Sanken CS-3E - A magic mic?
 

At NAB, I checked out the Sanken CS-3E, and I was stunned with its performance off axis for low frequencies. Is this mic made with magic or what?

In the test, I did three things... I gave it very high frequencies by hissing with a very his "Ssss". I then gave it high mids with an "Shhh" sound. Finally, I gave it voice fundamentals of about 200Hz with an "Mmmm" sound. In each case, I rotated the mic at about a foot away from on-axis to 180 degrees. Here are the results...

With the "Ssss" sound, I could hear the lobes come in and out from about 22 degrees to about 90 degrees. This wasn't magical. It's what I expect. It was nearly silent at 180 degrees, which is slightly magical.

With the "Shhh" sound, the amplitude rolled off smoothly, which is exactly what you want. Again, at 180 degrees, it was magically quiet.

With the "Mmmm" sound I heard the magic. The thing rolled off smoothly with 180 again being quiet. Amazing! I've never heard a shotgun that could pull that off.

By comparison, I went to the Sennheiser booth to try the MKH-416. With the "Ssss", I didn't really get a rolloff. There wasn't much rejection off-axis for the highest frequencies, but no funny lobes either. The "Shhh" rolled off nicely with no lobes. Very nice. But the low frequencies didn't roll off at all.

So, how did the two mics compare? Well, the gain on the Sennheiser was MUCH higher than the Sanken and I couldn't adjust it, so I couldn't really do a fair comparison. That said, the show floor gave a constant bass boom that overwhelmed everything else. On-axis, my voice sounded fine, and going off axis was like turning down a tone control. The Sanken, on the other hand, didn't suffer from an ambient boominess at all. When I went off-axis, my voice simply got quieter.

After that test, I have lost all interest in the MKH-416. I'd just as soon get the Rode NTG-3 for a similar sound at a lower price. But my dream mic? Definitely the Sanken CS-3E. It's narrow, so proper technique is critical, but if you ask me, it does exactly what we want a shotgun to do. The only flaw was the lobing at the high frequencies, but frankly, speaking off axis, it was barely detectable. The bottom line is that my voice sounded nice and clear with the Sanken. With the Sennheiser, my voice sounded nice, but the rest of the show floor sounded like it was in a drainpipe.

So, that was my limited experience on the show floor. Do the people who own these mics and use them to make a living have a similar experience? Am I all wet? Is the Sanken really a magic mic?

Thanks Jon that equates with what I've heard and the 416 good in its day .. is an old design now.

But for another surprise I suggest you repeat those tests with the NTG-3.

Cheers.

The biggest thing the 416 has going for it at this point is durability imho, and known for being bulletproof in basically any condition imaginable.

Sadly, that's a reputation a mic can only get after years of trial and error in the field.

There may be better sounding mic's than the 416 (it is a very old design), but if you want a mic (or backup mic as it's often used) that's nearly guaranteed to work when everything else fails, the 416 is still a great choice.

That said, the CS-3e is certainly an amazing mic and I agree its off-axis is magical.
And lets not forget, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic ;)

I wonder how much of the 416's mystique is due to pros owning it, liking it, and learning its sound back in the day. Any new mic will sound different - and worse to that operator. And, yeah, that they're bulletproof is a huge part of becoming an industry standard. The other aspect, of course, is that they've been more likely to be used on a soundstage than on a tradeshow floor.

Speaking of magic, the new Schoeps digital mics sound fantastic too, based on their sample recordings. I don't know that the Sanken has as steep a rejection curve, but it has a similar ability to knock down the whole signal off axis. The Sanken isn't cheap, but it will probably be a bargain compared to the new Schoeps mic.

Well I guess I better just throw out all that great sound that I got from my Sennheiser 416 because the 416 is OLD!!!

I'm not saying that there's not a better mic. I presume the Sanken is wonderful (haven't had the pleasure to use one myself). But to say that the 416 is used only because it's durable, or that because people are familiar with it is ridiculous. It's used because people know it sounds good.

And to base any claims on a test done on the NAB show floor is just plain silly.

Not intending to put anyone down, just trying to be real.

