as i hear it - choosing the right microphone

January 7, 2008 As I Hear It - Choosing the Right MicrophoneAn Overview of Popular Short Shotgun, Supercardioid,Hypercardiod and Cardioid MicrophonesBy Dan Brockett

MicrophonesAudio-Technica AT875R Audio-Technica AT4073a Beyerdynamic MC 836 Neumann KMR81i Oktava MK-012

Microphone Voice TestsTest #1. Male Voice, Interior, on-axis,interview setup Test #2. Male Voice, Interior, off-axis,interview setup Test #3. Microphone handling noise,

29/8/2010 As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Micr

kenstone.net//right_mic_brockett.ht 1/82

Sanken CS-1 Sanken CS-3e Schoeps CMC641 Schoeps CMIT5u Sennheiser MKH-50 Sennheiser MKH-60

Interior, narrative setup Test #4. Female Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setup Test #5. Male Voice, Exterior, on-axis,narrative setup

Is This Article For You? Take a deep breath; we are about to embark on an epic journeythrough the world of location sound microphones. Yeah, I know,sounds like a bit of hyperbole, right? If you read all of the ads in thetrade magazines, hang out on some Internet sound forums and talkto sound mixers, perhaps you have reached a sublime level ofcrystalline understanding about location sound microphones OR morelikely, you may be a little confused by all of the conflictinginformation out there like most us. That's what makes this an epicjourney; there are so many microphones out there and so muchconflicting information. Everyone seems to have his or her favoritesand everyone disputes how much you need to spend to buy a greatmicrophone. I decided to wade into this article with an open mindand some audio knowledge but I am decidedly not a professionallocation sound mixer. Since I produce and shoot video myself, andoften do my own sound recording, I am writing this article for anaudience of camera owners like myself who may know a little aboutlocation sound, but may not have the chance to audition this manymicrophones in person before buying one. If you are a cameraperson,director or producer who buys, rents and uses professional soundgear, this article will provide some good starting points in yoursearch for the right microphone. I hope that by reading about myexperience with these microphones and listening to some samples Ihave recorded in several different types of situations, you will bearmed with knowledge that will help you make an intelligent buyingor rental decision so that your projects will have a polishedprofessional sound mix.I am not an engineer and I don't know all of the answers but I cantell you that after reading this article and carefully listening to therecorded samples, you will have saved yourself several days ofshopping, internet research to hunt down disparate sound samplesand lots of misinformation that you might hear from uninformedsound forum posters, salespeople or retailers who just didn't do theirresearch or have a vested interest in not being unbiased. There areno clear-cut winners and losers amongst these microphones; thisreview is not a contest. All of the microphones I tested and reviewedare capable of excellent sound. Not a single one of the microphonessounded "bad". Some were better than others or stood out from therest for specific sound qualities though, the purpose of this article isto help you find the best microphones for your needs, taste andbudget. This is why I decided to review microphones that range fromU.S. $259.00 in cost to almost U.S. $2,000.00. It's all aboutdiscovering which microphones suit your needs as well as yourfinances.From Then to Now, A Bit of Background In order to understand why buyers want better quality audio, it is



helpful to know why video and film shooters care or should careabout sound quality. With the democratization of video equipment inthe late 1990s and early 2000s, there was also an influx of newusers creating video and films. When it took a minimum of a$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 investment in gear to create professionalquality video, the typical broadcast or industrial camcorder user wasan experienced professional. Video and film shooters manned thecamera and usually a professional sound mixer, sometimes alongwith a boom operator was included on the call sheet. When theeconomic equation required producing quality video changed toneeding just a few thousand dollars of gear to create the samerelative image and sound quality, tens of thousands of new usersbegan to shoot and produce web content, television, films, corporatevideo and many other types of programming using the newinexpensive gear. As the number of camcorder users increased, theywere doing their own sound mixing on video and film shoots andlearning as they went along with a lot of on-the-job experimentation.In 2001, I wrote a Low Cost Shotgun article because at the time, itseemed that everyone was looking for the right microphone to usewith the newly popular low-cost Mini DV camcorders. The word of theday was cheap. When your new MiniDV camcorder cost $3,000.00 andmade decent quality pictures, who wanted to spend $2,000.00 on amicrophone? In this era, significantly reduced production budgetswere eliminating crew positions, often including the sound mixer andor boom operator. There was a whole influx of new users who knewvery little about sound mixing that were out shooting their projectsand looking to purchase audio gear. Many people seemed to thinkthat they could obtain adequate sound quality with a camera-mounted microphone. As most of us know, you cannot refute thelaws of physics but many learned about this the hard way.The HD Era and Sound We are beginning to see significant change in audio for videoproduction with the advent of the Hi-Definition era. While the costsfor HD production have fallen rapidly as the demand for HDprogramming and the gear to shoot it has risen, in general, HDproduction gear is significantly more expensive than standarddefinition video gear was. HD camcorders record digital sound withsignificantly better quality then their generally poor sounding Mini DVand analog sound Betacam SP predecessors did. In my experience,the newer generation HDV and HD camcorders have bettermicrophone pre-amps and quieter audio paths than the previousgeneration MiniDV camcorders had.Many broadcast and delivery specs for programming now accept andoften expect edited masters be delivered with multi-channel surroundsound. It seems that with the advent of HD production, filmmakersand videographers today seem to be looking for better quality soundthan they were just a few years ago. Hi-Def puts increased demandson the quality of the sound expected as well as the picture. More endusers are listening to HD programming on high-end, high-resolutionsound systems that they have added to their 60" HD sets. The day ofthe average viewer hearing their television and films through a 2"bad sounding mono speaker is not completely over but that day isthankfully dying a quick death.



Conventional Wisdom Says...

In 2001, I wrote, "there is really no such thing as a good all aroundmicrophone." Six years later, I feel that this is just as true as it wasin 2001. In the ensuing years since then, there have been no newtechnical revelations that allow a microphone to function well in allsound situations. There are multiple-capsule systems that do allow alot of flexibility though such as the Schoeps Collette system, theOktava MK-012 and the Sennheiser K6/ME system as well as severalothers that let you use different types of capsules that each havedifferent pickup patterns in conjunction with a dedicated power-supply/base. I have used several of these systems and they can be adecent, if not perfect solution to those of us who shoot in manydifferent sorts of physical locations. These modular systems use thesame power supply, matched with several different capsules, eachwith different pickup patterns. The goal is always to record thesubject with the most natural, uncolored sound possible and toeliminate as many of the extraneous sounds not emanating from thesubject as possible. These extraneous sounds are often referred toas "off-axis sound", meaning that in a practical sense, when you arerecording a line from your talent, you want to hear as little of thetraffic sound from the road next to them as possible while hearingtheir voice clearly and with great detail.What Are The Most Common Microphone Types and PickupPatterns For Location Sound? The terminology in how manufacturers and users categorize andname microphones can be a bit confusing because it's not consistent.In general, for location sound, there are several types of commonlyused boom microphones. I like to loosely categorize them into thefollowing groups:

Long shotguns These microphones, in my opinion, are typicallymost useful for recording sound for noisy exteriors or when youcannot locate the microphone very close to the source. Longshotguns typically have a very narrow angle of acceptance. Ifyou check out the polar pattern for a long shotgun, (an overheadvisual representation of a microphone's pickup pattern), you willusually see that an unfortunate side effect of having anextremely narrow angle of acceptance is a lot of ancillary soundpickup at the rear of the microphone. As you might imagine,when shooting interiors, this means that the crew and activity



behind the microphone, along with the room's reverberantcharacteristics are usually picked up as well, making longshotguns not very useful for recording interiors. Anotherpractical concern of using long shotguns is that when combinedwith a suspension mount and windscreen and furry windscreencover, a long shotgun is physically huge and long. This can bedifficult to manage when there is not enough physical room touse the microphone under overhangs or in rooms with lowceilings and it's immense size and length can be a visualdistraction for talent as well.Short Shotguns This short shotgun is the more diminutiverelative of the long shotgun. Most manufacturers that offer shortshotguns also offer long shotguns, often in the same productline or with a similar sound quality, usually just with a differentpickup pattern. Besides being physically smaller than a longshotgun, most short shotguns offer a somewhat wider pickuppattern than long shotguns, usually coupled with more rear axisnoise rejection. The short shotgun is probably the mostcommonly used microphone in location sound. They vary widelyin cost and sound quality and almost all of the major audiomanufacturers offer at least one, if not multiple iterations of theshort shotgun. Generally, most sound mixers use short shotgunsin normal exterior locations although plenty of interiors arerecorded using short shotguns as well.Supercardioids A Supercardioid microphone has a pickuppattern between a cardioid and a lobar short shotgun with moreoff axis rejection than a cardioid but not as narrow of angle ofpickup as a short shotgun. I know, what does lobar mean? Amicrophone with a lobar polar pattern has the highest possibledirectivity. Lobar polar pattern is often referred to as:supercardioid/lobar, or hypercardioid/lobar polar pattern, butboth supercardioid and hypercardioid patterns are slightly lessdirectional than the lobar pattern. A lobar pick-up pattern isachieved with a shotgun microphone only.A supercardioid microphone also usually features more rear axispickup than a cardioid. Four out of the twelve microphones Ireviewed for this article were supercardioids or short shotgunswith a supercardioid pickup pattern. There are some shotgunsthat list a line + gradient pickup pattern and some that just listthe pickup pattern as supercardioid and some that label theirpickup pattern as lobar. As with many descriptors in sound,there is some confusion about exact terminology. In myexperience, supercardioid microphones typically are physicallyshorter than short shotguns but a lot of this categorizationbecomes whatever the manufacturer wants to categorize themicrophone as. I have seen the Schoeps CMIT5u labeled as along shotgun, short shotgun and as a supercardioid by themanufacturer, retailers and end users so keep this in mind asyou read the product descriptions for each microphone. Whereavailable, I have tried to include pickup pattern graphs for eachmicrophone. These graphs, along with the spec sheets for eachmicrophone will tell you all you need to know as far as whatkind of microphone each model is.



