Jump to content

Has anyone bought an 8060 to replace a 416 and been disappointed?


fezedi
 Share

Recommended Posts

 In interiors with not too much ugly reverb booming 1,5 m overhead can still sound like a close up. I know of no other short shotgun which can do this. 

cons:

- susceptible to wind noise
- very rare occasions of HF interference (like 3 times in 3 years)
- there is an existing issue with Lectrosonics UH400a and HM plug-on Txs that can cause intermittent "sizzling" noises. 

DPA 4017 would be the mic with those pros and without the cons. 

Very light and small, great reach, yet without a terribly overtight pattern and I have never had interferences of any kind. 

and on the B version I really like the built-in switchable low-cut and high-boost. In my opinion it's superior to the 8060 in every way. 

If you're after the robustness and reliability of the 416 get a 416. if not, get something else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constantin, there are cons with the 8060, that might disqualify it for fezedi, but it has that unique sound I like! I would discribe it like more "airy" or "open", especially if you can skip the foam windshield. Way different to the 4017, but that is a question of taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DPA 4017 would be the mic with those pros and without the cons. 

Very light and small, great reach, yet without a terribly overtight pattern and I have never had interferences of any kind. 

and on the B version I really like the built-in switchable low-cut and high-boost. In my opinion it's superior to the 8060 in every way. 

If you're after the robustness and reliability of the 416 get a 416. if not, get something else. 

+1

Dpa 4017 is a great mic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DPA 4017 would be the mic with those pros and without the cons. 

Very light and small, great reach, yet without a terribly overtight pattern and I have never had interferences of any kind. 

and on the B version I really like the built-in switchable low-cut and high-boost. In my opinion it's superior to the 8060 in every way. 

If you're after the robustness and reliability of the 416 get a 416. if not, get something else. 

+1!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually have both the 8060 and the 4017c... and it's time to sh*t or get off the pot, and return one of them. I'm having a hard time deciding.

I agree with Axel... the 8060 has an unusual characteristic to sound much closer than it is, and the articulation is the highest of any mic I've played with. In a direct A/B comparison, I think most soundies would choose the DPA, because it sounds much smoother through the high-end, but the "close" sound of the 8060 is appealing... and I think finished videos might sound great with the added presence already recorded on the spot.

I also like how the 8060 is built like a tank... definitely in the same category as the 416 build-wise. (I'm kind of over the CMIT for it's pops and sizzle on startup... and I don't trust it's durability for the kind of work I do... even though I think it's the absolute purist mic... by debatable margins.)

So... which one? I feel like you guys have already covered it... and my gut is leaning towards the DPA... but there's no denying the 8060's superior reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comparison Matt,

What do you mean by this? and the articulation is the highest of any mic I've played with

Also, between the 8060 and the 4017C can you make a comparison in handling noise and low freq response? What shock mount and wind protection are you using?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derick... what I mean by "highest articulation" is the rising treble is like the 416 on steroids. S's, T's, F's... etc... all the sounds which make speech intelligible seem almost exaggerated... and I haven't decided if that's a bad thing. It does give the mic a close sound from a further booming distance (which is definitely a good thing).

To my ears the DPA sounds much warmer. I call it "mojo"... there's a lower-mid presence that's almost tangible, which I find very appealing.

Choosing is tough... they definitely sound different, but I'm trying to figure out which is the best TOOL. I love the CS3e as a tool... and I'm looking for another tool for the job.

I'm anxious to hear what you think RP... I'm in the market for a 50 now also... and I could probably use that over another gun. Your experience with both the 50 and the DPA makes your opinion on the 8060 more valuable to me. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in the market for a new short shotgun last year I did the same and hired the dpa 4017b and the 8060 to compare side by side too....

To my ears the dpa was smoother sounding in the mids and highs, probably due to its flatter response. Also seemed to have less comb filtery effects than other shotguns I've used.

So I went with the dpa and ive been super happy with it it's my first port of call when a shotgun is required... It's super light too....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Had a chance to get the 8060 out today, and I must say I'm quite impressed. It's a bit more present and punchy than the 4017. Quite 416-like in that sense, but way smoother off axis, and good up close where 416 and CMIT fail due to design.

It still won't be a good match for 2nd boom in a handoff situation, but ok for 2 mics on/off camera, or male/female, or perspective difference in staging and camera placement, etc.