The Sanken CS-3 is not the typical "interference tube" design. It's a good mic for sure. Better than a 416 or other high-end shotguns is subjective. Sure, in some environments.

For sure, better depends on the application. On the trade show floor, it was night and day.

The CS-3e is hardly a new microphone.
It's a phased array mic, the "3" denotes three elements. The "e" denotes the later revision, Sanken updated the design to improve S/N. Sanken should know how to make a reliable mic, they work in conjunction with NHK. I've used the Sanken CMS-10 (10 element phased array mono/stereo) and it does have a certain magic. I have their CS-1 one on my EX1, not quite the same magic as the CS-3e but its great for an on camera mic as its short.
Rode mics are great, I have quite a few of their studio mics but for location audio their shotguns really don't come close to what Sanken and others can achieve with phased array mics. In all fairness though phased array mics are not cheap.

That it's a phased array makes sense. It does really well with rejection across a wide frequency band.

At work, we have a couple of Sanken COS-11D omni lavs. Being omnis, they can't offer any off-axis magic whatsoever, but they sure sound great with the human voice. According to the US Sanken rep at NAB, the COS-11D and CS-3E are built to match well.

Yesterday, I was part of an interview shoot with a full crew. The audio guy used a 416 and a Tram with Lectrosonics wireless. He used a field mixer with a send to the XDCAM. I'm looking forward to hearing the raw results, since I have a feeling for the challenges of environment during the recording.

Jon. I started with a 416, which is still a wonderful mic and still have a use for it, but when I got my CS-3e I put away. The Sanken is a truly wonderful mic that I use 90% of the time. As you noticed, it has very little coloration off axis. It performs very well indoors and does save me from changing out mics alot of the time. I don't know if I would describe it as magic, but it's my 1st choice in microphones now.

That's great info, Jon,

In what conditions do you prefer the 416? Outdoors, I would expect. Maybe it has less handling noise, works better on certain voices, or is more rugged in harsh conditions?

I find the 416 a better performer in the damp and as you said, harsh conditions.
It is a more rugged mic and stands up to more abuse. Also, it is less susceptible to RF interference. However, I see there is a mod for CS-3e to correct that.

Such a simple mod it's a wonder Sanken didn't include it earlier than serial 2791. Cheers.

I guess I am weird but ever since I had an audio post business, I have never been a fan of the 416. Is it heavy duty and reliable? Yes. Does it sound good? Eh. it sounds okay IF the boom operator is really good. I find the sound of the CS-3E to be much better than the 416 but since I am not that impressed with the 416, I would say that the Sanken sounds really good.

Don't know if you listened to my off axis response test in my article of the CS-3E? You might want to take a listen, it sounds as if my test was similar to yours.

As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Microphone

Dan

Yeah, Dan, different test, similar kind of result.

When the rep mentioned that it had very good 180 degree and bass rejection, I did my Ssss, Shhh, Mmmm test. I think he was very pleased with the results.

I like the sound of the mic when on axis too. There's a bit of an exciter effect to it. Maybe not as accurate as a Schoeps CMC641, but very pleasing without being unnatural.

If I was in the market for a shotgun today, I would be hard pressed to decide between the Sanken CS-3E and the RØDE NTG-3, they are both excellent but the RØDE is so much less money, I would lean that way I think. I do think that the Sanken sounds better but the question is, does it sound that many hundreds of dollars better?

Dan

Dan the CS-3E falls under the law of diminishing returns for a lot of people. Currently at BnH there's a $716 saving with the NTG-3.

Referring to that published mod for the CS-3E .. it's so simple *most* could accomplish it and opening the mic obviously doesn't affect the warranty but I'm still surprised they'll let you do it. I would have thought back to the dealer would have been the go.
Cheers.

I agree that the difference between the CS-3e and the NTG-3 is a case of diminishing returns but then that is always the case when you approach the highest level of any technology. I will say that I like the sound of the NTG-3 but I love the sound of the CS-3e.

In some pretty extreme cases the Sanken can quickly pay for the difference in savings in post though (time really does equate to money).