Hypercardioids As you may have guessed by now, ahypercardioid has a similar pickup pattern to a supercardioid butit is a wider pickup area, therefore it will usually have less rearangle pickup than a supercardioid. Hypercardioids are usuallymore popular for recording interiors than most of the microphonepickup patterns listed above because they are capable ofproviding a more natural, open and less focused sound. Using ahypercardioid with a wider pickup pattern also means it is easierto pickup multiple subjects with one boom. For hand boomingdialogue scenes between multiple characters, a hypercardioidwould not have to be pointed as precisely as a short shotgun orsupercardioid.Cardioids Cardioid microphones have the widest pickup patternof all of the microphone types I tested. The cardioid could beconsidered more efficient for picking up larger groups ofspeakers at a time and this type microphone might prove to bemore efficient when trying to boom a fast moving subject. Acardioid microphone has very little pickup pattern directly behindthe microphone but because the pickup pattern is so wide, themicrophone does have a tendency to pickup sounds on the farsides of the microphone's pattern. An added benefit of all threeof the cardioid microphones is that generally these types ofmicrophones are physically shorter, allowing the microphone tobe more easily used in spaced with low ceilings and tightspaces.

How Do You Choose Which Type Of Microphone Pickup PatternTo Use For a Given Situation? As a rule of thumb, it's a good idea to listen to each location throughat least a couple of different microphones that you think you mightlike to use. You may occasionally discover that a short shotgun willwork for a given interior location better than a cardioid or the shortshotgun may be a better choice than a long shotgun for someexteriors, it just depends on the situation and the recordist's choiceof sound quality desired. This leads us back to square one; there isno perfect, all-around general microphone for the location soundmixer's bag. Brace yourself and budget yourself, you should seriouslyconsider purchasing more than one microphone or at least a modularmicrophone system along with at least two capsules. Keep this inmind as you peruse the rest of this article, you can consider takingyour total microphone budget and dividing it so that you can buymore than one microphone.The Economics This may sound a bit harsh to you, but if you have gone to lengths ofpurchasing a high quality camcorder, tripod, monitor, lights, gripequipment and all of the paraphernalia needed in order to producefilm or video, you SHOULD consider spending a decent amount ofmoney on your audio gear. The single most important component ofyour audio gear is the microphone. Depending on your needs andexpectations, you don't always have to spend a lot of money on yourmicrophones, but it does makes prudent economic sense to NOTscrimp on the quality of your microphones. Buy the right microphonesto successfully record the types of projects that you plan on



shooting. Many newer users fall into the trap of buying a camcorderthat is too expensive for their overall production budget, thenscrimping on all of the most important support components liketripods, lighting and most importantly, the sound gear. Before youbuy any production gear, you have to really know how to budget yourfunds to craft a well-rounded production gear package. Owning agreat camcorder with a lousy tripod, junky lights and a bad soundingmicrophone is more common than you might believe. A cheapercamcorder with good quality support gear like microphones andtripods will result in a better looking and sounding project. As youread this article you will see and hear that you don't always need tobuy the most expensive microphones to record great sound, but youneed to know what to buy for your particular shooting style. Afterspending six months with all of these microphones, in my opinion,you need to budget for at least two types of shotgun/cardioid variantmicrophones along with at least one lavaliere microphone for mostusers.In the simplest terms, any of you who have purchased a camcorderlike the Panasonic HVX-200, the Canon XL-H1, the Sony PMW-EX1 orthe JVC HD-100/110 family can afford to purchase any microphonereviewed in this article. If you are reading this article and only havea $500.00 Mini DV camcorder, that is a different story, I would referyou to my original Low Cost Shotgun Microphone Comparison since inmost instances it wouldn't make sense to buy a microphone thatcosts more than your camcorder. Since the low cost article was puton-line, many other low-cost shotguns/cardioids have appeared onthe market to consider. For the rest of you who have dropped atleast $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 or more on your camera packagealone, I am not letting you off of the hook; seriously consider buyingmore than one microphone. Buy a high quality, reputable brand ofsound mixer and quality lavaliere microphones, buy the best cablesand headphones you can afford. But most important of all, buy theright shotgun/cardioid variant microphones. Microphones as in plural.Your completed film/video projects will be judged mostly on audio.From a technical and audience viewpoint, great graphics,cinematography, story, actors and direction are all trumped by thequality of your sound. Creating great sound takes knowing how tochoose the correct microphones and having access to the rightmicrophones to record your location sound.Introducing...The Contestants I make no claim that the eleven microphones tested here should bethe only microphones that you consider. There were many othercandidates that I would have liked to have tested and written about.I tried for months to obtain a factory sample Sennheiser MKH-416but Sennheiser could not provide me one. I tried for months to obtainsamples of the Blue Line from AKG but they could not provide factorysamples. Since I wanted the test to be as fair and unbiased aspossible, I decided not to rent or borrow samples, I felt that wouldnot be fair to the manufacturers or to you. We would have no way ofknowing if a rental or borrowed sample had been abused, how old itwas, etc. So I decided only to test factory fresh samples direct fromthe manufacturers.Unfortunately, the realities of time, and the space allotted for this



article prevent me from not expanding these eleven microphones toforty or fifty models. I do feel that the microphones included are agood cross section of the most popular microphones for most users inthe U.S., I do know that in other parts of the world, there are somepopular brands not represented here.Since I am based in the States,it made sense to include the most popular brands that areeasilyavailable in the U.S. and known in the U.S. The importantthing to remember is that by reading this article and listening to thesamples, you can train your ear and increase your knowledge of whatyou like and dislike in microphones. You can use this knowledge inthe future when you consider buying any type of microphones. Soundis sound and high quality recording will become easier for you torecognize after you read through this article and analyze the soundsamples.The microphones are listed in alphabetical order. #1. Audio-Techinca AT875R

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Line + Gradient $259.00 MSRP



Audio-Technica U.S. Inc. 1221 Commerce Drive. Stow, Ohio 44224 www.audio-technica.com Relative size: Smallest shotgun I've ever seen Weight: 80g (2.8 oz.) Dimensions: 175.0 mm (6.89") long, 21.0 mm (0.83") diameter Extras: AT8405a stand clamp for 5/8"-27 threaded stands; 5/8"-27 to3/8"-16 threaded adapter; windscreen; soft protective pouch Cosmetics: Unusual interference tube design, I liked it Fit and Finish: Very good, it doesn't look inexpensiveAudio-Technica's description of the microphone: Audio-Technica's AT875R is designed for video production andbroadcast (ENG/EFP) audio acquisition. Audio-Technica's shortestshotgun microphone, it mounts conveniently on a HDV/DV or HDcamcorder without adding noticeable heft, and is ideal for use withcompact digital cameras. This high-performance microphone offers anarrow acceptance angle of line + gradient design. It also featuressmooth, natural-sounding on-axis audio quality and excellent off-axisrejection of sound arriving from the sides and rear of mic.

