I was searching for your comment as soon as I saw Curtis review this mic. I knew you must say something. Your channel has perfectly demonstrated why this mic is valued.
I am internally grateful. Bought the 8050 2 years ago after watching your video - never looked back. It just works, minimum reflections. So small to hold. Full and rich sound🙏🙏🙏
The definition of a "workhorse" microphone IMO. I've always described the sound profile as "strong," in that its tuning tends to enhance voices that are on the "thin" or less projected side. Very occasionally, it's a bit too much for voices that are already very rich and projected, but I've never run into a situation that was truly problematic with this mic. I bought the MKH-50 early on on my career and it has been such an invaluable tool. In a pinch it's also been an excellent voice-over studio microphone in situations where such recordings were required but I didn't have access to my normal studios mics. As long as you make sure to have good plosive control and are mindful of distance-from-mouth, it sounds wonderfully rich and quite reminiscent of a good large-diapgragm condenser. The slightly larger than usual diaphragm of the MKH-50, if I'm not mistaken (when compared to other small-diapgragm consenders and pencil mics) is a key factor in it's performance and "rich" sound. As a result it's also not dead-flat accurate, but that's arguably not what you always want anyway.
It's a classic mic for indoor dialogue. I personally use the cousin MKH 8040 as my primary studio mic because I don't need to worry about handling noise.
I use 8050 and 8040 as interior dialog mics and have no handling noise issues since I got a relatively new mount from Rycote, the INV 6 Soft which was designed specifically for the 8050 8040 etc. I also use a thinner Canare mic cable which allows more mount flex. This cable is a big part of having low handling noise.
@@AllenCavedo Hello Allen. Is there any difference in the sound quality in any way between the 8040 and 8050 other than the 8040 having a wider pick up ? We want to retain the 8050 sound but ideally with the slightly wider pick up of the 8040. Thank you!
@@av3942 No difference that I have noticed. I use the 8040 when on a C stand between two talents. Single talent or cuing between two I use the 8050. Outside I use the 8060.
Hello from Bulgaria, Curtis! Great review as always! Just one question. Can you make a comparason between mkh 8050 and 8060? 8060 is often called 416 replacement, but there are many people loving it and the same amount negative comments, that it is extremly sensitive and often that is a negative, they say.
Curtis, thank you so much for what you do and the wealth of information you share with us. Would using the 50 as an on camera mic with the GH5 and DMW-XLR1 adapter provide sufficient results?
I'd save a little and get the even smaller Sanken CSM1 if you're looking for an on camera mic. But really, on camera is a terrible position! Got to get that mic *off* the camera, and closer to talent.
It depends on how far from the mic you film. For seated interviews, with the camera 2-3 meters away, it would sound like a beautiful mic that is too far away and picking up too much ambient noise.
If possible, down the road…would love to see a comparison between the MKH 50 and the Rycote SC-08. There aren't any videos that show how the SC-08 sounds and a comparison with th MKH 50 would be that much more amazing. Thanks.
Hi Curtis. Thanks so much for providing such useful content. I've been hearing a lot about this mic lately. Question. I am trying to work on my audio workflow for short doc work. Do you have any videos where you go through a basic audio post processing workflow to get dialogue in a pretty good state to begin cutting? I process a high volume of talking heads interviews and would love a "good enough" work flow. Denoise, normalize, compression, filtering etc. Cheers.
Great video like always. In the UK they are priced differently, the 8050 is about £937 or $1155 and the 50 is £1249 or 1,545. A big difference in price, I don't know why.
Thanks very much for the video! I have this mic and love it, and it's really helpful to hear the comparisons with the other mics. I'm curious, though... your opinion of the mic seems to have changed since your earlier review of it. Is that the case?
Hi Curtis, great video as always. Just a quick question. Is the low cut filter enabled when the little sticky out red bit is on the left or right? I can't tell which is on and which is off. I've been looking for an answer on the internet but can't find anything. Thanks.
Hi Curtis, what is a good carbon fiber boom pole you would recommend for this mic. I'm looking for good price, carbon fiber, but also to support this mic since it's expensive. The pole would be mounted on a c-stand. Thanks for your videos!!