-Garrett

BTW I'm in the market for a used Sanken CS-3e so if you have one or know of one I'd be really greatful for any leads. I know this is a long shot but I was about 30 seconds away from getting one until I snoozed and some submitted a bid at the last second.

Meh. These uber-subjective "item" vs "item" discussions only seem to exist to bolster one's confidence in the path they've chosen.

To again quote Duke Ellington: “If it sounds good, it is good.”

In Ellington's day everything was tube. Of course it sounded good.

That's often true. But not in my case. I don't have the budget to choose the Sanken or 416 right now.

Personally, I was blown away that the difference was so huge. This wasn't a tomato/tomahto thing. It was night and day. The 416 translated the tradeshow floor ambience into a constant, loud boom with a voice on top. The CS-3e sounded quite natural - and you could really isolate the voice from the background.

In that environment, it wasn't a matter of diminishing returns. It was good sound vs. very poor sound.

Thankfully, we don't record our critical audio at tradeshows. In a good environment, clearly the 416 (and NTG-3) can capture clean, nice sounding dialog. Given a clean environment, then for sure, it's a matter of diminishing returns.

I guess I've been fortunate in over 2 decades of this work because I have consistently had great sound from 416s.

I've read your review before and I think the key to your article is in one paragraph.

I suggest that, if you want a fair evaluation of the clips, you need to obtain playback on a decent quality, somewhat accurate playback system. If you do not have access to a decent quality playback system, listen to the samples on decent headphones. The signal will not be accurate but you will at least be able to hear the differences between the mics, the low frequency differences and the room tone and air tone, ambient sound differences. I tested these samples on my laptop speakers and on some cheap computer speakers and trust me, all of the mics sound almost the same on lousy speakers.

I pulled your clips into PT HD and listened through a Benchmark D/A on Adam S3As in a tuned room. ( Coffey Sound :: Speakers :: ADAM S3A Midfield Studio Monitor )

I wonder if given a correct environment and playback system if the opinions expressed in this thread would be the same ?

Very true Kirk. I have a Genelec system here with a Genelec sub. When you try to judge audio quality and especially relative levels of specific tracks using a substandard audio playback system as about 95% of all video editors use, you are getting a highly skewed result.

Unfortunately, in the era of MP3s, iTunes and iPods and people editing with really crappy computer speakers, I doubt if many people ever hear what their audio really sounds like, they hear a low quality facsimile of it. I am always impressed when I work in an edit bay that has accurate monitors and has been set up with room characteristics and EQing to the room. It is just so rare these days.

Dan

Kirk,

I don't have any doubt whatsoever that 416s can create great sound. The quality of my voice with the 416 was good. I was listening on Sennheiser HD 280 Pro cans, which I've owned for years, so I'm quite familiar with them.

In fact, in a clean environment, it's more than possible that the 416 will sound *better* than the CS-3e. With different headphone setups in a tradeshow setting, there's no way that I could do a critical comparison of voice quality between the mics. All I can say is that the voice sounded good on both.

The difference in off-axis rejection, however, was stark. I didn't need anything more than headphones to judge that.

Which mic would do better on a soundstage or out in the woods? I have no idea. Which mic would do better on a construction site or near a waterfall? The Sanken would be my choice, hands down. Slogging through the Amazon? I'd probably choose the 416, due to it's rugged reputation.

Overall, I wasn't so much disappointed with the 416 off axis - it pretty much did what I expected it to do. But I was amazed with the CS-3e. I didn't expect it to roll off the bass that well or to have such good rejection at 180 degrees; hence, the "magic" title of this thread.

Yes. Magic.
 

Hello all.

I just want to further comment on that absolute amazing sound quality of the Sanken CS-3e. I consider it my #1 go to mic in almost all situations and I have barely touched other mics I have such as the 416 and the NTG-3 since I have had the Sanken. It really does seem like this mic is 'magic' in that in both noisy outdoor situations in inside sound stages it has delivered amazing sound hooked up to a variety of varying quality preamps, from the cheapo Zoom h4n to very high end Sound Devices mixers and recorders.