Designed for video production and broadcast (ENG/EFP) audioacquisitionExtremely short length (under 7") ideal for use with compactdigital camerasProvides the narrow acceptance angle desirable for long-distancesound pickupExcellent sound rejection from the sides and rear of micTailored response minimizes camera and handling noiseOperates on phantom power onlyRoHS compliant-free from all substances specified in the EUdirective on hazardous substancesDan's initial take on the microphone: I first heard about the AT875R at NAB 2007. The niche that Audio-Technica seems to be trying to fill with the 875r seems to be thecamcorder mounted short shotgun. It's small, inexpensive and seemsto be a perfect candidate for on-camera use. Except that you shouldknow that mounting a microphone on your camcorder, no matter howgood-sounding the microphone, is a recipe for horrible audio quality.We are more interested in how the AT875R performed as a properboom mic.[Top]

#2. Audio-Techinca AT4073a



Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Line + Gradient $895.00 MSRP Audio-Technica U.S. Inc. 1221 Commerce Drive. Stow, Ohio 44224 www.audio-technica.com Relative size: fairly small size and lightweight make it a boomoperator's friend Weight: 114g (4.0 oz.) Dimensions: 9.13" (232.0 mm) long, 0.83" (21.0 mm) diameter Extras: AT8405a stand clamp for 5/8"-27 threaded stands; AT8134windscreen; protective carrying case Cosmetics: Very generic looking, nice grey/bronze color Fit and Finish: Very good, has a nice feel to its surface plusunusually shaped, eye catching diaphragm openingsAudio-Technica's description of the microphone: The AT4073a sets new standards in small size and light weight. Withan overall length of just 9.13" and weight of just 4.0 oz, the micadds virtually no heft to the end of a fish pole or the top of aminicam. Through the use of an advanced, propriety Audio-Technicadesign, the interference tube of the AT4073a provides a narrow



acceptance angle that would require a tube 50 percent longer usingconventional technology. Audio-Technica has pioneered a uniqueinterference tube design* in the AT4071a and AT4073a shotgun micsthat provides the same directivity as mics up to 50 percent longer.Designed for critical long-distance pickup in broadcasting,film/TV production and theater sound reinforcement applicationsDirect-coupled, balanced output ensures a clean signal even inhigh-output conditionsExclusive acoustic design* provides same directivity as mics upto 50% longerSwitchable 150 Hz hi-pass filterRugged housing made of lightweight structural-grade aluminumalloy

Dan's initial take on the microphone: I have quite a bit of experience in shooting with this microphone as aproduction company I shoot a lot for has them in their audio kits thatI have used for the past few years. I have always liked the sound ofthe microphone, it is quite good for interiors, especially dead-sounding rooms with a lot of carpet and plush furniture.[Top]

#3. Beyerdynamic MC 836



Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Lobe Cardioid $999.00 MSRP Beyerdynamic 56 Central Ave. Farmingdale, NY 11735 http://northern-america.beyerdynamic.com Relative size: Average size for short shotgun Weight: 116g (4.09 oz.) Dimensions: 9.76" (248.0 mm) long, 0.83" (21.0 mm) diameter Extras: protective carrying case Cosmetics: Gray crackle anodized finish Fit and Finish: Nice, easy to grip when fingers are dampBeyerdynamic's description of the microphone: The rugged and lightweight MC 836 shotgun microphone has beendesigned to meet the demands of ENG and EFP applications. Due toits acoustical characteristics it is also suited for film applications.The directional polar pattern helps to suppress lateral andbackground noise.The microphone operates according to the pressuregradient/line transducer technique. A switchable low frequency roll-off eliminates unwanted low frequencies at a cut-off frequency of 90Hz. An integrated footfall sound insulation avoids the transmission ofnoise below 40 Hz. To avoid wind noise when used outdoors, a windshield must be used. The microphone can be operated with aphantom power supply of 11 - 52 V.

Lobe/Cardioid polar patternVery wide frequency responseLow frequency roll-off switchPhantom power supply 11 - 52 VDan's initial take on the microphone: I had never used a Beyerdynamic microphone before this review. Themicrophone's overall sound was neutral and it featured very good off-axis noise rejection. For some reason, Beyerdynamic mics have neverbeen commonplace in video/film production and I am not sure why. Iwas eager to hear how this microphone compared to the brands morefamiliar to me.



[Top]

#4. Neumann KMR81i

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Supercardioid/Lobe $1,349.00 MSRP Neumann USA 1 Enterprise Drive. Old Lyme, CT 06371, USA www.neumannusa.com Relative size: Average size for short shotgun Weight: 145g (5.11 oz.) Dimensions: 8.97" (226.0 mm) long, 0.83" (21.0 mm) diameter Extras: WS-81 windscreen, leather carrying case Cosmetics: Available in nickel or black finish Fit and Finish: Impeccable German craftsmanship, a work of art likeall Neumanns I have used and ownedNeumann's description of the microphone: The KMR 81 is a shotgun microphone with a high directivity thatremains within the acceptance angle independent of the frequency.



The advantage is that a sound source, for example an actor onstage, will not change its apparent tonal balance when moving withinthis area.Applications Shotgun microphones are particularly useful in recording situationswhere a microphone cannot be positioned within the desired distanceof the sound source to produce a sufficiently loud signal level.Typical applications are film and video recordings, where themicrophone should not appear in the picture. The KMR 81 has beenspecifically designed for electronic news gathering.Acoustic features In principle, Neumann shotgun microphones use a combination of apressure gradient transducer and an interference tube. If thewavelength of the frequency is longer than the tube length, themicrophones work as pressure gradient transducers. At higherfrequencies they operate as interference transducers for lateralsound. Off-axis sound sources are picked up with reduced level, butwithout coloration.Therefore, the microphones are well suited to record individualinstruments of an orchestra. The pickup areas of several shotgunmicrophones may even overlap as, for example, during recordings ona large stage, without causing any problem.The KMR 81 is less sensitive to wind and pop noise when comparedto the KM 150 miniature microphone with a similar high directivity.The shotgun microphone features extremely low self noise, goodimpulse response, and high output level.Polar patterns The KMR 81 is a shotgun microphone with a very directionalcharacteristic.The microphone capsule is positioned inside a housing tube that isacoustically open but has a high flow resistance. The directionalpattern of the microphone is lobe shaped. The attenuation of lateralsound is practically independent of the frequency. The KMR 81 has afrequency independent directivity within a pickup angle of 90 foraudio signals that determine the tonal balance of the programmaterial.Filter and attenuation The microphone has a 10 dB attenuation switch to prevent the inputof the following unit from overloading.

A second switch activates a 200 Hz high-pass filter. Toward thelower frequencies the sensitivity of the microphone isattenuated by approximately 15 dB at 50 Hz. The frequencyrange above 200 Hz is unaffected.Dan's initial take on the microphone: I have owned a couple ofNeumann's large diaphragm studio condenser microphones fordecades and have always liked their sound characteristics as well astheir legendary build quality and craftsmanship. The KMR81i is no



different; it's a very well crafted piece of gear. This microphone wasthe only nickel satin finish microphone we received for testing, whichcosmetically makes it really stand out in a sea of black, gray andbronze finishes. The sound is smooth and natural and the KMR81ihas outstanding off-axis noise rejection as well. The KMR81i has avery well balanced and clear sound quality that I found appealing.[Top]

#5. Oktava MK-012

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Cardioid, Omni,Hypercardioid (each using a separate capsule) $375.00 MSRP Oktava USA 345 N. Dubuque St. North Liberty, IA 52317, USA www.oktavausa.com Relative size: Very, very small microphone Weight: 70g (2.46 oz.) Dimensions: 5.03" (128.0 mm) long, 0.90" (23.0 mm) diameter



Extras: -10dB pad, microphone holder, plastic case Cosmetics: Available in silver or black matte finish Fit and Finish: Rugged looking, and a bit rough, typical of SovietelectronicsOktava USA description of the microphone: The MK-012 is a compact, high quality capacitor microphone. Thewide, flat response ensures that all sounds are captured with a highdegree of accuracy. A cardioid, omni & hypercardioid capsule increasethis microphone's versatility.The MK-012 is suitable for use in any situation where an accuratesound is required, the size of the system makes it ideal for use inbroadcast, sound for picture, installation, sound reinforcement andtheatre situations as well as the recording studio.Dan's initial take on the microphone: The Oktava MK-012 has become a cult microphone with locationsound mixers, indie filmmakers as well musicians and studio ownerseverywhere. The microphone is priced in the low-budget range. Isthis the only reason for all of the enthusiasm? I have heardcomparisons between the MK-012 and the Schoeps microphones andI have also heard that the Oktavas are also prone to Q/C issues andexcessive handling noise. The samples I recorded will let you makeup your own mind about the Okatava.Personally, I found the microphone to have very good quality soundfor its price range. The Oktava, to my ears, presented a slightly morecolored and high frequency emphasized sound quality than theSankens and the Schoeps, it did not have the smoothness andnatural sound quality of the Schoeps but it did sound veryimpressive. I would not hesitate to recommend the Okatava as asolid, low cost and versatile choice that is an excellent value since itis a microphone system for under $400.00 including three capsulesand a -10dB pad, microphone holder and case. I very much enjoyedrecording with the Oktava, it seemed like a relative bargain.[Top]

#6. Sanken CS-1



Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Short shotgun $795.00 MSRP Plus 24 1155 N. La Brea Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90038, USA www.plus24.net Relative size: Very small microphone Weight: 100g (3.52 oz.) Dimensions: 7.14" (181.5 mm) long, 0.74" (19.0 mm) diameter Extras: US-1 foam windscreen, ROCS rubber O-ring, padded hard-shell case Cosmetics: Black/dark gray smooth finish Fit and Finish: Very nice quality feelSanken description of the microphone: The new CS-1 Short Shotgun Microphone employs the sameinnovative technology as previous Sanken mics in a new, smaller,ultra-compact housing. Specifically designed for the film andtelevision industries, the CS-1 is unobtrusive and easily avoids thecamera's view. Sharp directivity delivers highly targeted sound whileeliminating background noise through off-axis rejection.



