Wind Protection for Schoeps

[adaml]

I have a cmc5/mk41 which I'm using for various documentary work, from sit-down interviews to following the subject around outside.  I'm about to get a Rycore Baby Ball Gag and windjammer, but thought I'd post first to see if you have any other suggestions.

[Jeff Wexler]

I have used many different windscreen configurations over the years for the Schoeps CMC MK41 and have also built, along with my boom operator Don Coufal, many custom windscreens. We used for the longest time a standard short Rycote which fit the Schoeps even with the CUT 1 quite nicely. We would always use a Windjammer or Windjammer-style cover on the Rycote because as you may have discovered, the webbed plastic surface of the typical Rycote does create its own rather nasty noise when wind passes over it. In less windy conditions we use a "custom" foam windscreen which is actually just 2 foam windscreens mated together and slipped onto the mic. I use a large foam windscreen (probably made for a large diaphram Neumann) into which I place a smaller teardrop-style windscreen. This is quite effective primarily because of the AIR SPACE created between the two and also the use of two different materials (typically the foam utilized is not the same in each style of windscreen). I have not used the so-called Ball Gag style but if it is the quite small, round slip on sort with rubber around the neck, this may not be such a good idea. The amount and quality of the material BEHIND the mic, at the base, is often overlooked and if there is a large mass of material here it does adversly affect the polar response of the microphone. To my knowledge there is no totally off-the-shelf solution for wind protection for the Schoeps (actually, for any microphone out there) because most all typical designs so seriously compromise the frequency response and polar pickup of the mic. So, lots of experimentation is in order, and again, use your ears.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

Check out the new DPA collapsible wind screens.  Expensive, but they fold up very small and are practically weightless.  They seem so flimsy that one has a hard time believing that they can sub for a Rycote w/ windrat, but they can.  If I was going to buy more zepplins this is what I'd get.

Philip Perkins

[Jeff Wexler]

Check out the new DPA collapsible wind screens.  Expensive, but they fold up very small and are practically weightless.  They seem so flimsy that one has a hard time believing that they can sub for a Rycote w/ windrat, but they can.  If I was going to buy more zepplins this is what I'd get.

Philip Perkins

I would like to know if you have had good experience Phillip with the DPA Windpac. I was very excited about that item when I first saw it at NAB one year because it seemed to apply many of the principles that I had employed in my designs for windscreens. Generous air space, irregular exterior surface and shape, etc. After rather extensive testing, the Windpac did not hold up to the advance hype or to my expectations. I do agree that it was somewhat remarkable that it worked as well as it did in certain conditions, considering its light weight compared to the typical zeppelin-style windscreen. I think at this point though its strongest asset is its "collapsability" feature for those who need to travel light and compact.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[adaml]

There's some pics of the bbg here:

http://www.rycote.com/imagestore/Windshield%20System/Baby%20Ballgag/

Jeff, any chance you could post pics of the double foam homemade windscreen?

I have a friend who got a windpac for use with a Sennheiser 416.  He said it works great and is very transparent up to 20mph winds, but isn't effective above that, at least with the 416.

[Jeff Wexler]

That sounds about right with a 416 which makes the Windpac quite useful I guess with a 416 or similar mic. It has been so long since I have used a 416 but I do seem to remember that I often used it outdoors with only a simple foam windscreen --- that is something which I do not think you can do with too many other microphones. So, it still remains to be seen how good the DPA could be for a more sensitive to wind micr like the Schoeps.

I will see if I can post some pictures of the various windscreen configurations. I would like to see how images work on this forum anyway (one of the reasons for doing this because of some of the difficulties of posting images on r.a.m.p.s. newsgroup). I may have to wait as several of the most often used windscreens are with Don Coufal (who is just finishing up a job he did with another mixer).