Thanks Curtis as always very helpful your videos. I have a Sennheiser MKE 600, and was thinking upgrading to Mkh 416 or Mkh 50, do I’m going to have an upgrade in sound? If so which one? It’s mainly for RU-vid as boom mic, I also have some noise outside of the room.
how would you compare the mkh to mkh 70 for indoor streaming setup? On paper I thought the shotgun would have more off-axes rejection for both room/ambient noise and also mouse clicks and keyboard sounds. Added to the super low 5dBA self noise it seemed like a good idea. But I see everybody online saying they wouldnt use it indoors. Any thoughts on that comparison? Thank you very much,
Hi Curtis! Thanks for this review. Always helpful. I own an mkh-50 for the lasta 7 years. I am totally satisfied with this mic, and i can say that it is also good for outdoor work (if you have to use just one mic for indoor and some outdoor), at non very loud enviroments. But, the is some issue that i have the last two years. There are some situations (outdoor only and very few but still there sometimes) that it gives me some little noise , like AC or frequency interference, or like a drunk cricket (lol). I couldn't find the exact reason of that (the same happens also on my MKH-30 once. I wonder if there are some microphones with a different construction than newer ones. With some searching on the web i found that it is a common issue for some of them. Just wondering if you are aware of this.
Hi Curtis, which microphone is better for indoor video / voice over recording (RU-vid)? MKH 50 or MKH 8050 (online it is more recommended for instruments)? If you combine the MKH 8050 with the MZF 8000 II low cut filter, is it like the MKH 50? In the USA, the MKH 50 costs 1,200 USD at B&H and the MKH 8050 1,399 USD. In Germany it's exactly the opposite - the MKH 50 costs 1,550 EUR and the MKH 8050 only 1,125 EUR. The additional Sennheiser MZF 8000 II low cut filter costs 389 EUR. In Germany, the MKH 8050 would be cheaper and with the additional low cut filter it would be priced close to the MKH 50. What would be the advantage or disadvantage of the MKH 8050 + MZF 8000 II combination? I have already bought your Zoom F6 course. Do you also have courses for RodeCaster Pro or DBX 286S in combination with different microphones Shure SM7B / Rode NTG3 / Sennheiser MKH 416 P48 / Sennheiser MKH 50 / Sennheiser MKH 8050?
The big differentiator between the 50 and 8050 for me is that the 50 is less prone to pick up handling noise. If I could only choose 1, I’d opt for the 50. I don’t have a RODECaster or dbx286 course yet, but perhaps in the future.
@@curtisjudd would the MKH 8050 with the MZF 8000 II low cut filter (switchable low-cut filter -3 dB at 70 Hz, high-quality -10 dB pad protects against overdriving) sounds equal to MKH 50? I already have the MKH 416 P48. I have ordered the MKH 8050. My room is not yet acoustically treated. 1550 EUR is a lot for the MKH 50, but if i have to add the low cut filter to the MKH 8050 it's the same.
Sibilance is generally independent of bass energy. So if your voice is very bassy and sibilant, it’ll sound that way through the MKH50, but you’ve got the roll off switch to manage the bass and de-ess plugins in post if the recordings need that.
Hey, I'm searching for boom microphone that will be used indoors. MKH50 sounds completly perfect, but its way too expensive for me. Is there any mic in $100-$250 range that resembles its characteristics? I absolutely love how deep voice sounds when you are at 1-2meter distance, cant get this effect with other mics I tested. Mic will be plugged in into Tascam DR05X If $100-$250 range is too low, which would be the cheapest one that resembles MKH50?
@@curtisjudd Then maybe another recorder? I didnt bought it yet and I need $500 max solution for recording audio in various untreated spaces. I've found t.bone SC140 microphone and it sounded good on RU-vid videos. Have you heard about this one? Sadly its cardioid and I think I should get super or hypercardioid as rooms are untreated.
@@curtisjudd so what you saying is that recorder is way more important than microphone itself? On forums I saw that people say this tbone is very similar to NT-5 and Oktava MK012 in terms of performance, in terms of sound similar to Oktava with same warmth/lowend boost.
@@AXYZE no, they’re both important. But I wouldn’t recommend trying to achieve an MKH50 sound with a Tascam DR-05 or any other recorder which doesn’t have an XLR input
I have a CMC641which I love due to the great off axis response but certain voices can sound a bit harsh. I am considering renting a MKH 50, is the off axis response similar?
Thank you for another outstanding video, Curtis. I note that your preference is the 8050, which will influence my purchase decision, as I respect your judgment and our requirements for voice mics are similar. 🙏🏼🙏🏼
@@curtisjudd Thank you, Curtis. One quick question - would there be any difference in sound quality between the 8040 and 8050 ? The 8040 has a slightly wider pick up I believe, and that will be useful for two person interviews in the future and also more forgiving for one person. However, if there is any reduction of the quality / characteristics of the 8050, we would stick with the 8050. Thank you!
I bought this mic a while back because you had mentioned it positively in the past. It's been wonderful for corporate work for sure! Thanks for the video!
I adore my MHK50. It’s overkill for my corporate talking-head applications, but I never have to worry about any deficiencies in the mic itself - because there aren’t any.
Curiously, the Sennheiser MKH-416 is well-regarded by many voice artists for that "voice of god" characteristic when worked closely. I have one, but it isn't mounted in my voice booth. Instead, I use it simply for Skype, Zoom, and Messenger sessions.