Measuring only 7 inches in length, the CS-1 is ideal for mounting onvideo and film cameras, and with a weight of only 3.5 ounces, it iseasy to maneuver on boom poles and is also effective as a handheldshotgun mic. Utilizing Sanken's original square condenser capsule,the CS-1 has a flat frequency response well beyond 20kHz.Very sharp directivity in a compact 7" bodyFlat frequency on-axis response beyond 20kHzOptimum sensitivity: -30dB/PaHigh SPL- more than 137dB SPL(1% THD), with no distortion,even in close proximity to sound sourcesNarrow angle directivity in all frequency ranges - 23dB/20kHz,25dB/10kHz,26dB/1kHz,20dB/200HzOnly 3.5 ounces - light weight makes it ideal for boom poleoperationSanken original square-type DC-biased condenser capsule

Dan's initial take on the microphone: The Sanken CS-1 has become a very popular choice as a solid mid-range and physically small short shotgun. With crisp detailed soundand very good off-axis rejection, the Sanken is an intelligent choicefor a sound package for video/film. The sound is neutral, relativelyuncolored and contains a lot of detail, particularly in the highfrequencies.[Top]

#7. Sanken CS-3e



Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Short shotgun wsupercardioid pattern $1,350.00 MSRP Plus 24 1155 N. La Brea Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90038, USA www.plus24.net Relative size: Very small diameter, long length microphone Weight: 120g (4.23 oz.) Dimensions: 10.6" (270 mm) long, 0.74" (19.0 mm) diameter Extras: US-1 foam windscreen, ROCS rubber O-ring, padded hard-shell case Cosmetics: Black/dark gray smooth finish Fit and Finish: Very nice quality feelSanken description of the microphone: In the CS-3e, threedirectional capsules are arranged in a front-back array to combineline microphone performance and second-order pressure gradientresponse in a single system.With this unique design, the CS-3eachieves phenomenal supercardioid directivity in the lowestfrequencies and throughout the full range in a microphone 27cm (10inches) in length.It is significant that the CS-3e picks up the targeted frontal soundsources with exceptional clarity over a wide frequency range - even innoisy ambient environments or in long reverberation spaces - byrejecting undesired noise and sounds coming from the rear and sides.Background Conventional shotgun microphones use a line capsule array and apipe with slits in front of the capsule to create high directivity byutilizing phase interference inside the casing. With this conventionaldesign, high-directivity in the middle-low frequency range is notachieved, although high-directivity in the high frequency range ismaintained. Conventional shotgun microphones are at adisadvantage because they invariably pick up unwanted soundscoming from the back and sides. In order to solve this problem,conventional shotgun microphones designed for high directivity in themiddle- low frequencies require a length of more than one meter (39



inches) in length. However, long shotgun microphones seriouslyaffect mobility and are not ideal for field recording.Unique Design The remarkable performance of the CS-3e is based on thecombination of a second-gradient and line microphone with threedirectional condenser elements, using new PPS (Poly-Gold-PhenyleneSulfide) diaphragms to provide optimum humidity/temperaturestability. The CS-3e incorporates the revolutionary technology of theCSS-5 shotgun stereo microphone (switchable shotgunstereo/mono/wide) and the COS-11s lavalier microphone developedin conjunction with NHK. The CS-3e is small and lightweight with alow-cut switch to satisfy the various needs of location and studiorecording.The standard 19mm diameter permits use of a wide rangeof accessories developed for enhanced performance and fieldmobility.Non-Proximity Effect When a conventional shotgun microphone is near the sound source,proximity effect results in a boosting of certain low frequencies andslight masking of others. Some designs utilize this effect to reducesurrounding noises, but microphone response greatly varies with thechanging distance between the source and the microphone. Thiseffect becomes more pronounced when the directionality becomesgreater. By contrast, the CS-3e virtually eliminates the proximityeffect and maintains sharp directivity, while the sonic characteristicsdo not change with varied distances between sources andmicrophone. This is a significant advantage over all other directionalmicrophones.Dan's initial take on the microphone: The Sanken CS-3e presents somewhat of an enigma to me. It has asimilar sound to the Sanken CS-1, but it has better off-axis rejectionthan the CS-1, as you would expect. The Sanken CS-3e seems tooffer a very smooth and detailed sound with excellent dynamic rangeas well. The CS-3e retails for almost twice the price of the CS-1though. In audio, there is a general guideline for gear called the lawof diminishing returns. What it means is that in order to obtain apiece of gear that sounds good, you have spend a certain amount ofmoney. In order to obtain a piece of gear that will sound 10% betterthan a similar piece of other gear, you often have to spend manytimes as much. As costs increase, the differences in sound qualitybecome smaller and smaller. I wonder if this might be the case withthe CS-3e? It sounded smoother and more balanced than the CS-1but is it worth almost twice the money? You will have to judge withyour own ears and make that decision.[Top]

#8. Schoeps CMC641 - CMC6U Microphone Preamp and MK-41GSuper Cardioid Capsule



Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Supercardioid $1,592.00 MSRP Redding Audio 97 South Main Street, Unit #10 Newtown, CT 06470, USA www.reddingaudio.com Relative size: small length modular system Weight: 120g (4.23 oz.) Dimensions: 4.57" (116 mm) long, 0.78" (20.0 mm) diameter Extras: SG20 Microphone Stand Mount, B5 Pop-Filter, Case Cosmetics: Dark Gray Matte Fit and Finish: Top of the line matte finish with gold engraving, goldcolored XLR connectionSchoeps' description of the microphone: CMC Microphone Amplifiers

balanced, very low-impedance output can be used with very long cables (several hundred meters) can be used with Active Accessories for miniaturization andspecial applications



The chief task of a CMC microphone amplifier is to convert theextremely high-impedance signal from the capsule to a very low-impedance one suitable for transmission through a microphone cable.Several versions are available which differ only in their powering,connectors, output levels and surface finishes. They all feature asymmetrical class-A output stage with neither coupling condensersnor an output transformer. This design helps them to achieveextremely low distortion and light physical weight, while their verylow output impedance helps make them insensitive to electricalinterference. standard microphone amplifier: Modular MK 41 Capsule supercardioid pattern very well maintained throughout thefrequency rangefor music and speechhigh directivity, comparable to that of a short "shotgun"microphone up through midrange frequencies

The MK 41 is strongly directional. Sound arriving from off axis isattenuated even more than with a cardioid. The pickup is 'drier' andless susceptible to acoustic feedback than any other SCHOEPSmicrophone type, provided that a loudspeaker is not located directlyon the rear axis of the microphone.Its directivity is highly independent of frequency, so that evensounds arriving off axis and reverberant sound are registered withoutcoloration. Consequently, even distant placement of the microphoneproduces a very natural sound pickup. This is a real advantage overinterference-tube "shotgun" microphones, whose directivity is veryfrequency-dependent exceeding that of a supercardioid only at higherfrequencies. Interference-tube microphones are notoriously sensitiveto their position in a room, where the shifting patterns of reflectionscause corresponding shifts in sound color. Thus the MK 41 and CCM41 are surprisingly effective and space-saving alternatives to shotgunmicrophones - and being small, they can often be placed closer tothe sound source.Dan's initial take on the microphone: The Schoeps CMC641 is an industry standard. It is relatively costly,yet most location sound mixers feel that it is worth it. To my ears,the CMC641 seemed to have the least colored, most natural sound ofany of the microphones tested. It's difficult to describe. Almost all ofthe mics tested had clear and concise sound, yet I always formed theimpression that I was listening to a recording of the sound. Theother mics "present" the sound, each in their own style. With thismicrophone, I never got the impression that the sound was"presented" it just was "there" and sounded very similar to what myears alone hear. In audio parlance, this is the textbook description of"uncolored" sound.The versatility of the Schoeps Collette System should also beconsidered. With the addition of other capsules, your CMC6U preampbecomes the basis for a very versatile and high quality microphonesystem, if you have the financial means to afford the not soinexpensive prices for additional capsules.[Top]



#9. Schoeps CMIT5u

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Supercardioid/ lobe-shaped$1,895.00 MSRP Redding Audio 97 South Main Street, Unit #10 Newtown, CT 06470, USA www.reddingaudio.com Relative size: about the average size for a shotgun Weight: 89g (3.13 oz.) Dimensions: 9.88" (251 mm) long, 0.827" (21.0 mm) diameter Extras: SG20 Microphone Stand Mount, W 140 foam-type windscreen,Polished Wooden Case Cosmetics: Anodized Blue Aluminum Fit and Finish: Top of the line with three separate filter push buttonswith six small, orange LED indicatorsSchoeps description of the microphone: Schoeps Microphones and proudly present the Schoeps CMIT 5Ushotgun microphone.



