Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Jeraldo wrote:The range on the piano from tenor "a" to "C" about 1 1/2 octaves lower sounded bloated and unclear with the 8040. Not natural at all. (This recording would require corrective EQ.)
The 8040 frequency response shows quite clearly a modest low-mid / upper-bass 'bloom', which accounts for the 'bloated' character you mention. But rather than stating this recording would require corective EQ, what it actually required was a more appropriate mic placement.
It never fails to dismay me that people make these kinds of absurd and utterly pointless comparisons. Different mics have different frequency and polar repsonses, and that demands they be placed in different positions to get the most appropriately balanced sound.
There is no denying that the 8040 sounds different to the MKH40, or to the Schoeps. What is important is whether it is possible to make a great recording with any of them if placed optimally. The test described above doesn't answer that question.
I don't understand what seems to be an unbridled love fest going on with the new MKH mic's.
There's always a lot of hype from the Sennheiser marketing machine when there is a new mic launch, and there are always plenty of people who can be found to say nice things when they use the new mics on special projects. I've not tried the 8020s yet, but my brief play with the 8040s was encouraging -- but the sound was quite different (warmer, definitely, the top is different too) which means they must be used in a slightly differnt way. I liked what I was able to get out of them...
The point was that the other mic's, including the MKH40, were balanced. And if moving the 8040 was required, then both the timbre and balance of the rest of the range of the piano would be altered, as well ambience levels. So it's not just moving the mic. No matter where the mic was placed, that portion of the piano and the room would not presented in the context of the rest of the range of the piano. Even if it occurred in a roll off, that range would still be out of proportion. It's not just too much lower end, it's too much of a portion of the low end.
As for these being "accurate," you have clearly said that they are not-and for good reason. Both the specifications and listening bear this out.
So why does John Willet, a long time Sennheiser employee, write on and on about them being accurate, when they are clearly not?
This doesn't make them bad mic's at all. But they are coloured mic's, no matter what John says. And so far, the old series has proven to be a lot more accurate-not that accuracy is the be all and end all. But we are repeatedly being told that the mic are the "best" and "most accurate," and those remarks have gone completely unchallenged.
Of course mic's need to be put in different places. But such a test is still informative. And it did, in fact, demonstrate that the frequency response chart indications are clearly audible. And as I said before, while moving the mic to fix the bloat, it would then alter things elsewhere. Also, examples in large rooms with mic's more distant from the source have still provided an over emphasized bloat in the "mud range." No matter where the mic is put, it will have "the bloat."
After all of that, you might be surprised to know that I'm still considering getting a pair-although that plan is dimming a bit. I just think that the writing in these forums (not your review-again, *that* seems accurate to me, anyway), has been very one sided and has largely been driven by a person with a very long employment history with Sennheiser.