Interesting, I use my 416 exclusively in my booth for all of my voiceover work. I was curious about the 50 as an alternative. Picking up more bass in my voice is really not necessary since I start rolling off after around 400Hz anyhow.
I purchased the very last one I could find in an internet search last year. I think I got the very last one, nothing has come up since then as I search for a second. Amazing microphone. I also have a Schoeps MK41 and I like them equally!
I have 2 MHK50 and MHK416 this may sound weird but I do lots of interviews or solo recordings and I have two boom stand with Dual heads and I use both. I generally run both or all four channels into my MixPre 6 ii and it works well for me I listen to both track individually and sometime use a mixture of both tracks.
@@curtisjudd I've been binging your videos again recently because I didn't feel happy with my outdoors vocal isolation and compression settings, especially when I'm filming by the ocean. I really love your content and your approach of teaching so the viewer understands the tools. It really helps a lot. Instead of thinking some magical settings will solve everything, now I can listen, diagnose, and approach it according to what I want need. So thank you!
Great video! I own a 8050 with a custom 70 hz/18db Oct filter that sounds great and 2 Schoeps CMC641 thats sounds great as well. Used the MKH50 since a long time as well. It has a great reach and i like it more for a wireless boom. more sensitive = less noise. But i prefer the schoeps for more natural sound and bad acoustics. Different tools for different jobs/voices.
@@creativegreatsvisuals the 50 is more sensitive than the schoeps which results in a lower noisefloor. I use audio ltd A10 (now sound devices). Bad acoustics is when the acoustics sounds bad to my ears ;) like an empty room full of concrete and tilefloor per example.
@@luist4373 what’s does sensitive mean in sound ? And what is noise floor in sound ? What do you think of the cmc1 ? Does it sound just as good as the cmc6?
I just started using the MKH 50 for my youtube channel which took a little getting used to and dialed in for me since I know nothing about audio but I love it.
Sort of depends on the voice as well - really bass heavy voices may start to sound woolly with the 50 and the Schoeps can be a better option in those cases.
Curtis, thank you so much for what you do and for the information I keep learning from you. After this video I decided and got the Sennheiser MKH-50. What suspension model would you recommend for this microphone for indoor records? So far I have been using Rycote's InVision Softie Lyre Mount with Pistol Grip with the Sennheiser MKH-416 and the Daity S-2 Mic. For now I have chosen the Cinela OSIX 3 Suspension MKH 20, 30, 40 & 50, but I would like to hear your opinion as well.
I've just been using the included shock mount when static booming the mic. I haven't had any issues with it. If hand booming, I'd think the Cinela is pretty much top of the line.
I used the 8050 for over 5years now and Problem with was. It has to much bass especially deep male voices. Got the cmc1 mk41 now, I found it fits more voices. The 8050 still a good mic I keep it,but the mk41 it’s just lovely love all about it.
For the love God do not use the included mount. Go get something from Rycote or Cinela. When you get into a high gain scene (whispering, low levels), granted you may not be using this mic, but if you are the shock mount picks up the smallest of movements. I'm talking about moving your finger about 1mm and you can hear the tendons engaging transferred through to the signal I've been boom operating for 15 years, do yourself a favor and upgrade from this mount
why a medal boom over graphite ? I thought graphite is less noise ? whats the best boom pole with internal xlr ? I don't want a pole where the internal cable picks up unwanted sounds
I recently borrowed a friends MKH50 and set it up against my 641 for about 8 interview style setups. Listening to them on my JBL studio monitors, I thought 4 people sounded best on 50, and 4 sounded best on 641. However, I did not feel that way while recording those takes. I listened on a pair of ATH-m50Xs while recording, and thought the MKH50 sounded best for 7/8 subjects. Because my headphones and 641 had a more pronounced frequency response in the mids, it was unpleasant to listen to. Comparatively, the MK50 sounded as though it had a mid freq scoop that took out all the annoying ringing frequencies in peoples voices. I later listened to the my recordings on a pair of 7506s and thought the 641 generally sounded better. 7506 + MKH50 combo brought out the worst of the sibilance in people's voices. Headphone and mic combos are definitely worth considering! I could get both to sound great in post, so there's no wrong choice here!
Super Useful these comparison Mr. Curtis..! Now, I AM EAGERLY WAITING FOR YOU TO GET US TO TASTE THE RYCOTE SC-08 SUPER-CARDIOID PENCIL CONDENSER MICROPHONE and put it against these ones together also with the dpa supercardioid… I’ll give a bow for listening to each mic if you make it possible 🎉🎉🎉
Another great video Curtis! I was thinking of putting two of these overhead at a dining room table to record a video podcast aka long conversation between two people as apposed to used SM7B's. If the room is sound treated do you think this would sounds good enough so that the audio only listeners wouldn't complain? Thanks for your thoughts.
