Jump to content

Gazwas

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gazwas

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK
  • About
    Professional photographer come budding videographer wanting to learn more.
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Not Applicable

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for all the replies. I’m no trying to make out Shoeps are doing anything wrong here or a dislike for their microphones as I’m in love with my CMC141. I just didn’t understand the significance of this CMIT feature over its direct competition. When I think of the more recent shotgun microphones like the Sennheiser 8060 and DPA 4017 which both offer modularity (capsule amd pre-amp) I can’t imagine either of those being anything other than rotationally symmetrical also. Surely a crude screw thread wouldn’t be best practise if they where not symmetrical.
  2. Forgive me If I'm not understanding what you said above correctly but if all manufacturers try and make mono microphones symmetrical why has it been suggested above this is such a unique feature of the Schoeps CMIT microphones? The DPA 4017 for example is arguably as good as the CMIT off axis however, in my knowledge it is not referred to in the specs as a rotationally symmetrical microphone?
  3. When you say side facing do you mean shotguns? While looking at shotgun microphones I've never seen this statement made about any other competing microphone but equally, I've never seen any of the competition mention you have to use them the correct way up hence my confusion in the original question. I've seen a YouTube video by Ty Ford where he rotated a MiniCMIT microphone to test this feature but in converse, tests done by numerous other YouTubers on anything from Rodes to DPA's or Sennheiser's there has never been mention of making sure the shotgun microphone was rotationally aligned.
  4. I'm not sure what is so offensive about that comment about marketing speak as don't all companies do it? Any way, for anyone interested I've had a reply back from a a member of Schoep's support department and it would seem the MK41 is indeed rotationally symmetrical just like the CMIT but obviously this is omitted for the feature list for some reason. Possibly not to confuse users with difference capsules - I've no idea? Hope that helps someone who might be wondering the same.
  5. I did say I was still learning so sorry if my response are annoying. Thanks so much for your input and at least now I’ve one less thing to worry about. Brilliant explanation thank you! Makes perfect sense now that it's the off axis sound that changes rather than the on axis.
  6. Seems like after doing a little more digging the direction of the capsule can matter on the Colette series and it depends on the capsule. MK4V, MK41V and MK8 are all classed are vertically aligned capsules and need to be positioned correctly. The others Schoeps capsules are class as axially aligned so orientation doesn't matter. Thanks everyone for your input.
  7. Thanks for the reply - so no difference and just some marketing speak from Schoeps. You do some great mounts by the way and while looking at the pictures of your E-OSIX-CMC1U mount (thinking of buying one) the photographer in me noticed the microphone was twisted and what sparked my question. I think I may do the same in the absence of any technical information from Schoeps but as @cineli said above would anyone really hear a difference when micing dialogue? Might fire an email over to Schoeps and ask.
  8. Hello Everyone I’m new here and hoping to learn more about the mysterious subject of capturing quality audio. Apologies first then if my questions sound stupid or amateurish. I’m a photographer who’s played with video for quite a few years but have only recently realised the upmost importance of capturing quality audio to catapult production values. I’ve just received my beautiful new Schoeps CMC1 MK41 and was wondering if there is a correct orientation for the microphone to get the best polar pattern. Schoeps make a big point of the CMIT5U having a “rotationally symmetrical polar pattern” but nothing about MK series capsules having the same. When I screw the capsule to pre-amp the logos don’t match up so there seems no obvious correct way up. Should I not worry about orientation as sound is not effected or should I always try and get the MK41/polar pattern logo on the top in the shock mount? And is this the is same for any other microphone that doesn’t advertise rotational symmetry?
  9. Hello Mano. I received my brand new CMC1 & MK41 yesterday and very impressed with the microphone and the size is nothing but astonishing. I was unsure if to go with the CMC141 or DPA 4018C as they are two incredibly similar sounding microphones but very unusually the Schoeps was cheaper. I own a DPA 4017 Shotgun Microphone which has an included test report stating the measured self noise is 14dB. Plugged into my MixPre-6II and without touching any gain controls but with the microphones at equal distances the output on the Schoeps is ever so slightly hotter (1dB) and the noise floor identical. Schoeps state 14dB noise floor on the MK41 which I believe is true and is in line with my 4017 or even slightly lower if I matched the levels. This was however all done by my very unscientific ears for measurement but I get the impression your older MK41 is off in some way.
×
×
  • Create New...