boom mic with wide pattern: mk4, 416,

[Tom Morrow]

I have a cs3e and 641 mics, but both have relatively narrow patterns that are unforgiving in situations where the mic can't be swung around fast enough to catch multiple actors talking over each other.

 

I'm looking at getting an mk4 capsule (cardioid) to replace the mk41 supercardioid in situations where the mic needs to capture sound well off axis.  But the 641 has more handling noise than I'd like in some situations and I'd like something that I could swing quickly with impunity to get close to the actors, even if I can't get the aim perfect.  I'm wondering if the mk4 has the same amount of handling noise as the mk41.  I like the lack of interference tube and therefore the smooth off axis frequency response of schoeps mics.

 

The 416 seems to have a suitably wide pattern in my experience, but the off axis coloration is rather poor and the weight is relatively high.  Perhaps the MKH series would be better but I don't have much experience with them yet.

 

I've seen boom ops that I respect using the cs1e, for the situation I'm talking about, but haven't tried one myself.

 

I'm curious what others prefer for a mic that will do well for two people separated by say 30-40 degrees, or someone 15-20 degrees off axis?  Something with a smooth pattern where the response won't change too much as you rotate it around.

 

Also both of my mics are indoor mics I'm wondering if I should be looking for a more rugged mic that is less prone to reliability issues from temperature or humidity like the cs3e and 641 are said to be.

[soundtrane]

<where the mic needs to capture sound well off axis>

 

Heh?

[pkautzsch]

something that I could swing quickly with impunity to get close to the actors, even if I can't get the aim perfect.  I'm wondering if the mk4 has the same amount of handling noise as the mk41.  I like the lack of interference tube and therefore the smooth off axis frequency response of schoeps mics.

 

The 416 seems to have a suitably wide pattern in my experience, but the off axis coloration is rather poor and the weight is relatively high.  Perhaps the MKH series would be better but I don't have much experience with them yet.

 

The Schoeps 41 has one of the cleanest off-axis responses, and many boom ops use it without handling noise issues.

If handling noise is a serious issue with you, maybe use a better suspension?

 

Most newer short guns are smoother in off-axis response than the 416, actually. Think MKH 60, Schoeps CMIT, Neumann KMR 81. I've never heard the 8060 so won't comment.

Still the 416 has its place precisely because of its "dull" off-axis response, too.

Aiming precisely while swinging quickly is, to me, part of a boom op's job description.

[TJW]

Something with a smooth pattern where the response won't change too much as you rotate it around.

Tom,

 

You seem to be describing an omni.... but then, how can a 416 be a suitably wide pattern?

 

Surely rather than a wider pattern, a mic that shows reduced level but not coloration off axis is what you need? That enables the boom op to favour the quieter of the voices and the louder, off axis will still sound good. I use CCM41s and they do just that - your 641 should do the same. If handling noise is the problem, try a Cinela mount or an InVision and decouple it with a really light cable between the top of the boom and the mic. Try a Tac!t - which I would highly recommend: perhaps you need a better boom or your boom op needs gloves with the boom you are using? Make the 641 work for you - it is one of the best. A Mk4 capsule might work for you where the headroom is manageable but you will still have to sort out the handling noise. Alternative work horses would be the hyper MKH 50 and the cardioid MKH40 - both excellent. 

 

Tim

[afewmoreyears]

Age of the mic can make that Scheops mic noisey in regards to handling...  Thats what I have found and thats what I have been told.... Just a thought.... 

Anybody want to chime in on that?...

[pkautzsch]

BTW, the cardioid and omni capsules aren't that linear when it comes to off-axis sound. They add quite a bit of color.

At 8 khz, the MK2 isn't an omni anymore, but rather similar to a hyper.

 

The Schoeps 41 capsule, and the Neumann KM 150 / KM 185, have the cleanest off-axis response I know.

[jrd456]

Handling noise on the Schoeps can be resolved by using a Schoeps Cut 1 filter and by making sure the cable coming out of the boom by the mic. is long enough [resolves cable microphonic problems]

 

             J.D.

[Abe Dolinger]

I'm pretty sure you want the MKH50. It doesn't have the reach of the 416, but the off-axis stuff is cleaner & clearer while still providing good rear rejection. It's my favorite mic for unplanned dialogue.

[danelonsdale]

I'm pretty sure you want the MKH50. It doesn't have the reach of the 416, but the off-axis stuff is cleaner & clearer while still providing good rear rejection. It's my favorite mic for unplanned dialogue.

The 50 is very similar in terms of a pattern to the 641.

 

I also agree I think you need to try better suspension if you are having handling issues with the 641, try the orange banded PSC mount, for one.  Or the Cut 1 as others have described.  I don't think changing the capsule on the cmc6 will help with handling noise as much as improving the pole and/or suspension.  

 

Maybe you should have a look at the switchable schoeps head: the MK5

[JonG]

Ive never heard the 416 described as having a wide pattern, in fact quite the opposite. I suggest renting a bunch of mics and coming to your own conclusions.

[old school]

Ive never heard the 416 described as having a wide pattern, in fact quite the opposite. I suggest renting a bunch of mics and coming to your own conclusions.

Yep.

CrewC

[Jon Gilbert]

I'm with the other Jon G!

[Tom Morrow]

I'm using an invision (lyre) mount for the 641 usually with a Rycote small-diameter pigtail that came with the S-series suspension that I bought for the cs3e.  I am not saying the handling noise is horrible, but it's definitely more noticeable than with the cs3e in the S-series lyre mount.  I find that both mics although technically supercardioids tend to have narrow hotspots like hypers.  Which is exactly what you want in controlled indoor situations where you can keep them aimed well. 