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

I would like to know if you have had good experience Phillip with the DPA Windpac. I was very excited about that item when I first saw it at NAB one year because it seemed to apply many of the principles that I had employed in my designs for windscreens. Generous air space, irregular exterior surface and shape, etc. After rather extensive testing, the Windpac did not hold up to the advance hype or to my expectations. I do agree that it was somewhat remarkable that it worked as well as it did in certain conditions, considering its light weight compared to the typical zeppelin-style windscreen. I think at this point though its strongest asset is its "collapsability" feature for those who need to travel light and compact.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

It seemed good (w/ MK41) in testing--but I don't own one.  A frequent collaborator of mine who is more in the doc world (and has to travel very light) likes it quite well for MK41.  I suppose one could mount a Rycote softie etc on the mic inside the windpac.  We may not be recording in as high-gain situations as you are, and that could be the diff.  (doc vs. drama etc).

Philip Perkins

[OscarL]

I have worked with the DPA for a while and I like it, but as all other things it's not perfect. It's really transparent and light, a dream at the end of the pole, but in more wind I have had some LF in the mic. I have used it most with a MKH50/60 and a 418 and with a foam shield inside. It folds well but the holder is still big and a little bit fragile even if they have changed the design a bit since mine. I use it a lot and recommend it if it's not to windy.

Oscar Lovnér

Sound Image

[Philip Perkins]

The DPA windpac is definitely on my list, since I've never been very happy with what happens to the sound of a MK41

in a Rycote with a windrat on it, and the Rycote alone makes as many problems w/ wind as it solves.

I have some of those very lightweight Schoeps silk ball windscreens that I bought many years ago.  Every time I try them out I'm amazed at how much wind this flimsy thing can cut, but then I notice that they seem to roll off way to much low end for my taste, and put them away again.  I've experimented with different positions re how for the mic is slid into the ball, but they all roll off the bass too much so far.  Is there an exact way of mounting this thing that doesn't kill the low end?  (I thought maybe not, since I've mostly seen them on Euro PA outdoor systems, so maybe the low end roll off is part of the design.)

Philip Perkins

[JS]

I have recently been lucky to purchase a used CMC541 from an industry legend.  The Rycote BBG 20mm fits it perfectly as well as the Oktava.  I use it on the Schoeps with really good results, at least my ears seem to think so.  I guess if I venture outside with the schoeps, the windjammer will definitely have to be purchased.

[David Terry]

I was very excited about that item when I first saw it at NAB one year because it seemed to apply many of the principles that I had employed in my designs for windscreens. Generous air space, irregular exterior surface and shape, etc. After rather extensive testing, the Windpac did not hold up to the advance hype or to my expectations.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Jeff,

Might you expand upon your disappointment with the Windpac?

In moderate winds (enough to blow what's left of my hair) and moderate gain it is my favorite windscreen for exteriors.  Maybe I'm crazy but I always imagine hearing sound bouncing around within my zeppelins...off of all of the structure needed to support  the screening.  If there is not too much cueing (or wind) I even prefer a windjammer, without the zeppelin because I object to the zeppelin"sound bounce".  The zep offers the efficiency of dead air space, but at an acoustical cost. 

The DPA windpac seems more transparent since there is less support structure needed to support the almost transparent (acoustically) screen material.  Since Windpac supports two mics I prefer it to my Rycote Scheps M/S zep.  (MK 41 and figure .

The DPA unit reminds me of a fine sounding windscreen/shock mount that I bought it in Paris 28 years ago.  It had very little metal support area, and used thin pantyhose-like screening material.  It was comprised of three windscreens.  I could use one screen for most work, but in higher wind a second screen fitted over the first providing a secondary, dead air space.  In even higher wind, a third screen was be fitted over the second.  This thing was heavy but sounded great.  French boom ops liked it, since it stopped the wind and had a good shock mount, but I could never get an American boom op to warm up to the thing. 

David Terry

[Jeff Wexler]

Jeff,

Might you expand upon your disappointment with the Windpac?