Three pushbutton-activated filters:High-frequency emphasis (+5 dB at 10 kHz)Steep low-cut filter (18 dB/oct. below 80 Hz)Gentle low-frequency rolloff (6 dB/oct. below 300 Hz)

A pair of LEDs next to each filter pushbutton indicates the status(in/out) of each filter-a practical feature that is truly unique for amicrophone of this type.Weight: An amazing 3 1/8 ounces!48 Volt phantom poweringSuperior RF immunityUnusually low coloration of off-axis sound, for a shotgunPickup pattern is consistent in both the horizontal and verticalplanes (unlike some popular shotguns)Increased directivity at medium frequenciesLess sensitive to wind noise than a Schoeps CMC 641Schoeps sound quality makes the microphone suitable for musicrecording as well as DialogueBeautiful, blue anodized all metal housing

Schoeps: Innovation redefined The focus on outstanding high quality, reliability, and neutral,accurate sound has been the production philosophy of Schoepsmicrophones since 1948. The simple elegance and clever engineeringof their products reflects a true passion for the art of microphonemanufacturing and a tireless attention to detail. Schoeps is mostfamous for its Colette Modular Microphone System, the mostextensive and versatile microphone system ever conceived.Introduced in the early seventies, the Colette System is still theheart of the Schoeps line today. It was the first of its kind, allowingthe use of various active accessories between the capsule andamplifier body and is undoubtedly the standard to which all othersmall-diaphragm microphones are compared. The CMIT 5U continuesin this tradition of superb quality, innovation and functionality thatall Schoeps products share.Not your ordinary shotgun ... For years Schoeps has declined requests to produce a shotgun typemicrophone. The company felt if it were going to produce a shotgunmicrophone, there had to be some level of uniqueness andimprovement. Besides the ber-cool push buttons and LEDs, thismicrophone produces a natural sound not thought possible with aninterference-tube design. It is only fitting that they are finallyoffering one since Schoeps' Technical Director Joerg Wuttke, theProject Manager of the CMIT 5U had studied with and assisted theinventor of the interference tube "shotgun" microphone, ProfessorGnther Kurtze. Countless location recordists already use a SchoepsCMC 641 supercardioid in conjunction with their favorite non-Schoepsshotgun to handle all their audio capture needs. For the first time,users can enjoy an audible cohesion between their venerable CMC641 and their shotguns.Dan's initial take on the microphone Professional sound mixers have longed for a Schoeps shotgun for



quite some time and the introduction of the CMIT5u finally meansthat a Schoeps shotgun finally exists. The CMIT5u sounds great andshares a lot of the same sound characteristics as the CMC641supercardioid while featuring a narrower pickup pattern with betteroff axis rejection. Pairing a CMIT5u with a CMC641 would result in anideal location sound package. The only problem for many of us mightbe that the cost of the two together approaches U.S. $3,600.00. TheCMIT5u is a beautiful microphone that exudes a unique look and feelas well as a unique sound. The other notable quality of the CMIT5uis it's amazingly light weight. When using the CMIT5u, its extremelylight heft allows the boom operator to use the mic for longer periodsof time with less fatigue. Those missing few ounces make a bigdifference when using the mic on a long boom pole especially.[Top]

#10. Sennheiser MKH-50

Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Pressure gradientmicrophone with super-cardioid pick-up pattern



$1,440.00 MSRP Sennheiser 1 Enterprise Drive, Old Lyme, CT 06371 www.sennheiserusa.com Relative size: Short length but larger diameter than other comparablemicrophones Weight: 99g (3.5 oz.) Dimensions: 6.02" (152.9 mm) long, 0.98" (24.8 mm) diameter Extras: Shock mount MZS 40, Stand adapter MZQ 40, WindscreenMZQW 40 Cosmetics: Black matte Fit and Finish: Very nice black metallic finish with typical Sennheiserhigh-quality feel.Sennheiser description of the microphone: Features & Benefits

High rejection of lateral soundsExceptionally low inherent self-noiseTransformerless and fully floating balanced outputSymmetrical transducer technology ensures extremely lowdistortionSwitchable roll-off filter to compensate for proximity effects at adistance of approx. 0.5 mSwitchable pre-attenuationBlack, anodised light metal bodyThe super-cardioid MKH 50 offers a higher attenuation of diffuse-fieldand lateral sound than the cardioid microphone. It is principallydesigned for use as a soloist's or spot microphone for applicationsrequiring a high degree of side-borne sound muting and feedbackrejection. The directional characteristics are frequency-independent.The unit shall be a super-cardioid studio directional microphone withswitchable pre-attenuation and switchable roll-off filter. Thefrequency response shall be 40 Hz-20,000 Hz, with sensitivity (freefield, no load) of 25 (8) mV/Pa 1dB at 1 kHz. The nominalimpedance shall be 150 W, and min. terminating impedance shall be1000 W. The dimensions shall be .98 x 6.02 inches, and weighapprox. 3.5 oz. The unit shall be a Sennheiser MKH 50. Values inparentheses with attenuator switched on (-10 dB).Dan's initial take on the microphone: The Sennheiser MKH-50 is a popular supercardioid microphone. It hasa robust and clear sound with a nice bass response and decent off-axis rejection. The Sennheiser has a different sound than the otherhigh-end microphones tested, which I found refreshing. To my ears,the Sennheisers present a slightly "darker" sound with considerablelow end without boominess. I find this sound appealing for manyprojects and subjects.[Top]

#11. Sennheiser MKH-60



Manufacturer Description of polar pattern: Interference Tube (shortgun) microphone with super-cardioid/lobar pick-up pattern $2,000.00 MSRP Sennheiser 1 Enterprise Drive, Old Lyme, CT 06371 www.sennheiserusa.com Relative size: Short length but larger diameter than other comparablemicrophones Weight: 160g (5.64 oz.) Dimensions: 11.02" (280 mm) long, 0.98" (25 mm) diameter Extras: Stand adapter MZQ 40 Cosmetics: Black matte Fit and Finish: Very nice black metallic finish with typical Sennheiserhigh-quality feel.Sennheiser description of the microphone: Features & Benefits

Extremely low inherent self-noiseHigh sensitivityHigh directivity throughout the whole frequency range



Transformerless and fully floating balanced outputInfra-sonic cut-off filterSymmetrical transducer technology ensures extremely lowdistortionSwitchable pre-attenuation, switchable roll-off filter andswitchable treble emphasisRugged and weather-proofBlack, anodised light metal bodyThe MKH 60 is a lightweight short gun microphone. It is versatile andeasy to handle and its superb lateral sound muting makes it anexcellent choice for film and reporting applications. Its high degree ofdirectivity ensures high sound quality for distance applications.Dan's initial take on the microphone: The Sennheiser MKH-60 is a very popular supercardioid patternedshotgun microphone. It has a robust and clear sound with a nice bassresponse and excellent off-axis rejection. The Sennheiser has adifferent sound than the other high-end microphones tested,although the basic sound quality is similar to the MKH-50, which Iquite liked. The MKH-60 presents with less bass and slightly moremid-range emphasis than the MKH-50.[Top]

Comparison Table



The Tests I mulled over how to best test these microphones so that readerscould make up their minds about which one best suits their needs.(Insert cheesy sound mixer joke here) I wanted to avoid the analysisof the anechoic chamber and test bench routine, largely because mytest bench has tools and cat food bowls all over it and my anechoicchamber was retrofit with a Jacuzzi last Spring. ;-)It seemed that the most useful way to test these microphones wasto record a variety of subjects in varying "real" audio environmentsusing both male and female voices. Many of the other tests clipsfrom microphones of the web were recorded in a perfect sounding VObooth or recording studio. This is fine if you record in a VO booth orrecording studio but most video and filmmakers record in a widevariety of locations, from sound stages to living rooms, from street



scenes to backyards, so I decided to try to record at least most ofthe test clips in "real" environments. Support Gear Used I decided to record the samples with practical, common support gear.Most video shooters and an increasing number of filmmakers do notrecord dual system sound or use a Zaxcom Deva, etc. Most video andan increasing number of HD films are shot with the microphonesinput directly into the audio connections on the camcorder.Depending on the model of camcorder, most HD/HDV camcorders arecapable of recording decent quality sound. I decided that I would runthe signal through an audio mixer, then I would run line level outputfrom the audio mixer to the line level inputs of the camcorder,bypassing the camcorder's mic-preamps. Recording Device NTSC Panasonic HVX-200 P2 camcorder. Camera was set to record48kHz/16 bit audio in the 720 24PN frame rate to P2 cards. Allfootage was loaded into Final Cut Pro 5.1.4 and .AIFF files wereextracted. The .AIFF files were then compressed to 192Kbps .MP3files for publication on the web. This type of prosumer camcorder is avery common for many shooters today, although many also shootHDV tape. Each microphone was fed into audio input one and two,with a roughly 15dB offset. Only one channel was used for the audiosamples for this article, the single channel was duplicated to forthose listening to this with a stereo speaker set on the computer.Left and right channel are identical. Cables One twenty-foot XLR cable, Mogami cable and Canare XLR connecters Audio Mixer Professional Sound Corporation M4 MKII Audio Mixer. The PSC audiomixer supplied 48v phantom power to all of the microphones in thetest. The M4 sent a line level output signal to the HVX-200. Microphone Support There was considerable variation in tube diameter and shape of themicrophones. A variety of microphone support gear was utilizedincluding microphone mounts from Lightwave, Sennheiser, K-Tek andRycote. The mics were mounted to a stationary mic boom for allstationary tests. For the microphone handling-noise test, themicrophones and their mounts were affixed to a Gitzo 11' carbonfiber boom pole Your Gear To be honest, if you listen to the sound samples I have provided onaverage computer speakers or especially laptop speakers, you arenot going to hear very many differences in the samples. Many of the



