They are happy to give certain product away at very low margins and make up for it in volume. I do low volumes and have to maintain my margins, but I offer services they do not such as after sale support, advice based on practical experience, etc.

My goal is to provide my customers with the equipment they ultimately want, not what I make the most profit on, or what I like best. However, not everyone knows what they want. Some understand that and are not embarassed to say so. Then there are some who are misinformed either by advertising or by someone else who is mis or unimformed but is non the less convinced. I could either just give them what they ask for (which I know they will not be happy with) or try to educate them first. I'm probably guilty of the latter more times than not.

In my primary market, my customers are broadcast professionals who's livelyhoods and families are dependent on getting it right the first time with zero margin for error. These guys are more ciritcal than film sound poeple. You simply cannot call "Take 2" on an interview with the Secretary of Sate or redo a live broadcast. They literally bank on their equipment. These are the customers who come through my doors and that's why I take my gear and my job so seriously. Everyone is cost sensitive, but for them, second best is not acceptable and no Octava will ever replace a Neumann.

I hope that helps explain where I am coming from. Of course, I realize that not everyone has these requirments, and I try to serve as many different customers as possible.

I do hope all of this busy dialog hasn't deterred people from the simple exercise of listening to groupings of DIALOG microphones. This was supposed to be a fun exercise and it's turned into somewhat of a bad taste for me.

Pure and simple, if ya don't like it then doen't listen to it.

I've set up some comparisons and repeated them several times. For an example, the clip of the MKH60 and the Schoeps MK41 was fed from a Sound devices 302 mixer at line level into a Marantz PMD670. Both mics are similar in tonal quality yet one is a shotgun and one is a hypercardoid. Both mics will intercut perfectly. My personal opinion is the CS-3 sounds very "foggy" and totally different from my Schoeps. There are people that love the CS-3.

These examples are for people that have never heard the mics and would like to. Please let's keep this a fun thing (if that's possible anymore)

I'm having fun. :D

I'm having fun too! Hey don't end our fun! LOL.

Marty... I hope you're smiling when you read my posts because I'm smiling when I read yours. I don't mean that in disrespect, but rather I appreciate your input and I'm enjoying the debate on this issue.

For the last day or so I've raced in and turned on my computer just to see what everybody (including YOU) is saying...

I love it when the conversation gets a little extra energy in it... especially about sound. I'm also of the mind that I can agree to disagree agreeably.

So if we see the value of these comparisons differently then so be it. I still like you and I'm glad you're here. I wish we had even MORE experienced sound guys on this board that I could have these conversations with.

Just to throw another analogy out... When I say that Beas and I (and others) are offering the inexperienced among us a taste... it's exactly that. If somebody gives me a bite of something from a restaurant... I don't then know the menu... and I really don't know much about the long term experiences I'll have with that restaurant... but I can decide if I want more of what I tasted or if I'll choose to taste something else instead.

The mic comparos we've been doing are for the benefit of everybody... take a look at the ever growing list... I keep 25% of the mics I test... but so far I've had to BUY 90% of 'em... so there's no bias. I'm not trying to trick people into thinking anything about the mics I'm A/B recording. They can decide for themselves... All the tests are done in either a live room or a deader one (bedroom) at equal distance and equalized volume... on the occasions where one mic or the other must be turned up or down to match the other... that's clearly stated in the test.

It doesn't matter if the tests weren't even THIS scientific... because in every test it's an A/B comparison... so you automatically have a "control group"... and what's more important is that there is great care taken to ensure that the tests ARE in fact scientific and cautious.

I appreciate you stating how much trouble it is to do these A/B tests... I agree whole-heartedly... sometimes it's a pain in the ass... but thank GOD Beas and Dave Largent started all this a year and a half ago. People can now find several places on the net where they can get a taste before they buy the restaurant.

I'm not smiling, in fact what was a labour of love is now no better than a bad case of hemoroids.

I too applaude all the work that Matt and Bryan have done with these tests. I was going through them last night and they're very interesting. I will certainly use them as a starting point for my next purchase....mmmm....cs3e.....mmmmm

I too though agree with Marty that knowing a bit about the room would also be interesting and add to the evaluation. I know the reasons why not (effort etc) but something to think about as this whole process of mic evaluation grows. I just wish I had some mics you guys didn't have that I could add to the mix ;)


Aaron

Hey Bryan,

Don't let my comments tring you down. My comments were intended to demonstrate that it is no small task to do a definitive, accurate, and completely valid comparison of microphones via a recording, which is what everyone would like to hear. At this time, I just don't have the time or the equipment required to do it the way I think it should be done.

But that is not what you set out to do, is it? If I hear you correctly, you are creating a collection of indiviual clips that, using the equipment available to you, demonstrate certain basic characteristics of the most popular microphones discussed here. There is certainly nothing wrong with that and I know that many people appreciate it.

Along the way, you are also forming your own opinions of these tools and are giving us the benefits of your personal experience with them. Nothing wrong with that either!

As you go forward, you may attain the ability (equipment, technology, etc.) to do a really valid simultaneous comparison. So don't stop now!
Keep it going!

I finally decided on a mic, and it's considerably scaled down from my original plans. I figure I'm still not at a point that can truly justify the expenditure for a really pricey mic, but whenever that happens I'll certainly be more knowledgeable about what might suit me best. In the meantime though, I've now supplemented my inventory with a Rode NT3. Modest price, high quality; still room for a wonder mic. ;)

I just laid down my first payment of $100K on an anechoic chamber.

We're going to scope everything too... and run a data feed on it... not to mention regulated p/s and db reports taken from 4 positions in the chamber.

The real bitch of it though is that from now on all my movies, shorts, and various life events have to take place in there... LOL.

I can't believe that I thought that real world shooting situations with multiple mics on a split track would show anybody anything.

Instead of considering audible content offered up as proof of something I say everybody would do best to go on the advice of somebody who profits from the sale of a particular item... LOL.

If I were blind and somebody could show me a rainbow... even for a second... I think I'd find that more useful then a book filled with data on light defraction... angle of incidence... and humidity.

You see I make my videos better with sound, not data... if you want to know why a mic sounds like it does get a book... if you want to know WHAT a mic sounds like... use your ears.

Better yet... just TRUST me... the rainbow is beautiful... you don't need to see anything anyway... lol.

I have been following this thread with great interest. I'm very new to audio, so a lot of this stuff is over my head, not to mention my budget! :-)

Having said that, I think I get one point that reminds me of a long-time rule-of-thumb for selection high-quality speakers: In the end, it's not the specs that count, but only how it sounds to you, in your living room/home theater.

So it is, I gather, with high quality mics -- rely on your ears.

But I sure could use some help from some of you audio gurus on selecting a wireless system for use in weddings. If any of you have a few minutes to look at my post/question in the "Which wireless system" thread, and give me a few comments/guidelines/pointers, I'd be eternally grateful.

I think you made a wise decision. The only negative I've ever heard is the size. Given the mass, there won't be much handling noise.

You should be able to get a Rycote Windjammer for about $50 and you're off to the races. the AT 8415 fits it nicely ($50 at B&H)

It has the same body as your NT4