I agree with you entirely about the "sound bounce" as you call it when using your basic Rycote style zeppelin. I hate it and I too have used Windjammer type covers without the plastic mesh windscreen. My disappointment with the Windpac was that it was no more effective than most of the other "custom" windscreens we had devised and did not seem to live up to the claims for use in high winds. You are absolutely right with your observations about large air space, low mass materials used and so forth, but the overall construction posed some difficulties (like the way the end cap fits, or doesn't fit, causing a serious incursion of air and creating noise. It is not feasible to try and increase its effectiveness by adding an additional covering (like a Windjammer or sock of some sort) as the internal structure is not sufficient to support it.

I know the design of the French windscreen you are talking about and the idea of multiple screens, added and nested as needed, all with their own air space, is an excellent implementation of most of the principles we have discovered. I would like to see a Windpac II which had a more refined design (and of course it would really have to cost less before I would consider it again).

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Omar Milano]

I may have to wait as several of the most often used windscreens are with Don Coufal (who is just finishing up a job he did with another mixer).

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Hello everyone, two questions from an amateur.

1. When you are commissioned to do a job, do you request to bring your own boom operator?

2. Do boom operators own their own equipment/bring additional gear? Jeff, you mentioned that

Don is away on a job with the windscreens. Just curious. Thanks!

[Eric Toline]

Hello everyone, two questions from an amateur.

1. When you are commissioned to do a job, do you request to bring your own boom operator?

2. Do boom operators own their own equipment/bring additional gear? Jeff, you mentioned that

Don is away on a job with the windscreens. Just curious. Thanks!

Not speaking for Jeff but yes most mixers have their favorite boom swinger that knows their gear and the way they work. Boom swingers usually use the mixers gear.

Eric

[Jeff Wexler]

Hello everyone, two questions from an amateur.

1. When you are commissioned to do a job, do you request to bring your own boom operator?

2. Do boom operators own their own equipment/bring additional gear? Jeff, you mentioned that

Don is away on a job with the windscreens. Just curious. Thanks!

First of all, I don't think any of us are "commissioned" that just sounds so formal and regimental, usually it is just "hey, you wanna do the job?"

I'm sort of kidding here, but to answer your questions, as Eric has pointed out, I ALWAYS request (or rather kindly demand) that I work with Don Coufal on the job (if we get it). In my case, Don and I have worked together for so long (28 years now and really during that time we have both only done maybe 2 or 3 jobs NOT together), there have been jobs that I have been offered that we just didn't do because the production company had put up some hurdles to having Don on the job.

As far as Don owning his own equipment, he does own some gear but the main stuff we use on the job is owned by me (but we really sort of consider it OUR equipment because we are almost always using it together on the job). Sounds like a marriage in a way, and I guess there are elements of that. Our time working together on the job has already outlived 1 marriage for Don and 2 for me!

When Don needs new headphones or we realize we would like to try a new microphone or a fishpole, I usually buy the stuff and we try it all out together. You have to know that Don, unlike some boom operators, is very knowledgeable about ALL the equipment not just the stuff that is actually in his hands.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[adaml]

Has anyone tried throwing a little fur ball like the bbg windjammer over a foam ball like the w5d?  I don't have the bbg windjammer so not sure about the fit, but if the concept is okay then I could make a homemade one.  Any reasons this wouldn't be satisfactory for situations where a full size zepp is too much?

[Jeff Wexler]

Has anyone tried throwing a little fur ball like the bbg windjammer over a foam ball like the w5d?

Absolutely it works. This is our main windscreen configuration often very effective before having to go to something stronger (on the lines of a zeppelin type windscreen). I have used a plain solid foam ball with a Windjammer-type furry cover, also the Schoeps round foam (but hollow) ball, and the combination of a small teardrop foam inside a larger foam (like the ones for U-87) and then furry cover.