So without more extensive research, preferring 8060 over other shotgun choices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

May have asked this before.. but anyone experience noticeable background hiss with the 8060? I was a relatively early adopter and had a bum mic that got changed out (as many others did) I like the characteristics of this mic a lot but have been noticing more noise floor than I would like.. maybe it needs looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an 8060 and it is one of the defective ones.  The problem is intermittent enough that I haven't bothered to get it fixed yet, although I really should.  A slight shake of the mic usually gets rid of the background sputtering / noise (it's a pretty rare occurrence obviously).  I'm obviously happy enough with the mic to have worked through these issues now for a couple years.  I compliment it's use with an 8050, which I also like a lot.  I like it better than the MKH60 (don't like it for field use) and the 416 for all around use, although to my ears they are closer than different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an 8060 and it is one of the defective ones.  The problem is intermittent enough that I haven't bothered to get it fixed yet, although I really should.  A slight shake of the mic usually gets rid of the background sputtering / noise (it's a pretty rare occurrence obviously).  I'm obviously happy enough with the mic to have worked through these issues now for a couple years.  I compliment it's use with an 8050, which I also like a lot.  I like it better than the MKH60 (don't like it for field use) and the 416 for all around use, although to my ears they are closer than different.

Tom, why don't you like the MKH 60? Could you try to explain it comparing to 8060 and 416? I used a 60 together with a 8060 on a show and the 60 seemed to have much better reach, although the 8060 sounded much better / richer when close enough. The reach, though, was needed for that show and it really disappointed our team. Would be happy to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, why don't you like the MKH 60? Could you try to explain it comparing to 8060 and 416? I used a 60 together with a 8060 on a show and the 60 seemed to have much better reach, although the 8060 sounded much better / richer when close enough. The reach, though, was needed for that show and it really disappointed our team. Would be happy to hear your thoughts.

I feel that in noisy conditions, the 60 doesn't cut through like the 418/8060.  It's odd, but sounds like we are talking about the same thing but with differing opinions.  I think the 60 is a beautiful sounding, high fidelity mic, and used it often in studio environments for ADR, after retiring it from field use.

Another nice thing, not only is the 8060 lighter, but given the more compact size, uses a smaller windshield so the whole rig ends up being quite lighter.  Given the short compact size, when you do get in close, your probably an extra few inches closer to the capsule than a 60.  This hyper reality - presence wise, may be tricking ones ears when then comparing in a far field position, perhaps unfairly comparing that sound to close position rather than an equal position with another mic?  Just thinking out loud...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joaohpc,

My thoughts on the 416/60/8060. 

When my original 8060 developed the ground issue. Sennheiser was kind enough to send me both the MKH 60 along with the "rev2" 8060 to choose. I already had the 416 in my kit along with the MKH50 and AKG CK69 which match pretty close in tone.  
 
Overall I liked the sound of the 8060 over the 60. When the high boost was off on the 60 it sounded bland when compared against the very bright 8060. when the 60's high boost was on it sounded brighter but also lifted the "hiss" up. Strangely also had an RF issue with the 60 next to an older TechnoCrane that the 416 didn't have. Also finding clips for the 60 to work in my Rycote was tough. If the 60 had a fixed frequency curve similar to the 416 I'd be happy because of the lower noise floor.
Ultimately I've stayed with the 416 as its rock solid performance in Louisiana conditions helps the peace of mind. The bright top end of the 8060 makes it a Winter only exterior boom for me as it "pulls" in way to much "insect" noise during summer months. When the bugs are real bad I add the extra tube on the 69 and it's like magic but slightly unwieldy with the length.  I'd be curious to try the DPA but current setup of MKH50/CK69/MKH 416 work well together. PS: Also tried the CMIT and passed. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Morgan,

In my kit the MKH 50 handles those rooms with a high reflection and shots that need a wider pickup. I use the CK 69 on a lot of interiors and on exteriors when the bugs are bad. The ability to add the extra interference tube turns it into something like the MKH70 and gives great side rejection. I also goto the MKH-416 on those harsh Louisiana summers. For reference. If you happen to catch my current show Scream Queens, the 50 is used on the main Great Room, dining room, kitchen set and once you goto bedrooms and most everywhere else it's the CK69. We have to fight a lot of mirrors. The 69 is not as bright as the CMIT or 8060 and strangely cuts better with the MKH 50 than the MKH60 or 8060 IMO

Edited by Mark LeBlanc
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...