differences between all of these microphones are in the very lowfrequency range and many of the differences between the differentmicrophones are in the very high frequencies. Simply put, low qualitygear is not capable of reproducing very low or very high frequencieswith much accuracy. I analyzed all of these test clips on a playbacksystem in a sound treated room through Genelec 1029a studiomonitors with a Genelec 1091b subwoofer. The system and roomhave had spectrum analysis and the room has been EQ'd and tuned.I suggest that, if you want a fair evaluation of the clips, you need toobtain playback on a decent quality, somewhat accurate playbacksystem. If you do not have access to a decent quality playbacksystem, listen to the samples on decent headphones. The signal willnot be accurate but you will at least be able to hear the differencesbetween the mics, the low frequency differences and the room toneand air tone, ambient sound differences. I tested these samples onmy laptop speakers and on some cheap computer speakers and trustme, all of the mics sound almost the same on lousy speakers. Test #1. Male Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setup This test was designed to reproduce a typical interview setup. Theroom was a small office measuring 22' long by 14' wide with an 8'ceiling height. The room contained a nominal amount of furniture, acarpeted floor and one window. I have shot hundreds of interviews atcorporations, movie studios and offices suites in rooms very muchlike this one.The microphone was placed about a foot over the subject's head on astationary microphone boom. I did not want to color the sound byusing a windscreen or pop filter so for the interior tests, all of themicrophones were recorded bare with only the mic element facing thesubject. For this test, listen for the differences in the quality andtimbre of the voice, noise levels and room reflections.For the microphones that had built-in low frequency roll offs or cuts, Irecorded separate clips with the microphones low cuts switched inand out so that you could compare each of the microphone's rumbleand noise level. Playing Back Microphone Test Files All audio files are 192Kbps .MP3 files. On Mac-based systems, ifclicked on, these files will open in iTunes. On Mac-based systems, Irecommend downloading the files, then opening them with QuickTimeplayer for a more accurate playback. On PC systems, these files maybe played back with iTunes player or any other .MP3 capableapplication. File Naming Convention For This Test You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters"MVINOA" in the file name. MVINOA stands for Male Voice Interior OnAxis. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initials sothat if you download several, with a glance, you can tell which testsfor which microphone you are listening to.



Sound Samples1. AT875RMVINOA 2. AT4073aMVINOA 3. BeyerdynamicMC836MVINOA 4. NeumannKMR81iMVINOA 5. OktavaMK012CardiodMVINOA 6. OktavaMK012HyperMVINOA 7. SankenCS-1MVINOA 8. SankenCS-3eMVINOA 9. SchoepsCMC641MVINOA 10. SchoepsCMIT5uMVINOA 11. SennheiserMKH-50MVINOA 12. SennheiserMKH-60MVINOA

[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #1Male Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setupAudio-Technica AT875R

I was pleasantly surprised after recording the first test with thismicrophone. I tried to forget everything that I knew about eachmicrophone and just listen. When I listened to the Audio-TechnicaAT875R, I really liked what I heard. The mic features strong bassresponse with a good mid-range and fairly detailed high end withoutbeing overly sibilant. Overall this microphone had a balanced sound. Audio-Technica AT4073a



A production company that I often shoot for uses these microphonesso I was instantly familiar with the sound signature of this mic. Onestandout characteristic of this microphone is that it has a very highnominal output; it was significantly more sensitive than any of theother mics. The microphone emphasizes highs more than most of theother mics that I tested. The microphone's bass roll off was also veryeffective and more drastic than some of the other mics tested. Iwould characterize the 4073a sound as "in-your-face", it would begood for quiet subjects or in situations where you could not place themicrophone very close to the talent. Overall this microphoneemphasizes the high frequencies. Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

I have never used a Beyerdynamic microphone before this test and Iwas impressed with the smooth and natural quality of thismicrophone. The MC-836PV emphasizes more of the mid-range soundof voices than some of the other mics tested; it also retains smoothhighs and a decent amount of bass response. Overall this



microphone seemed to emphasize the mids. It is the opposite of theAT4073a and MKH-50; it is kind of mellow sounding and seemed tobe fairly uncolored. Neumann KMR81i

The Neumann is certainly an impressive looking and well-craftedpiece of gear. I own several Neumann microphones although I havenever used a Neumann shotgun before. This microphone had a verywell balanced sound that I would mostly describe as smooth. Thereis a quality to the sound that is hard to describe, but I can relate itto how it makes my voice sound. On many of the other microphones,I hear a lot of effort in my voice. I am not a professional VO personor actor so I am sure that my breathing is not correct for VO work. Inmany of the other microphones, I can hear the strain in my voice thatI did not hear in the Neumann. With the Neumann, my voice soundedmore natural, yet the sound was still exciting and dynamic. Overallthis mic did not seem to overly emphasize any frequency range morethan the other. Oktava MK-012



The Oktava was another "underground" microphone that I had hearda lot about but had never used. The sound overall was very nicealthough I preferred the sound of my voice with the hypercardioidcapsule to the cardioid capsule. The sound was smooth and balancedalthough I did detect a tiny bit of emphasis on sibilance but reallynot enough to be concerned about. The microphone does pickup avery impressive amount of detail without over emphasizing plosivesor mouth sounds. I can see why there exists a large and enthusiasticfollowing for this mic, it is a great sounding unit. Overall this micseemed to slightly emphasize mid-range. Sanken CS-1

The CS-1 is another microphone that has received a lot of notice fromvideo and film people as well as professional mixers. In listening tothe first test, I am struck by how crisp and detailed the sound is.This microphone picked up every last detail in my voice yet I did nothear anything unpleasant in my voice characteristic, no excesssibilance or mid-range distortion. The microphone seemed to not



pickup a lot of bass or rumble in the room. Besides the Audio-Technica AT4073a, this microphone struck me as one of the mostdetailed, yet this microphone seemed to have a smoother all-aroundsound overall than the 4073a. Overall this microphone seemed toemphasize the highs and detail. Sanken CS-3e

The CS-3e is Sanken's more expensive, physically longer shotgunmicrophone. In A/B comparing the CS-3e and the CS-1, I hear moresmoothness and more bass from the CS-3e. The two mics share asimilar basic sound characteristic but the CS-3e overall soundssmoother to my ear. The CS-3e seemed to be one of those raremicrophones that can reproduce a lot of bass without too muchrumble or undesirable room tone. As expected, I detected less off-axis noise from the CS-3e than many of the smaller and shortermicrophone designs. The Sanken seems to have some of the samehard to define balanced quality that the Neumann KMR81i has, whichis a very nice characteristic that makes the mic a pleasure to use.Overall this microphone seemed to slightly emphasize mids andbass. Schoeps CMC641



Ever since I have been involved with sound for picture, a recurringmicrophone seems to come up in conversation, the Schoeps CMC641.At first listen, you are not blown away by how amazing the micsounds. I learned a long time ago that with microphones and audiomonitors, "sounding good" is not really that desirable. "Soundingaccurate" is a much more desirable characteristic and that is what Iget with this microphone on my voice. All of the other microphones inthe test gave me various versions of my voice, most sounded verynice but all sounded like very good copies of my voice, some withmore bass, some with more highs but the Schoeps simply recordedmy voice exactly as I hear it in my head. I don't sound great on it,but I can't deny that it is the most accurate. This is the reason whymost sound mixers will drop the $1,592.00 that it takes to buy one.The Schoeps did not seem to really emphasize any particularfrequency range. Very impressive performance if you know what youare listening for. Schoeps CMIT5u



By all accounts, recording an interview in a relatively small room withlow ceilings and mostly hard surfaces with a shotgun shouldn't soundthat great. I was impressed with the sound quality of thismicrophone. It is an unusual looking microphone, very high-tech withglowing LEDs, active switches and a visually arresting anodized bluecolor, but the microphone delivered great sound with a lot ofadjustment that most of the other microphones tested could notmatch. This microphone sounded different than the CMC641, yetsomewhat similar in the overall quality. It sounded as if materialrecorded with this mic would successfully intercut with materialrecorded with the CMC641. I felt like this was the only microphone Itested that really could sound like two or three different microphoneswithout switching capsules. Very impressive, smooth and detailedsound with that elusive "shimmer" that only very expensivemicrophones seem to record. Overall this microphone emphasizesbass frequencies. Sennheiser MKH-50