Our favortie at this time is a product from Schoeps (so, expensive) which is an open screen plastic ball, like the ones they made with silk cover but this has no silk, and is covered with a dark gray furry from Schoeps.  All combinations work well at various times but do not always provide enough protection. These solutions all have one thing in common which is they affect the performance of the mic minimally and do much less damage to the "sound" than any of the enclosed Rycote style zeppelins.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Jeff Wexler]

the plastic sounds bad - offal

the foam inside foam much better solution( tee drop inside large shure ) ,  for low  wind softie works quit well ( i use the same for 416 with cut-1)

for very heavy wind  situations , schoeps have extra wide foam ball which you cover with fur - but that one change the sound to much .

i didnt check the wind boss( psc) , which might work well for people who dont like the rycot on schoeps

I'm not sure what platic you are referring to. The plastic on the Schoeps non-silk "cage" ball that I use is very neutral, there really isn't much of it. Also, I have the PSC Windboss which I have had to modify to make an acceptable unit as the construction was awful and the mount swivel was hard to use and did not lock off properly. I fitted a K-Tek swivel to the Windboss and did some other things as well. The big plus for the Windboss is that it all acoustifoam and very neutral to the mic.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

Windscreen W 20- change the sound complitly -waist of money

The W20 is the silk ball?  I have 2 sizes of these, and hate them--they kill the low end.  It sounds like jeff is talking about a W-20 R1 or the BBG, which I haven't tried. 

Philip Perkins

[Jeff Wexler]

The W20 is the silk ball?  I have 2 sizes of these, and hate them--they kill the low end.  It sounds like jeff is talking about a W-20 R1 or the BBG, which I haven't tried. 

Philip Perkins

It is the W 20 R1 I am taking about and I did clearly say that in construction it is like the silk ball "basket" type windscreen but it is NOT 9and there is no silk involved. From the Schoeps website:

Windscreen W 20 R1

Comprises a basket (W 20 R) and a fur-like overcoat (R1). It is ca. 13 dB more effective than the W 20, with no greater impairment of the sound quality. It is used like the W 20 with the capsule front positioned in the center.

Diameter: ca. 90 mm

Note: I have found it to be the LEAST impairment of sound

[Fernando]

Hi.

Jeff, you mean you find the W20R1 to be the more transparent of the Schoeps windshields?

I'm looking for something to protect two Schoeps for exterior ORTF and AB atmo recording using 4 and 2 (CCM5 really)... I need something ligth but efficient so I can avoid mounting the Rycotes on a T bar...

I have W5 and W5D but not shure it will be enough for exteriors. For the CCM41 on a boom I use the Rycote mono extended ballgag and for MS or XY the stereo extended ball gag, but this is too heavy if you set up two, three, four or five mics in a MAB1000, A-Ray or simple T bar...

[Noah Timan]

Hello everyone, two questions from an amateur.

1. When you are commissioned to do a job, do you request to bring your own boom operator?

It's expected.  Part of your job as the head of your department (in this case, the sound department) is to select and hire your crew.  The prospect of having production pick your boom op for you is fairly terrifying, since so few of them really understand what the job is.  There's also personality/chemistry issues to consider when you're going to be working with someone else intimately for 14-16 hours a day.  Most of us see a lot more of our boom op than our spouse when we're shooting.

2. Do boom operators own their own equipment/bring additional gear?

When I first started working boom ops used to bring their own fishpole as though it was expected.  That trend seems to have all but vanished over the last ten or so years -- it's only the veteran boom ops now that bring a pole, and usually that pole is the subject of much love (and is barely hanging on by a thread).  In my experience out here, most all boom ops DO come with their own headset, belt, and basic tools (leatherman or equivalent, carabiners, multimeter, scissors, flashlight, etc).

[Noah Timan]

The DPA windpac seems more transparent since there is less support structure needed to support the almost transparent (acoustically) screen material.  Since Windpac supports two mics I prefer it to my Rycote Scheps M/S zep.  (MK 41 and figure .

