Jump to content

Cut-1 or Not?


steveharnell

Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone,

Long time lurker, first time poster. Great forum! I am in the market to upgrade my Oktava MK012 to a Schoeps CMC641/MK41. I also have a SD442.

My question is do I need to purchase the additional cut-1 filter for the Schoeps, or is the low cut filter on the SD442 good enough? Any other benefits?

Most of my work consists of the boom on a c-stand, and it goes without saying; the poll doesn't move.

Thanks,

Steve Harnell

32thirteen.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is do I need to purchase the additional cut-1 filter for the Schoeps, or is the low cut filter on the SD442 good enough? Any other benefits?

Thanks,

Steve Harnell

32thirteen.com

There are definitely 2 schools of thought on this: there are those who use the Schoeps microphones (some have for many, many years) and would never use it without the Cut-1. The other side, which includes me, use the same Schoeps mic every day with NO Cut-1. I will use the Cut-1 sometimes with the Schoeps mic outdoors in a windscreen since the inline approach to high pass has some advantages, possibly, over high pass at the mic preamp input (the mixer). I have never needed the Cut-1 to deal with handling noise, that's what the shockmount is for and the high pass in the mixer. If you have the wrong shockmount (or the boom is possibly in the wrong "hands") or a mixer without proper high pass, the Cut-1 will help but is far better to get the first things right and not use the Cut-1.

The SD 442 high pass is quite good, though not as effective as the 2 stage high pass in the Cooper, and with a proper shockmount you should not have any trouble.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Steve, welcome. Good question. Jeff is right about the two schools. I would agree with all J.W said about the cut filter. Marydixie and I never use it indoors, and if we need it outdoors, we usually bail out and use a longer mic because in our commercial world the diff is well.... That is changing a bit as HD tv and home theater are on the rise, and the commercials I record are now playing in the multiplex. But... I would buy one @ some point,it is a good tool, but a good boom op and pole, and shock mount are more important. If your boomer is a C stand, shouldn't be to much handling noise. Let us know what you do.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All my Schoeps have Cut-1 and it would be extremely rare for me to use it on a boom without one.

Handling noise, wind rumble or very low frequency present on a set may not always be audible while recording depending upon your headphone selection.  Here in Miami where the land is tabletop flat and large jet planes rumble away into the distance we can roll 30 seconds to a minute earlier because the residual fading rumble is filtered out. 

Although this is very low frequency and easily controlled at the mixer or in post my preference is to control it at the mic.  Limiters react to the low frequency thereby making their use more troublesome and less smooth.  Imagine your limiters kicking in to inaudible low frequency when a boomer changes his grip or something bumps into the C-stand holding the mic.

On close-ups a Cut-1 smooths out the low frequency proximity effect.

I also have some Neumann U-87 mics for studio work which includes ADR.  Those mics were modified years ago to THX standard and that modification included rolling off the extensive low frequency of the U-87s.  Much the same as the Schoeps with Cut-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have some Neumann U-87 mics for studio work which includes ADR.  Those mics were modified years ago to THX standard and that modification included rolling off the extensive low frequency of the U-87s.  Much the same as the Schoeps with Cut-1.

I am fairly sure there is NO THX "standard" for microphones. If you mean that you modified a U-87 to only produce an output that more closely resembles the THX standard for re-production in the theater, this is not really a good way to go in my opinion. To a certain extent, this reminds me of the incredibly foolish move by The Burbank Studios (20 years ago) where they modified all of their production mixing panels to the "Academy curve" and locked off all EQ settings. Understanding the nature of low frequency in production recording is what is important --- how we each deal with it is something that is obviously open to debate.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...