 

Perhaps it's the dull off axis response of the 416 that makes me think of it as having a wider pattern... Whereas other boom mics tend towards sucking the bass out of off axis sound (due to the proximity effect, enhanced by the interference tube), the 416 seems to have  as dull sound off axis as on axis :-)

 

Good food for thought here.  I'm going to be getting together with some other mixers next month to conduct a shootout.

[Constantin]

Perhaps it's the dull off axis response of the 416 that makes me think of it as having a wider pattern... Whereas other boom mics tend towards sucking the bass out of off axis sound (due to the proximity effect, enhanced by the interference tube), the 416 seems to have as dull sound off axis as on .

Nothing you say here to describe the 416 reminds me of the 416.

[Eric]

I find the 416 pretty tight. Has worked well for me in some louder outdoor situations (streeters, etc. by the side of the road). I also find it pretty bright.

I found the Schoeps CMC641 to be "forgiving" with multiple people. 

[John Blankenship]

It almost sounds like the OP's 641 and 416 both need service -- or maybe his ears and perceptions are vastly different from mine.

I have no idea what this statement means:

"Whereas other boom mics tend towards sucking the bass out of off axis sound (due to the proximity effect, enhanced by the interference tube), the 416 seems to have as dull sound off axis as on axis"

Apart from not knowing what he means, on set we seldom work at distances where proximity effect is much of a factor.

[studiomprd]

Tom Morrow: " a cs3e and 641 mics, but both have relatively narrow patterns that are unforgiving "

Tom lost his credibility with this opening statement.
 

Edited December 14, 2013 by studiomprd

[JDirckze]

Sounds like what you need is a bunch of radio mics... Or another boom op

[mikewest]

Try a Sanken CS-1 but use a Lyre mount as they have no bass cut.

 

I might have one for sale if you contact me direct

 

mike

[Tom Morrow]

I love that y'all aren't afraid to hold back your true feelings, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the most experienced so it doesn't hurt too much.  It is indeed possible that the 416's that I tried were defective as the three I tried were all rather beat up looking, and two were from community college equipment rooms.  It's possible the interference tubes were bent or something.  But one 416 was the main mic of someone who has mixed Hollywood films and side by side with my cs3e we all agreed that the cs3e had a much narrower hotspot. 

 

Getting back to the original topic, perhaps it would help if I rephrased as : What condenser mic with a cardioid or similarly wide pattern would you use on a boompole when a super/hyper pattern is too narrow for the distance you want to be?

[Glen Trew]

As may have been mentioned earlier, the Scheops CMC641 (CMC-6 body with MK41 head) is very very different from the Sennheiser 416. For boom work, the Scheops MK41 head has a relatively wide pattern, especially when compared to the Sennheiser 416.

 

gt

[Glen Trew]

Also, the Schoeps MK41 head, though listed as a "supercardioid" by Schoeps, is relatively wide with a relatively smooth, gradual transition between on-axis and off-axis. The Sennheiser MKH-50 is more narrow with a more sudden transition, while the Sennheiser MKH-40 is more like the MK41. To go with a wider patter, the Scheops cardioid or wide-cardioid patterns should be considered, though the MK41 or MKH-40 are typically the widest used for booming dialog.

 

GT 

[Tom Morrow]

"Whereas other boom mics tend towards sucking the bass out of off axis sound (due to the proximity effect, enhanced by the interference tube), the 416 seems to have as dull sound off axis as on axis"

Apart from not knowing what he means, on set we seldom work at distances where proximity effect is much of a factor.

 

What I mean is that relative to say a cs3e, the 416 used indoors will tend to pick up much more reflected sound.  Because the reflected soundfield is coming from all sides rather than the original point source, the orientation of the mic is less important; in a roughly symmetrical room, any direction you aim the mic you will get about the same amount of reflection.  So the bias towards capturing more reflected sound makes the 416 much less sensitive to aim, and of course produces a duller sound than if capturing mostly direct sound.  Essentially the 416 turns into something more like an omni microphone when used indoors, where the interference tube can't reject off axis sound as well, especially at the lower frequencies, because it's not decorrelated like outdoor off axis sound would be.

[Tom Morrow]

Thanks Glen, that's the kind of answer I was looking for. 

 

I should clarify that I work mostly indoors in less than perfectly treated spaces, where interference tubes are not ideal.

 

What about booming a loop group of actors gathered into a semicircle, all doing their walla walla at the same time so it's not possible for any boom op to keep the axis on a single speaker at once.  That's the sort of thing I'm looking for a mic to handle.

[Freeheel]

Tom, unlike most of the newer members who endlessly want to discuss whether an Azden/Octava/Rode mic will work as well as a Schoeps in a given situation, you actually own a Schoeps, which is arguably the best dialogue mic on the planet, precisely because of it's natural sounding pickup of both on and off axis sound.

 

If the Schoeps cannot handle what you are describing, IMO there are 2 possibilities: Your Schoeps is broken and needs to be serviced , or you need to acoustically treat your spaces to get the sound you are looking for.   No microphone can make a bad sounding space sound good, but the Schoeps makes it as good as it can be.   If the room acoustics are falling short, time to invest in a pile of furnie blankets or the ability to go to a different room...

 

The other thing that occurs to me is that if you are having so much trouble with reflections, then your mic is too far away from your source.  What distances are you booming at?

 

Cheers,

Brent Calkin