Sennheiser MKH 416-P48 - microphones (Studio, 40 - 20000 Hz, XLR-3, Wired, Super-Cardioid, 19 x 250 mm)

Product Information

It's great to see you already have the other microphones for music recording. I wouldn't spend too much effort on 'future proof'. . .beyond questions like: 'is this the best microphone for the scenarios I need to cover? and the best I can afford at this time?' One of the reasons it’s so popular (especially for outdoor field recording) is due to its “laser-beam” focus. The interference pattern is one of the best I’ve ever worked with.

Due to its operating principle, the MKH416 P48U3 is relatively insensitive to wind and pop noise. The MKH416 can often be used as a soloist and broadcast microphone, without the need for an additional pop shield. However, for outdoor recordings, the use of an additional windshield is recommended to help with creating the best possible recording. One of the reasons I wanted a Schoeps is the off axis characteristics, which they seem to be in a league of their own amongst other top contenders. Though, I’m wondering if that’s a good enough reason to go with that option instead of the MKH 50, which sounds great to my ears and several hundred dollars less. The mics in question, 2 are hyper cardioids (the schoeps and MKH 50) and the dpa is a shotgun (I think?). If I don’t plan on building up my kit beyond one mic at this point, which one would be the most sensible choice? But because there was no windshield of any kind, the wind was still pretty loud. For video 3 using the foam windshield that came with the mic, the wind noise was noticeably less of a problem. For final video we used the Rycote Softie Windshield. And though there was a pretty significant breeze, it was amazingly quiet. The Sennheiser MKH416 is the industry standard for film/tv work. Sound designers like to use it too (things like recording car doors closing and motorcycle engines, etc.). That would be the one to benchmark against. You mentioned interview work, so a lavalier is also usually part of the scene.Also, which one would be the most future proof? In terms of budget the MKH 50 sounds the most appealing to me, but I’d rather spend more money on something that lasts me for a very a long time. Cost of return – The costs of returning goods to Raycom shall be borne by you, the customer, in all circumstances without exception, unless otherwise agreed upon with Raycom. However, I agree that the best place to use the Sennheiser MKH 416 is OUTDOORS because that’s what it was designed for. I did notice in the first test that the 416 produced a little more sibilance (the high hissy “ssssss” frequencies) than I normally like. Then I remembered that I have a bit of EQ permanently set on my preamp to reduce the lows and increase the highs. I did that because the Rode sounded a bit heavy in the low end without it. As for using studio mics, I think you nailed it with the application of planting them within the scene cleverly, which I was thinking of doing. Like putting my Coles 4038 or my CAD m179 hidden in the scene near the performance, say in the four feet range. I guess I’m asking to see if anyone has actually done something similar and realized it’s end result was not worth the struggle.

No boom operator with multiple actors moving around: DPA 6060 lavalieres [ok, I'm already breaking the single mic rule] As we cover our favorite parts about the MKH416, we're going to talk about some of the more technical details. We're going to try our best to make sure it's understandable for all audiences as these specific features play a massive role in how microphones maintain maximum quality.

You can read the technical details of this in this article, but RF ( radio frequency, btw) biasing has some benefits, such as that the mic becomes less sensitive to moisture ( a good thing in an expensive mic commonly used outdoors), has a wider frequency response, and is extremely low noise levels. Other features? This mic has a hypercardioid pattern, which rejects sound coming from behind it in about a 120-degree field. The 416 is also different from regular condensers in that it uses something called RF biasing rather than the more common DC-biasing.

However, I will say that the top-end can potentially produce some sibilance, so a de-esser might be necessary for some voices. Also in this review I tested the Rycote Softie Windshield on the Sennheiser for an outdoor video test on a windy day. So, enough of the gushing – gimme details. Yes, I heard you. OK, here is the skinny. The frequency response intentionally has a slightly rising characteristic at high frequencies. The microphone has a low proximity effect and therefore provides a well-balanced sound Anyway, the way I see it is that a lo cut filter is mainly useful for dialogue recordists. I only really record sound effects so I don't mind at all - can fix things in post if really necessary, and I don't have to run around with a boom pole, worrying about low frequency rumble from handling or cable noise. Using a more versatile approach to the microphone capsule to allow these shifts in patterns is one of the single reasons this microphone is worth the price tag. Working with the different frequencies in audio is its own challenge, and using a microphone that knows what's good & bad will save you a lot of hassle in the long run.

Sennheiser MKH 416-P 48V Shotgun Mic

Lavalier microphones are often deployed as plants ['hidden' or 'unimposing' in the scene]. The DPA 6060 is very small and easy to hide - as is the sanken cos-11. But I will plant much larger mics as well. And, of course some scenes can tolerate - or even benefit from - visible microphones next to actors in the scene. But one often has to be careful about consistency across multiple scenes. . .While something may seemingly work well in an isolated scene, it may fail to integrate into the project as a whole. Our team has worked with nearly every popular microphone on the market in multiple capacities, and the one thing we can say is that a high price point does not always correlate with the microphone quality. For that reason, we'll be trying to determine not only the pros and cons of the MKH416 but also whether or not it's deserving of the high price tag. Other awesome features of the 416 make it nearly indestructible (not that I put that to the test with the review mic:)), less sensitive to plosives (p-pops), and less sensitive to the proximity effect, which is that thing where the low bass frequencies get more hyped the closer the mic gets to the source. Voice-over folks may think, “hey I like it when my voice sounds deeper when I get close to the mic.”