Jump to content

MKH41 AND CMIT 5U


soundwiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Jeff,

 

i am working on a short feature next week andi have chosen sen 416 for my exteriors and i havea choice between using a mk41and cmit 5u indoors for dialogue,most dialogues are indoors

what in you opinion will be best suited for indoors?

with a few words on the characteristics of each mic

my equipment kit is

1-fostex pd-4

2-sound devices 442

3-sen 416

4-mk41 or cmit 5u

most of the dialogues/monologues  are indoors

thanks in advance

Harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with what Jason says although I am not a big fan of the Senn. 416 anymore (haven't actually used one since about 1980). As he says, though, it is only guidelines which mic to use indoors and outdoors. General guding principles are: outdoors there will be factors that the mic may have to deal with that are generally not present indoors, WIND for example, so a mic that can be adequately protected from wind should be consdiered. Reverberant and reflective surfaces often encountered on interior spaces, as discussed here and on r.a.m.p.s., dictate mic choice: very directional mics behave badly in highly reverberant and reflective spaces (generalization of course). Your question does not have a simple answer and what will help you the most will be DOING it --- making the choice, listening very carefully and thoroughly, reaching a conclusion (however incomplete) for yourself. If it were as easy as: "INDOORS - Use THIS, OUTDOORS - Use THIS" I don't think any of us would be working.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanksall for your suggestions,i havnt used much of these mics except sen 416 which i am pretty much familiar and i do know the problems i will encounter if i use it indoors,

but as phil asked what are the mics you have Jeff , in your arsenal when you are on shoot

a brief will be of bgreat help to me

cheers jeff for your lucid reply and i enjoy reading them

harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Jeff, I've probably missed this somewhere in your posts, but what did you replace the 416 with?  (or said better, what are you using now?)

Phil

I stopped using the 416 for the most part when I discovered the Schoeps line of microphones. A good friend of mine in New York had the first Schoeps mic I ever listened to, a really old model (non-collette) that required a very exotic outboard power supply and Tuchel cabling system. I borrowed it for a few months to use on some jobs and although it was quite cumbersome to use and did exhibit at times some bad behavior "out in the field", it sounded great! Later I purchased a Schoeps mic for myself (cmc5 w/mk41 hypercardiod cap, not collette) and started using it just as I had used the Senn. 416 before. What I discovered, for myself, personally, was that by abandoning the Senn. 416 the ONLY thing I was losing was the reliability and predictability of the Senn. 416, and what I was gaining with the Schoeps so far outweighed this factor. Everyone always talks about the sound of the Schoeps but for me the decision to use the Schoeps over a mic like the Senn. 416 was even more fundamentsl: the choice to use LESS directional microphones on movies that had been dominated by the use of very directional microphones (primarily Senn. 8 and 4 series mics). Don Coufal had had some experience with the Schoeps with me and with our mututal friend Michael Evje (who was a boom operator working with Art Rochester, later a sound mixer and now retired working as a stock broker in Northern California), and when Don and I did "Being There" the decision to make the Schoeps mic THE main microphone was made. We did a scene night exterior in Washington, DC and we did a few takes with a longer mic (maybe a 416, maybe a short Neumann, I'm not sure) and a few takes with the Schoeps. Of course the more directional mic seemed to give us some "reach" and a little better break on the background noise, and it basically sounded more like movie sound usually sounds. The Schoeps sounded quite different, did not have the apparent reach and the background noise was in fact coming in at a measurably (on the meter) higher level. Going to dailies the next day sealed the deal. The differences between the two microphones was dramatic (no pun intended) and the takes where we used the Schoeps were superior in all respects. This confirmed for us at least that we had an obligation to continue using the Schoeps as it just plain sounded better!

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as phil asked what are the mics you have Jeff , in your arsenal when you are on shoot

a brief will be of bgreat help to me

harry

Here is list of microphones we typically carry with us (if I can remember them all):

6 Schoeps microphones (with 2 collette cables,  4 GVC 90's, 2 CUT-1's, 2 additional Cardioid capsules, 1 Bi-Directional figure-8 cap)

1 Schoeps CMIT "short shotgun"

2 Sanken CS-3e's

1 Sanken CS-1

1 Sanken CUB-1

4 Audio, Ltd. 2000 diversity (non frequency agile) wireless w/Sanken COS-11 mics, Quad box

4 Zaxcom Digital wireless, diversity, frequency agile, w/Sanken COS-11 mics, Quad box

That's about it for the microphones that we routinely use. I do have many others (mostly music or vocal type mics, many used for practical P.A. setups and so forth). I also have 2 SHURE handheld wireless mics for P.A. use (usually for Assistant Director use): on MI 3, J.J. had his own handheld mic which he used in many scenes to give direction over the incredible din of noise in the action scenes, and he also used to entertain the crerw with vocal impersonations and his own special brand of Jewish rap.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is list of microphones we typically carry with us (if I can remember them all):

6 Schoeps microphones (with 2 collette cables,  4 GVC 90's, 2 CUT-1's, 2 additional Cardioid capsules, 1 Bi-Directional figure-8 cap)

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Jeff,

Do you ever find yourself using 5 or 6 Schopeps, or did you end up with this many as your kit evolved from CMC4s to CMC5s and 6s?