The MKH-50 was a different animal. I very much liked its soundquality. If all of these microphones were described in movie genres, Iwould characterize the sound of the MKH-50 as "action movie". Themicrophone seems to record a sound that kind of jumps out of thespeakers, almost with a slightly compressed quality that would workvery well for a lot of situations. Often during the video and film postprocess, sound has a tendency to become flattened so that the endresult needs a lot of post processing to sound exciting. If you recordusing the MKH-50, your sound will already sound as if it is verydynamic and has a lot of energy. The mic seems to equallyemphasize bass, mids and highs. The microphone has a lot of fansand after listening to this test, I can see why. Sennheiser MKH-60



As I listened to the MKH-60, I sensed a lot of balance in the sound.Just as in the Schoeps CMIT5u, the MKH-60 sounded surprisinglygood in a small room with lots of reflective surfaces. I wouldcharacterize the sound of the MKH-60 as mid-range emphasizedwhereas the MKH-50 seemed to be much more bass focused overall.The MKH-60 is a favorite for newer boom operators as it's pickuppattern is pretty forgiving yet has good rejection of off-axis noise.Like the MKH-50, the overall sound quality of the MKH-60 is darkerthan many of the other mics tested, one more reason why it isimportant to have more than one microphone in your sound kit.Sometimes your talent can sound kind of high frequency or evenchirpy. Recording that sort of voice through a mic that emphasizeshigh frequencies can be a mistake. A microphone like the MKH-60 cando very good things for thinner sounding and female/kid voices, as itlends then some richness. I would say that overall the sound of theMKH-60 leans toward the mids. Test #2. Male Voice, Interior, off-axis, interview setup This test was recorded in the same location as the first test, thedifference being that I moved the subject away from the microphoneduring the recording. The first sound you hear in each clip is thesame as the first test, male vocal, on-axis but the subject thenrotates away from the microphone axis by about three feet at abouta 45-degree angle from the microphone.The idea behind this test was to listen to how the microphonerejects off axis noise. Universally all of the microphones claim tohave great off-axis rejection so this test was designed to let youhear how each mic sounds under identical circumstances and judgefor yourself.The microphone was placed about a foot over the subject's head on astationary microphone boom. The subject then rotated about 3 feetaway from the microphone. For this test, listen to the amount of off-axis rejection. For most needs, the more off-axis rejection themicrophone has, the better sound you will record in most non-studioenvironments. Don't only listen to the sound level of the off-axis



sound; also listen for the sound frequency response as the subjectrotates away from the mic. Some of the microphones pickup all of thefrequencies equally in their off-axis response, some only pickup lows,mids or highs off-axis.File Naming Convention For This Test You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters"MVINOFFA" in the file name. MVINOA stands for Male Voice InteriorOff Axis. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initialsso that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell whichtests for which microphone you are listening to.Sound Samples

1. AT875RMVINOFFA 2. AT4073aMVINOFFA 3. BeyerdynamicMC836MVINOFFA 4. NeumannKMR81iMVINOFFA 5. OktavaMK012CardiodMVINOFFA 6. OktavaMK012HyperMVINOFFA 7. SankenCS-1MVINOFFA 8. SankenCS-3eMVINOFFA 9. SchoepsCMC641MVINOFFA 10. SchoepsCMIT5uMVINOFFA 11. SennheiserMKH-50MVINOFFA 12. SennheiserMKH-60MVINOFFA[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #2Male Voice, Interior, off-axis, interview setupAudio-Technica AT875R

The AT875R had decent off-axis rejection, but it was not as effectiveas any of the longer shotguns in this particular test. As I rotatedaway from the mic, the sound level did drop noticeably but I also still



hear quite a decent amount of high frequency content in the off-axissound. Not a bad result, especially for such an inexpensive mic butnot on par with the more expensive mics. Audio-Technica AT4073a

The 4073a had better off-axis response than it's little brother, theAT875R. I was interested to hear what the off-axis sounded likesince this microphone seems to emphasize the high-end more thanmost of the other mics tested. Surprisingly, the highs seemed tofade away more than I anticipated they would. While the 4073a didnot have the best off-axis response of all of the mics tested, it didpretty well. Beyerdynamic MC-836PV



To my ear, after A/B comparing all of the microphone's off-axisresponse, the Beyerdynamic seemed to have almost identical off-axissound as the AT4073a. I find this interesting because overall, theMC836 has a much more mid-range emphasized sound while the4073a emphasizes the highs. Neumann KMR81i

The off-axis response on the KMR81i was quite good. It wasinteresting that on this microphone, none of the frequency responseseemed to change off-axis; the signal just lowered considerably asthe sound source moved away from the mic. I would still characterizethe off-axis sound as smooth, just as the mic's on-axis response is.This is all the more impressive when you consider that I recorded thetest in a room that really should not have sounded very good withshotguns. Impressive performance. Oktava MK-012



I tested the off-axis response with both the cardioid andhypercardoid capsules. As expected, the hypercardioid providedconsiderably more off-axis rejection than the cardioid did. I didnotice that the bass and highs definitely dissipated more than themids did using the hypercardioid capsule. This was the onlymicrophone I tested that seemed to actually change phase in thesound quality as I rotated away from the mic. This effect was morepronounced with the hypercardioid capsule than with the cardioid.Overall, I was particularly impressed with the off-axis rejection of thehypercardioid capsule. Sanken CS-1

The CS-1 seemed to provide decent off-axis rejection although it wasnot as effective as some of the other microphones tested. Thequality of the sound did seem to mostly gravitate toward the mids asI rotated away from the mic, the highs and bass seemed to mostlydisappear. This to me could mean that the Sanken CS-1 would beparticularly good at rejecting non-voice sorts of sounds off axis but



might not be the best choice for isolating a voice in a crowd ofvoices, for instance. Sanken CS-3e

The CS-3e proved that it's significantly higher cost than the CS-1 isjustified when it comes to off-axis rejection. The CS-3e had verygood off-axis rejection and the quality of the sound seemed to stayabout the same as the source rotated off-axis. This microphoneseemed to do quite well at off-axis rejection and I would place itamongst the best based off of my non-scientific, informal off-axistest. Schoeps CMC641

The CMC-641, to my ear, seemed to react in the opposite to theSanken CS-1 as I rotated away from it. The mids seemed todisappear but I still heard a decent amount of bass and highs, Keepin mind that this microphone is a supercardioid, not a shotgun, so I



did expect to hear less off-axis rejection as the shotguns. It wouldbe a good idea to A/B compare this test with the other supercardioidthat sells in a similar price range as the Sennheiser MKH-50. Schoeps CMIT5u

As I expected, the CMIT5u seemed to do pretty impressive things inthis test. The off-axis rejection was amazing. My voice has a seriousdrop off in level, with an especially noticeable rejection of the highsand bass, while retaining slightly more of the mids. The CMIT5ukeeps it's smoothness while off-axis, but the drop-off in level isabrupt, leading me to believe that you had better be a skilled boomoperator if you use this microphone to boom mic multiple speakers.Based upon this test, I feel that CMIT5u was clearly the strongest inoff-axis rejection of all of the mics tested. Sennheiser MKH-50



The off-axis rejection of this mic was quite good. Keep in mind thatthis microphone has a very punchy, in-your-face sort of quality so Iwas particularly interested to hear how it's off-axis response wasgoing to come across. To me, the MKH-50 did not quite match theother supercardioid, the CMC641 in off axis response although it wasvery close. This could also be related to the relative sound levels ofthe samples recorded, the Sennheiser has a higher output than theSchoeps and I tried to match them in level. I felt that the off-axisrejection on the MKH-50 was very good but it still would not be mynumber one choice in the most noisy situations. I think that is agood indication that supercardioids and hypercardioids in general willnot perform as well as shotguns when more isolation is needed. Sennheiser MKH-60

The MKH-60 seemed to do quite well in this test. Keeping in mindthat it is a true shotgun, you would expect it to outperform the



supercardioids and hypercardioids, and it did. The real question ishow it performs against the other shotguns. In A/B comparisons withthe Neumann KMR81i and the Sanken CS-3e, I noticed less bass anda little less mid range with the MKH-60 than with the Sanken or theNeumann. The MKH-60 did not have as much off-axis rejection as theSchoeps, though. Overall, I was very impressed with the sound ofthis microphone in this test. Test #3. Microphone handling noise, Interior, narrative setup This test was recorded in a different, larger and deader room thanfirst two tests were recorded in. This test was probably the leastprecise of all of the tests, mainly because I am by no means aprofessional boom operator. I do hand boom occasionally but mytechnique is fairly clumsy, especially when compared to a pro.The idea was to mount each microphone to a mount, mount the micto the boom pole and to simulate miking a typical two-persondialogue scene where the mic is placed overhead and the boomoperator quickly twists the boom pole to follow the conversation. Irecorded the test with no actors so that you could clearly hear justthe microphone's handling noise. Certain microphones are said to bemore microphonic than others. What this means is that themicrophone amplifies all of the microphone's physical exterior noise,the noise of the microphone cable and various other handling noise.A microphone that is susceptible to handling noise may not be thebest choice for a project with a lot of movement. Keep in mind, onceagain; this was a very imprecise test. All of the microphonesexhibited at least a small amount of handling noise, while someexhibited quite a bit. A skilled boom operator can minimize theamount of handling noise so depending on who will be handling yourmicrophone; this handling noise issue may or may not be a big deal.If you are amateur like I am, this test may be more significant thanif you hire a professional boom operator.File Naming Convention For This Test You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters"Handling" in the file name. Handling stands for MicrophoneHandling. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initialsso that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell whichtests for which microphone you are listening to.Sound Samples

