rec.arts.movies.production.sound

not all the makers , if you been working with 150neuman you can see it
almost the same pattern as the 50(very tight)
and the gefell 200(cardioid) is almost the same as the 40

"jeremiah moore" wrote in message
news:cc54d838-4bf1-4f28-9968-fd6357eaf28c@...
> 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
>