Personally, my favorite combo is the Sanken CS-3e going into a Sound Devices 702. I have done plenty of film dialog capture with just those two pieces of gear and each director has e-mailed me back later being blown away at the sound quality and I have received a lot of repeat business, since after a director finds a person who gets that magic 'movie quality in your face sound' they tend to keep using them.

I am an actor in NYC and freelance as a sound mixer / boom op / sound design / foley ect, and I also use the mic on my own projects that I act in and have other people dosound on, and I can quickly teach them the magic of the mic (you do need a certain technique with the cs-3e) but once you get that going into a quality preamp and 24 bit recorder, you are golden. If you can only have 1 mic, I would go for the Sanken cs-3e. Simply outstanding sound quality that I have not heard beat yet.. I can't imagine a better mic.

I just finally got a CS-3e into my kit after a long and patient search. I couldn't afford a new one so I had to wait for a used one to come up. True Jon, in a clean environment or a sound booth a lot of mics can be made to sound very good. However I shoot a lot of low budget or no budget movies where the location sound is all that we can get. So if it's bad we don't get the chance to do ADR. It's hard to get actors to come back into a studio when you can barely afford to feed them on location. So in those cases having a mic with the characteristics of the CS-3e can be almost invaluable.

In those situations I really appreciate it's magic.

Garrett

Can you tell us more about the technique you mention to work with the cs3e? Thanks in advance.

It just has a special off axis rejection that other mics don't have. So you have to really move correctly above the actors heads to find the sweet spot.

I'll give you an example.... Most mics have a really bad problem in large school hallway environments with cement everything and echos everywhere and all sorts of noises and sounds that you can't do much about.
You have to lay sound blankets on the floor ect....

I could not even think of doing this scene with a 416 but with the sanken cs-3e it came out great with just the amound of echo for the realistic sound of the location... it will sound even better after it is tweaked a little in post but here's the raw file:

http://blackout.com/clients/teenage_...d/MONO-041.wav

That's consistent with what the rep told me at NAB. He showed me the CS-1 without a lot of fanfare. Then, with a twinkle in his eye, he moved to the CS-3E and said, "but the pros use this..." He followed up by saying that the operators need to be on their toes, due to the narrower pattern.

Then again, the off-axis rolloff of the CS-3E sounded quite neutral. You might lose some levels if the aim is a bit off, but I think the color of the sound might not change as much as with some other mics. That would make post work relatively easy. Just balance the levels, set the overall EQ, and you're done.

I've had the experience of mixing dialog where the voice dropped off, and lost intelligibility. It's tough to try to boost back the HFs when all the signal has are LFs.

I'd guess that with the CS-3E, correction from going somewhat off-axis might add noise due to the higher gain, but would still sound natural without any additional EQ. Only the very highest frequencies (5kHz and up) seem to have lobing, and those frequencies affect the "air" more than intelligibility.

Yesterday I took the plunge and added a CS-3e to my arsenal. I'm feeling some financial pain at the moment, lol. Anyhow, I'll probably use it this coming weekend for the first time. I'll report my results.

Question - I haven't seen anyone comment if this is a good mic to use on a camera. What do you think?

(In theory...) you'll lose something when mounting on camera. You'll have less proximity, so voices will probably sound thinner. You'll have less signal, so noise will likely be higher. But you should still benefit from the natural rolloff of the off-axis signal in echo prone environments.

Overall, it will be less good than it could be when on a boom, and won't offer any special benefits in a low-echo environment. But it shouldn't do poorly or worse than anything else would.

Again, in theory...

I shot my first interview session last night using a CS-3e attached to a Bogen 420B boom stand. I attached the mic with a Pearstone universal shock mount. I haven't brought the files into my NLE system yet but my initial impression of listening to the recordings is impressive. I'm sure with a little tweaking it will be even better. I appreciate all of those who gave their opinions and experiences with this particular mic as it did help me in making my decision to purchase one. Cheers.

Shot Gun Mic Comparison - Sanken CS-3E included!
 

Shot Gun Mic Comparison - Sanken CS-3E included!

