rec.arts.movies.production.sound

Thanks Glen.

OK - so a softer corner on the 8040 - that sounds favorable to me.

Any comments on off-axis coloration of those two mics, individually or
in relation to one another?

I was thinking the question wasn't fair because if you need a hyper,
you should use a hyper... likewise with a cardioid. However, I've
seen comments that both mics have a more focused pattern than cards or
hypers of other makes.

-jeremiah



On Mar 2, 8:18 pm, Gtrew wrote:
> A perfectly fair question in my opinion...
>
> I've used the MKH50 and MKH40 in production, and now the 8050 and
> 8040. I much prefer the MKH40 for interior boom work, much like I have
> used the Schoeps MK-41. For my taste, the MKH50 has too sharp of a
> "corner" (the area between on-axis and off-axis). For my ears, the
> patterns of the MKH8050 and MKH8040 are like their MKH50 and MKH40
> counter parts. Therefore, I prefer the 8040 for interior boom work.
>
> Glen Trew
>
> On Mar 2, 2:13 pm, jeremiah moore wrote:
>
> > OK, I know I know... not a fair question.
>
> > But even so, has anyone had the opportunity to compare these on the
> > job? Word on the street (. comments in a few online forums), never
> > having heard either myself, is that the 8040 is about as focused as a
> > Schoeps hypercardioid, and might therefore be a more versatile all-
> > round mic (for interiors, say) than the 8050.
>
> > Anyone have experiences to share here? Have an 8050 and wish it were
> > wider? And 8040 but wish it were more focused?
>
> > Absolutely not a fair question, but would love to hear anyone's
> > experience.
>
> > -jeremiah