Another mic comparison - Schoeps vs Rode

[Fran Guidry]

I got a Rode NT4 to try with my video cameras, but since it's so quick to set up I've been using it as my main utility mic. And it sounds pretty darned good.

Hmmmmmm, wonder how it sounds compared to a pair of Schoeps CMC64s (CMC6 amp body, MK4 cardioid capsule).

So last night I set things up with the Rode and a pair of Schoeps in matching X-Y pattern, as close together as I could get them, tweaked the gain so they all matched, and played a little slack key on the GE. I did a writeup at the Homebrewed Music blog, http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2010/...oeps-and-rode/ but you might want to just download the samples.

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20100615/O.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20100615/P.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20100615/Q.wav

They're stereo wavs, so they're pretty big. One is the Schoeps pair, one is the Rode straight from the mic, and one is the Rode with a little EQ tweak. If you PM me or comment here or on the blog with your impressions, I'll respond with the identities of the samples.

Fran

[rick-slo]

I like the secone (P.wav) best because it is cleaner sounding with better note separation. You are still in the range of proximity effect which will be more or less with differrent mikes.
On a couple of sets of mikes of mine the Gefell M300s have a much higher proximity effect than the Gefell M295s. Both are cardioid pattern mikes.

[min7b5]

I liked the P.wav, and I'm going to guess that it's the one with the OK tweak.

[Kurt]

O sounded a bit mucky to me -- not much detail or definition, a muddle. Both P and Q sounded much more articulate and detailed, and I'm thinking P sounded a bit warmer. I certainly wouldn't put much money down on this, but my guess would be O = Rodes straight up, P = Schoeps, Q = Rodes with EQ to add some sparkle and weed out the muddy middle. But frankly, on the headphones I'm using, both P & Q sound quite good to me.

Momma always said to mind my P's and Q's...

[Doug Young]

My guess would be:

O: EQ'd NT4
P: schoeps
Q: raw NT4

Quite close, tho.

I tried O and P in ABX on the assumption that I'm right :-) Really tough, but on my second try I scored 6 of 6 correct, for a 1.6% guessing score, after failing miserably on my first try. I stopped at 6 rather then press my luck, but I suspect I could keep going. I did Q vs P as well, just in case I have the EQ switched, and score almost the same, missed 1 of 6.

[alohachris]

Aloha Fran,

Thanks for sharing with us.

I agree with Doug Young and others. For me, the second sample is clearly the best and is probably the Schoeps CMC641. In fact, my ears didn't find it to be that close at all to samples 1 & 3. Power, separation, clarity, smoothness, sustain & the way the notes decayed - especially on the upper mids and treble transients. Number 2 was my favorite,

The first sample was the Rode tweak and the third was probably the un-tweaked Rode, I'd guess.

Fun Fran!

A Hui Hou!
alohachris

[dberch]

My preferences in order are P, Q, and O. I don't know enough about the mics to venture any kind of guess as to which is which.

I'd sure like to know what mics were used for each, though.
David

[KevWind]

Am I misunderstanding yor original post in that you are comparing a single mic, the Rode against an XY pair ? Would that not be comparing apples to an apricot ?

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Am I misunderstanding yor original post in that you are comparing a single mic, the Rode against an XY pair ? Would that not be comparing apples to an apricot ?

The Rode NT4 is a X-Y configuration stereo mike!

[sdelsolray]

I listened to the samples. Very nice playing.

My guesses:

O is the Rode unaltered.
P is the Schoeps.
Q is the Rode with the eq tweak, at least a HF cut and perhaps a bit of LF cut.

[Fran Guidry]

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

The Rode NT4 is a X-Y configuration stereo mike!

Thanks makes sense now.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

proving once again that a picture is worth at least 9 words