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember using 5 or 6 Schoeps all at the same time but it has been useful and convenient to be able to have several so that one can be tied up in a windscreen with a CUT-1, one can be configured with a GVC-90 all the time, 2 or 3 could be out working on the set as plants, 1 could be on Don's fishpole and another standing by on a second fishpole if needed, so iot adds up to mostly convenience having that many mics.

-  JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff it is my impression that you use the schoeps on most shots interior and exterior unless you need the cs3e's 30db rejection.  Is this true?  I am in the middle of deciding on mic purchases, I have as of last August started putting togeather a kit.  As of now I have 2 cmc6 - mk 41s with the swivels and collettes, a cooper 208, a quadbox of the audio ltd 2040s with 5 cs-11s, hhb porta dat, and trying now to decide which shotgun to buy.  I'd really like your opinion on the two shotguns you own, the cs3e and cmit 5u.  I noticed you haven't traded one of the cs3e's for another cmit 5u is there a reason?

Please forgive me if I am being to direct in my questioning, But i am very interested in your opinions.

sincerely,

Graham Timmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, the equipment you have assembled is a very good selection of top flight stuff with many of my personal favorites included. I have not sold either of my Sanken CS-3e's because I generally don't sell ANYTHING. The recent sale of 2 of my older Schoeps microphones is the only sale of equipment for me in probably the last 30 years. We do use the Schoeps hypercardioid as the first choice, indoors and out, that is the mic that is put up on the fishpole first (unless we are obviously going into a scene with severe wind effects or something that would dictate the use of a different mic). I don't buy the "30 db of rejection" stuff you mention in connection with the CS-3e --- I just don't look at (or listen to) microphones that way. "Rejection", like its close cousin "Reach" are not absolutes nor even things which once quantified really apply to what the mic will do in any given situation. To answer your question about longer microphones, I would have to suggest the Schoeps CMIT over the Sanken CS-3e, but would prefer, of course, to have both (and I do have both). Whether to use either of the 2 "shotgun" type microphones rather than the Schoeps mk41 (non-shotgun type), this will be a choice you make, scene by scene, shot by shot, based on your own experience.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I hear it is,

You use the mic of choice indoors or out depending on the frame and conditions. I prefer the Mkh 50's , just "my bag baby" and go to a longer mic as damage control. Like wireless, a shotgun mic is a necessary evil.

my 2 cents,

Larry

(btw my head kinda hurts, I think that white russian stepped on my head)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Once you have chosen to use a mic for a scene, do you ever change mics on a shot to shot basis (like switching to a cs3e or CMIT on a longer shot, or switching in to a hyper on tighter shots if you were using a shotgun)?

Im guessing no, based on continuity, but under what circumstances is it ok to change mics within the confines of a scene?

Thanks,

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Once you have chosen to use a mic for a scene, do you ever change mics on a shot to shot basis

Yes, we will change microphones if it seems like the right thing to do. Certainly from cut to cut if the first shot required that we use a less than satisfactory technique or mic, we'll change to something else once we're out of that shot. The decision making process to change is much more complex than just making the rule for yourself, "stick with it, don't change, preserve continuity". Whether a change is made or not relies on several different types of considerations and some of these are things that relate to the most probably cutting pattern in editorial (assessed by thinking about the usefulness of the shot, visually and dramatically, the value of a given performance or delivery of dialog, etc.), and also the normal considerations of matching sound quality and so on. One of the overriding concepts, learned from many years of experience, is that the greatest discontinuities and problems do NOT come from the choice to change the microphone from shot to shot, and often our decision to CHANGE the microphone or technique HELPS to correct these other discontinuities over which we have little control.

So, the simple answer is not so simple. Whether to change out a microphone or a technique, shot to shot, is just another rather involved decision, based on many factors, experimentation, failure and success, and experience.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, that was a great answer, thank you.

that makes perfect sense to me, i was just curious about what your philosophy on this was because I recall reading somewhere that you should stick to a setup until you change scene. but i figured that must be garbage, or how would one deal with long shots into closeups within a scene?

i really like the advice of thinking ahead and trying to predict an edit, thats something very interesting for me to think about and try out.

thanks jeff

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...