What always seems to be missing from these discussions of the Windpac (maybe it's just me) is the one-size-fits-all approach of the device, which is a dealbreaker for me.  It seems that by potentially adding up to a foot of headroom on the subject, due to the head of the microphone being so far away from the top of the Windpac, there would be an intolerable sacrifice of distance-to-subject ratio.  Even with Rycotes my tendency was always to buy a size down so the mic just *barely* fit inside -- I could get the mic a few inches closer to the actor that way.  In critical situations where the mic was on the hairy edge of being usable, sometimes this made a difference as to whether or not I could use a Schoeps vs. a shotgun, or an overhead mic period vs. having to go to a lav.

[Jeff Wexler]

What always seems to be missing from these discussions of the Windpac (maybe it's just me) is the one-size-fits-all approach of the device, which is a dealbreaker for me.  It seems that by potentially adding up to a foot of headroom on the subject, due to the head of the microphone being so far away from the top of the Windpac

Good point, Noah, and I have concerned myself as well with the overall outside dimensions of the various windscreens I have used. With Rycote-style windscreens (and I say style because there actually have been a few other manufacturers involved, and still are, in producing this kind of windscreen) I have tried to downsize the length of the windscreen to just barely fit the length of the mic. Since the Rycote windscreen by its very design is already quite confining, having the head of the microphone so close to the front of the windscreen did not seem to be a problem. However, it could be argued (and probably actually empiricly demonstrated) that this practice most probably diminishes the performance of the windscreen. Which brings us back to the Windpac which by all account makes use of one of the most important principles, to my way of thinknig, and that is the AIR SPACE around the mic capsule. I don't think we can something for nothing...  for the Windpac to perform effectively, the head of the mic capsule I imagine has to be some distance from the front of the windscreen --- and thereby increasing the overall length of the whole unit. The smaller of the 2 Windpac models seems to be a fairly decent fit for the shortest of any mic that is likely to be used, that being a Schoeps or possibly the short Sennhesier (is that a 50?) or a Neumann 100 series. If the Schoeps has the CUT-1 fitted to the mic that brings its length closer to that of a 416 and is quite a good fit in the smaller Windpac.

I agree in principle with what Noah is saying here about the overall length of the windscreen but I do not see a design for a windscreen that would adhere to the open air space principle and NOT be some considerable length longer than the mic not in the windscreen.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Noah Timan]

However, it could be argued (and probably actually empiricly demonstrated) that this practice most probably diminishes the performance of the windscreen. Which brings us back to the Windpac which by all account makes use of one of the most important principles, to my way of thinknig, and that is the AIR SPACE around the mic capsule.

I suspect that you are right.  However, we must also weigh principle vs. practice, and set vs. anechoic chamber.  Beyond having the luxury to pick over real, imagined, or conditionally apparent deflections in character or muddying created by zeppelins or poorly created popscreens, we're using wind protection on our mics to prevent wind hits on those mics, firstly and foremostly.  There's wind out and we're shooting in it.  Even the member of the dailies audience least sensitive to sound is going to hear and object to a wind hit if it happens. 

We can fine tune our methodology along those lines, but when we talk about "diminishing the performance of the windscreen", are we talking about diminishing the ability to remove wind hits?  Or are we talking about unacceptable acoustic or frequency-response-altering compromises in order to keep the wind out?

Because if it's the former, I've used various combinations of Rycote devices (softies and zeppelins and windjammers and the rest), other manufacturer's wind protection devices of similar ilk (Sennheiser and Lightwave), all at many subtle variations on microphone to "front-of-zep" distances.  But in general, I've always crowded the front of the microphone element as close to the front of that capsule in the windshield as I possibly could before endangering "thunks" from quick moves from the boom operator.  And short of being on a beach with an incoming hurricane, there have been few instances where that approach did not eliminate wind noise from the track.  Most of the time I don't even need the jammer or even the back of the zep.

I always tend to aim to put as little as possible on the mic, with the admittedly less-than-scientific approach of "the less that separates the naked microphone from the naked voice, the better it's gonna sound".  I'm always boggled when I see EPK guys on set doing interiors with a zeppelin and windjammer on.