See Link below.
YouTube - Recording Audio in less than Ideal Conditions

Hi Robert,

I too recently purchased a CS-3e and have shot a couple of interviews with it. I'll be shooting a short movie next week and my sound guy is really excited to get to use it for that production. It is really an incredible piece of equipment. Prior to that I was using a Senn ME66 which is not a bad mic but comparing the two is like night and day.

Trell, that video is what pushed me over the edge. I had been looking to upgrade for a while and after listening to Guy's demo I was convinced. In fact, that very mic you see in the video is the one I bought. Guy was nice enough to sell me that one at a very good price.

Garrett

The video really demonstrates the advantage of the CS-3E. It doesn't eliminate the fan noise, but as Guy rotates the mic toward the fan, the timbre hardly changes. It just gets louder. With most shotguns, the further you rotate the mic from the fan, the boomier it would become.

Just stumbled onto this link and thought I should chime in. I am a boom operator mainly for feature films. I work with a lot of different mixers and on a regular basis I have the opportunity to use a lot of different shotgun and location sound mics including the Sennheiser 816, 416, 70, 60, 50, 406 (the 406 is an extremely underrated mic), and the Schoeps CMIT and CMC641, etc- pretty much everything but the new Rode mic, I would wager. Nothing sounds as good as a Schoeps CMC641 in my opinion, but due to today's realities of poor locations, loud camera fans or shutters, wide and tight camera angles and the sort, it's a mic that I can't use as often as I would like. When I can't use the CMC641, which is most often, my first choice is always the Sanken CS3e. I first used it in 2006 while filming The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, and it was the go-to mic for most of that film due to the extremely loud cooling fans on the Viper system cameras.

It is a mic whose performance continues to literally amaze me on a weekly, if not daily basis. The off-axis rejection is stellar and has saved the sound on literally dozens of scenes that I've done. It is definitely a mid-range forward mic, as compared to something like a Sennheiser 60 which tends to be flatter and "more natural" across the spectrum, but it manages to still be rather smooth in comparison to a 416; that is, it pretty much never sounds harsh as compared to a 416 which can be rather "prickly" and painful to my ears at times. All this and the on-axis bass response is incredible at close range or at a distance, and it sounds great indoors, even in small rooms with a lot of echo. The pattern is rather tight and falls somewhere between an 816 and 416, which means that in the wrong hands, it can be easy to miss your target, but you get used to it. That said, I have had a great number of times where when micing multiple actors, I've had to use the side of the mic at closer proximity to one of the actors in a manner where you would think it would sound totally off-axis and unbalanced in comparison to the other actors who were more on-axis, especially for a mic with such a pickup pattern, yet the mixer had no idea because it sounded great.

The amount of "suck" that this mic has (suck being the ability to be a long distance from your target, yet still have the target sound on-axis and focused) is what is so amazing about this mic. It's rivals the 816 for the amount of suck you get, but with less than half the size and weight of an 816. This is what constantly amazes me about this mic, and I will frequently say to mixers after a take, "Damn, have I told you yet today how much I love this mic?"

On my last project, our CS3e went in for repair and I felt almost crippled without it and the product did suffer a bit. While we made it through, when the repaired mic came back to us, it went back into immediate use, and improved the sound of the location we were in.

Thank you Aaron for sharing your experiences. I had yet to hear someone describe high end mics where "suck" was a positive thing :) I had to laugh because having used the CS3e quite often as well as the 416, your findings are dead on accurate. The CS3e can just reach out and pick up sounds from a greater distance whereas other mics would not be able to isolate without physically moving the mic closer. I'm sure that others appreciate your in the trenches experience. Welcome to the forums.

Re: Sanken CS-3E - A magic mic?
 

Creating a zombie thread.... as curious to hear more about this mod for the CS3e?

Re: Sanken CS-3E - A magic mic?
 

It's a simple mode that you, or a good technician can perform. Here's the Sanken service bulletin from eight years ago:

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pl...ionMay2010.pdf

Re: Sanken CS-3E - A magic mic?
 

Thank you very much! I saw a couple of links to that pdf document, but all of them were dead links.