1. AT875RHandling 2. AT4073aHandling 3. BeyerdynamicMC836Handling 4. NeumannKMR81iHandling 5. OktavaMK012HyperHandling 6. SankenCS-1Handling 7. SankenCS-3eHandling 8. SchoepsCMC641Handling 9. SchoepsCMIT5uHandling 10. SennheiserMKH-50Handling 11. SennheiserMKH-60Handling



[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #3Microphone handling noise, Interior, narrative setupAudio-Technica AT875R

I thought that the AT875R lived up to its claim of being designed foron-camera mounting. If you think about it, a microphone designed foron-camera use needs to be able to reject a lot of handling noisesince riding around on a camera is somewhat similar to flyingoverhead on a boom mount. The initial clunk you hear is me pickingup the boompole but once I had the mic in the air and was moving itfrom imaginary talent to imaginary talent, I noticed a touch of midrange noise but almost no low end rumbling. The AT875R turned in avery good performance in this test. Audio-Technica AT4073a



It made sense to me that the AT4073A seemed to exhibit a bit morehandling noise than some of the other mics in this test, particularlywith low-end rumble. The AT4073a is a significantly more sensitivemicrophone than any of the others tested so this makes the presenceof more noise understandable but not desirable. If you decide tohand boom with this microphone, I would hope that you are anexperienced boom operator. In the hands of a rank amateur boomoperator like myself, the results are not great. On the other hand,professional boom operators would probably enjoy the increasedsensitivity of this mic; it would mean more leeway in having to placethe mic element so close to the talent. This is a good sounding micbut very sensitive. I did get a better result using the mic's bass rolloff. Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

The Beyerdynamic MC-836 performed this test very well. There was atiny bit of rumble but using the mics bass roll off could significantlyreduce it. This microphones basic sound quality seemed to beneutrality so in the realm of handling noise, this can be considered adistinct advantage. Several of the other mics that emphasize aspecific frequency range exhibited even more of the emphasizedrange when swinging around at he end of a boom pole. TheBeyerdynamic MC-836 delivered a very good result in this part of thetesting. Neumann KMR81i



The KMR81i offered an excellent performance in this test. There wasa hint of bass rumble, but it seemed to stem almost more from theair rushing past the mic diaphragm more than from actual noisetransmitted from the mount and boom pole and my clunky boomoperating. I performed the mic handling test inside so I did not haveany windscreen mounted. The relatively low handling noise exhibitedwould probably mostly be masked by dialogue and ambient noise inmost cases and could certainly be compensated for by a more skilledboom operator. Oktava MK-012



The Oktava MK012 was tested with the hypercardioid capsule, I feltthat this would be the most commonly used capsule when using thismicrophone. I did notice quite a bit of handling noise with thismicrophone. I did test with three different mic mounts, just to makesure, but the Oktava did exhibit considerable noise with all threemounts, although I did notice that I did get a significant reduction inhandling noise when I used a higher-end Lightwave mount that hadrubber suspension legs rather than rubber band types of mounts. Idon't feel that the handling noise is a deal breaker for the MK-012; itjust means that you need the best microphone mount and the besttechnique. For those of you who plan on hand booming with this mic,practice, practice and if you can swing it, hire a skilled boomoperator. Sanken CS-1

The CS-1 seemed to work pretty well with hand booming. I did detect



a tiny bit of rumble but not very much. Based upon what I hear fromthe tests, the CS-1 was in the top three in recording the leastamount of handling noise. This was a very good performance from amid-range priced microphone. Sanken CS-3e

For the CS-3e, I would take everything stated about the CS-1 andembellish on it even more. The CS-3e had exemplary low levels ofhandling noise, even when manipulated by my clumsy boom poleskills. An exceptional result in this test, very little noise wasapparent. Schoeps CMC641



The Schoeps CMC641 had very, very low levels of handling noise. Inorder to even hear any of the handling noise, I had to really crankthe levels of my audio system. There is a slight amount of bassrumble as I flipped the microphone from imaginary talent to talentbut at normal listening levels, the noise was barely apparent. Schoeps CMIT5u

The Schoeps CMIT5u turned in an almost identical performance to theCMC641. Very little noise although the noise that was there was of adecidedly deeper frequency. This makes sense as the CMIT5u is muchphysically larger yet lighter in weight than the CMC641. I think theextra mass of the CMC641 probably absorbs more of the deep bassfrequencies that are slightly more apparent on the CMIT5u Excellenthandling characteristics.



Sennheiser MKH-50

The Sennheiser MKH-50 also had very, very low levels of handlingnoise. I was able to determine that what little noise was apparentwas of a pretty low frequency. I used the included Sennheisermicrophone mount with the MKH mics and it did a very good job. TheMKH series mics are marked by an unusual rectangular shape sousing this microphone holder is probably a good idea as theSennheisers won't easily fit into a regular circular tube-shapedmicrophone mount. An excellent result from the very low handlingnoise of the MKH-50. Sennheiser MKH-60

The MKH-60 exhibited even slightly lower handling noise levels thanthe MKH-50. I used the same Sennheiser mic mount and obtainedvery impressive results. I would say that this would be a great mic toconsider if you are an amateur boom pole operator and need a



forgiving mic. The MKH-60 isolates you from the boom pole in a waythat is very appealing. I felt confident that with this mic, I couldactually boom operate and get decent results. That's saying a lot. Test #4. Female Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setup This test was recorded in a fairly lively room that measures 30' by 22'with a 12' ceiling. I felt that it was important to record sound using afemale voice because microphones are often sexist. What I mean bysexist is that often a microphone that makes a male voice soundgreat will often sound thin on a female voice and vice-versa. Iactually recorded some footage using each of the microphones for adocumentary project in progress so you can hear the microphones atwork in a genuine sort of environment. For this test, listen to thevoice quality of the talent, listen for thinness or thickness in hervoice along with all of the usual room reflections, rumble and off-axisnoise.File Naming Convention For This Test You will notice that each sound file below includes the letters"FVINOA" in the file name. FVINOA stands for Female Voice InteriorOn Axis. I have tried to name each file with a unique set of initialsso that if you download several, with a glance, you can tell whichtests for which microphone you are listening to.Sound Samples

1. AT875RFVINOA 2. AT4073aFVINOA 3. BeyerdynamicMC836FVINOA 4. NeumannKMR81iFVINOA 5. OktavaMK012CardiodFVINOA 6. OktavaMK012HyperFVINOA 7. SankenCS-1FVINOA 8. SankenCS-3eFVINOA 9. SchoepsCMC641FVINOA 10. SchoepsCMIT5uFVINOA 11. SennheiserMKH-50FVINOA 12. SennheiserMKH-60FVINOA[Top]

Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #4Female Voice, Interior, on-axis, interview setupAudio-Technica AT875R



I liked the way the AT875R rendered the talent's voice. It had acrisp, clear quality that I find appealing. That said, there is a slighttouch of sibilance if you listen to her S sounds. Overall, I would haveno problem using this microphone to record a female talent; Ithought the end result sounded good.Audio-Technica AT4073a

I was surprised to hear the warmth that the AT4073a brought out inthe talent's voice. In A/B comparisons with the AT875R, the 4073asounds warmer and fuller yet retains the crispness. I expected athinner sound. Overall, I think that this microphone sounded betterwith the female talent's voice than with my own. Keep in mind thatthis is a shotgun on an interior. I heard no nasty room reflections orother anomalies that can sometimes show up when a shotgun isused in a medium-sized reflective surfaced room. This microphonesounded better than I thought it would in this situation.



Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

I thought that the Beyerdynamic MC836 had a pleasant mellowbass/mid-range emphasized quality to it. The mic was not as crispsounding as some of the other mics but it did have an appealingsmoothness that I only found in the other more expensivemicrophones. There were no problems with sibilance and overall, Ithought that this microphone de-emphasized the mouth sounds(clicking, saliva/tongue sounds). A very nice sounding result.Neumann KMR81i

The Neumann had a precision to it's sound with the female talent. Ialmost had a sense that I was listening to a lavaliere. Even thoughthe Neumann was placed the same distance as all of the other micsfrom the talent's mouth, the Neumann

as i hear it - choosing the right microphone

Documents