I'm not Curtis, but I don't see how anybody but you can possibly answer that question, because it depends on the geometry of the room, its contents, what exactly you mean by "sound treated", and your listeners' standards/expectations. It's really hard for any boom mic, no matter how good, to compete with a quality vocal mic used a few inches from the source. If you can accept having mics right in front of your faces then that's probably going to yield the best recording. Boom mics exist to handle situations where that isn't possible.
@@patrickchase5614 Sound treated meaning, no outside noises, carpet, ceiling foam, not many hard surfaces. To me when I listen to Curtises videos it sounds great, i'm sure if I compared it side by side to a vocal mic its not as good but its probably better than most people's podcasts with vocal mics that are not as savy.
@@AriMannis Sounds like you answered your own question. I understand where you're coming from, as I use a boom mic (a mid-end AT4053b) just out of camera for videoconferencing, and while the results aren't as good as I could get with an "on-camera" mic they're good enough for the application. It would appear that that's the case for you as well.
I just purchased the MKH 50 because of this review. Thanks Curtis. I have been using the MKE 600 which is fantastic but very easy to mess up indoors and has quite a strange sound with large spaces. Hope this will sort things out a little as I do mostly narrative work indoors with rooms not treated so well!
@@curtisjudd Wow the sound is sooo good, i really want this but its not on my budget :( , i wonder is there any cheaper alternative that close to this? Great review as always :) Thank you!
I decided for the 8050. More natural in tha 2 kHz area. I like the modern approach. They have a ridicolously low self noise, acts like a microscope in foleywork if needed. Extreme clean signal. In front of an instrument they can sound a bit boring. But since it is so clear you can do ANYTHING with the signal without it suffering. Impressive. And the polar pattern is like carved. Had it on a live stage once without problems (an a brilliant natural sound coming out of the pa). That said, I bought it for filmwork. ... A dream on the far end of the boom. It does make a difference. Much less fatigue after a days work.
Testing out my new MKH 50 and I always love referring to your videos on audio gear for your thorough testing techniques and reviews. Thanks Curtis for the being the "workhorse" in everything audio! Happy New Year to you and yours!
8050 is a newer more updated design right? I could honestly hear very little difference between the 50 and 8050. Love the shock mount design for the 50 though.
I own the 50 and CMC141. Both are excellent microphones, different sound yet none disappoint. There’s a reason they’re used heavily in the film industry for interior dialogue. Get them both of you can 😊.
@@curtisjudd I really like the "dry" sound (if I could put it that way) of the Schoeps. The 50, while a bit hyped in the low end, is more of a specialized mic, in my opinion. Some say the 50 sounds TV and Broadcast ready while the Schoeps is more of an honest sounding mic to the source. That's the good thing about having different options. I've enjoyed your channel a lot. Keep up the good work.
Well, I once went crazy and bought the Sennheiser MKH 416, in spite of the fact that it's really too expensive. But there's something very special about the quality of the sound it produces that I haven't heard in any other microphone. The microphones in this video are even more expensive, and while sounding good, I don't find them to have that special 416 magic ingredient. I know RU-vid may not be the right place to listen to microphones, as RU-vid do their utmost to make everything sound about the same. So from my listening point these microphones are not at all sufficiently better sounding, if at all, than some much more budget friendly alternatives, to warrant the higher price.
@@curtisjudd oh, I don't know. The NT5 isn't too bad, I think. For something slightly more directional I have the Sennheiser ME64 which has a very neutral sound. But actually I don't own any super or hyper cardioids. (Except dynamics, or the ME65 which IS a hyper cardioid condenser, but not very sensitive being designed for close proximity). You've often talked about the Audio-Technica AT4053B which I don't own, and which isn't terribly inexpensive, but still much cheaper that the ones in this video. Maybe I'll get one some day. By the way, today I received another Audio-Technica, the AT8024. A camera mic, switchable between mono and mid-side stereo. Part of my never ending search for the impossible: A mic to put on top of a camera, giving me great audio.
Is there a benefit to using the low cut switch as opposed to rolling off lower frequencies in eq in post? (let's assume I plan to process and eq my audio in post either way)
Sí, hay. Las frecuencias más graves que lleguen al micrófono (ruido ambiente, handling noise, etc.) no llegarán al preamplificador. Por ende, el rango dinámico de tu preamplificador se amplía al no tener que manejar esas frecuencias generalmente indeseadas. Es un beneficio o no dependiendo de qué estés grabando pero básicamente esa es la diferencia entre usar el low cut del micrófono vs. ecualizar en post. Saludos!
It depends. If low frequencies are too prominent and your recorder applies the low cut AFTER converting from analogue to digital, then it can be better to use the low cut on the mic.
