#1682877 - 07/09/05 03:52 PM
Schoeps CMC6 MK4 initial report
|
umkcprof
Senior Member
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 158
Loc: Kansas City
|
Offline
|
|
Hi all. . .
Phil asked me to put in a report on my Schoeps acquisition (two matched CMC6 bodies and two matched MK4 capsules). Here is my "report":
1. The Schoeps mics are INCREDIBLY light weight. The body must be aluminum, as they weigh almost nothing. They sure don't "feel" like expensive mics (my Soundelux ifet7 must weigh in at over two pounds, and my Shure SM81s probably weigh almost three times as much). I suspect that this light weight has its merits under certain situations, but I don't like it. Give me thick steel any day.
2. The Schoeps shock mount (the A20S) has to be about the cheesiest shock mount in history. If I hadn't paid $2700 for this set, I'd have thought I had purchased a Radio Shack microphone! Does it work? Yes, it does. Does it look and feel solid? No, it does not. Frankly, I think it is a disgrace.
3. Sound: Okay, here's where all that complaining seems trivial. WOW. . . what a sound! Bear in mind that my only other experience with SDCs is my Shure SM81s, but these things are, as Phil mentioned on one post, "a whole nuther country." Indeed they are! Thus far I have only miked my acoustic guitar (Martin D-28) and for finger picking at that, but boy do they sound great. . . clearly a different country from Shureville. The sound seems much smoother, has less proximity effect (a real bonus for me), and is remarkably detailed. The high end (which is where I live) is incredibly crisp and clean but isn't harsh even in the slightest.
Overall, I'd say that I am very impressed at this point, but I'd sure like to see Schoeps invent a new shock mount. And, when they do, perhaps they could find it in their Eastern-block hearts to make the mounting recepticle a little smaller. Believe it or not, this one isn't quite standard-sized, as it almost literally slips on my mic stand threads (which, of course, easily fit every other mic I own). Very strange.
Anyway, that's the score so far. . . perhaps we'll have some piano results in the next couple of days.
Of course, I strongly recommend that everyone should take all of this input for what you paid for it.
Steve
_________________________
I am truly grateful for the wonderful information that everyone on the musicplayer site graciously bestows to me without thought of reward. You are all a credit to the worldwide web.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682878 - 07/09/05 04:11 PM
Re: Schoeps CMC6 MK4 initial report
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Thanks Steve... I'd say that was an excellent report. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682879 - 07/09/05 04:34 PM
Re: Schoeps CMC6 MK4 initial report
|
umkcprof
Senior Member
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 158
Loc: Kansas City
|
|
Offline
|
|
Phil! You have got to be kidding, right? You think that I am going to post my tracks HERE. . . a site where real experts like you reside? NO WAY, JOSE! That ain't gonna happen!
Actually, there is some real method in my recent Manley Gold/Soundelux/Schoeps microphone madness: If I am using truly great gear and I stink, I can live with that. That isn't a problem for me. The lack of talent is frustrating, of course, but it wouldn't be nearly as frustrating as thinking that I might have been able to make something very nice but that substandard equipment held me back. That, I can't live with.
Since "money" has never been something I struggled all that much with (my day job as a professor actually pays very well), any of my interests like the studio or my photography always inevitably leads to a search for very fine equipment. That way, if I stink, I have nothing to blame but a lack of talent, training, or imagination. And that's exactly the way I like it.
I want no excuses like "I could have been great except that I never had a decent microphone" coming from my lips. If I don't win the Nobel prize in economics (and, rest assured, I'm so far down the food-chain there is no danger of that!), it will be because I didn't work hard enough, I wasn't smart enough, or I couldn't come up with enough truly original ideas (all three, actually!). And, like I said, I can live with that.
But me post my stuff here? No way. I CAN'T live with that.
:-)
You gotta allow a boy to keep some dignity, right?
:-)
Thanks for all your help with the purchases, Phil. . .
Steve
_________________________
I am truly grateful for the wonderful information that everyone on the musicplayer site graciously bestows to me without thought of reward. You are all a credit to the worldwide web.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682880 - 07/10/05 01:04 PM
Re: Schoeps CMC6 MK4 initial report
|
RaGe
Gold Member
Registered: 04/26/01
Posts: 786
Loc: 16°14 N 61°32 W
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hey post those tracks dammit 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1682881 - 07/10/05 04:03 PM
Re: Schoeps CMC6 MK4 initial report
|
jnorman
Gold Member
Registered: 03/16/01
Posts: 916
Loc: salem,OR,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
interesting, your comment about the schoeps having less proximity effect than your shures. i have owned schoeps cmc64s, as well as DPA 4011s, AKG C481s, gefell m300s, AT4051s, km184s, etc, etc, and i think of all the SD mics i have used, the cmc64s had the most proximity effect of anything. because of this, they do make an exceptionally good main stereo pair for more diffuse field work, but i did not like them in close-mic studio applications. the AKG C481s are pretty much my go-to mics for almost every acoustic application these days in the studio, with the DPA 4011s a close second. the DPAs rule for diffuse field cardioid work (small chamber groups, etc). km184s are not even in the same galaxy as the DPA, schoeps, and AKG c481s.
_________________________
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
