Lowering self-noise of Sennheiser e614? (Bought CM4’s instead)

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

svyet

Well-known member
GDIY Supporter
Joined
Sep 18, 2022
Messages
124
Location
United States
This question is inspired by a thread with more general title on lowering small condenser mic noise where the Sennheiser e614 was mentioned as an alternative to the mic being discussed (Lowering SD Condenser noise, Pearl CMR-55H / CR-55.), and the black NT1 circuit mods performed by @kingkorg which successfully lowered the self noise of the NT1, even though the black NT1 is already nearly silent with 4.5dB self noise! That thread can be found here: Rode NT1 Kit (the black one) Mods

Firstly, the e614 is a fairly noisy mic with 24dB self noise. It's also not very sensitive, which requires higher gain settings on the interface or recorder. This mic was designed for use primarily as a drum overhead, but has also been successfully used on guitar and other instruments with sharp transients. It responds very quickly. However, it also sounds great for vocals due to its super smooth neutral frequency response (similar to the black NT1 with a less pronounced low end - see chart below). In the following shootout video, it held its own even up against a more expensive Neumann KM185, and much more expensive U87, dare I say. The guy misspeaks and says the mic is extremely quiet, where he really meant "not sensitive" - at least how I typically would understand and use those terms:



Given all those factors and flexibility, I bought it just to have an affordable ($169-199 new) but neutral super-cardioid mic on hand without spending a fortune since I didn't have a clear constant use for it. The mic's self noise in the real world isn't that terrible, but I'm interested to see if any improvements can be made making it more suitable as an indoor dialog mic. If not, I'm not at a loss, since it's a great mic as-is for instruments and up close field recording particularly with loud sources given it's max SPL of 139dB. It fills a nice usage gap between my NT1 and Deity S-Mic 2S (an excellent short version of a shotgun mic with a sound signature similar to the Sennheiser MKH416). At the time of my initial purchase and use, I had a Zoom H4n Pro which has notoriously noisy preamps, so I used a Triton Fethead Phantom which dramatically helped the Zoom, enough to create a basis for pretty dramatic noise reduction results with some very mild reduction in iZotope RX. But of course, the Fethead Phantom only benefits a noisy preamp, not a noisy microphone (correct me if I'm wrong). I have since moved on to a better recorder with professional preamps (Zoom F3), so the Fethead will go, but I really want to hang onto the e614 and get more use out of it.

All that said, for reference, I've attached the specs and frequency response curve for the e614 from the Senneiser spec sheet (https://assets.sennheiser.com/globa..._1207_v1.1_e_614_Product_Specification_EN.pdf), as well as pictures of my e614's body and PCB including a closeup of the circuitry. Perhaps someone here can recognize something. Surface mounted components just like the NT1, but most are of the smallest size. At face value it seems like a lost cause, but I'm curious enough to ask.

I'd also be curious regarding an all out PCB/circuit replacement, though the overall cost/time would really need to be worth it.

Another question is whether or not any of that self-noise comes from the capsule as opposed to primarily/only the circuitry? Not sure how feasible a capsule replacement is, and what sort of frequency response I would end up with, but I'm open to any suggestions. I'm ultimately here to learn.

I'd hate to go immediately down the path of replacing everything, but never say never...this little mic has a solid brass body if I recall correctly, so it's definitely nice. Very heavy and sturdy.

Cheers--
 

Attachments

  • Sennheiser e614 response curve.png
    Sennheiser e614 response curve.png
    56.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Sennheiser e614 specs.png
    Sennheiser e614 specs.png
    120.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Sennheiser e614 body and PCB.JPG
    Sennheiser e614 body and PCB.JPG
    1.6 MB · Views: 3
  • Sennheiser e614 PCB closeup.JPG
    Sennheiser e614 PCB closeup.JPG
    766.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
It's a small diaphragm microphone with pre-polarized capsule, don't compare or expect it to be a LDCs. The samples at Thomann pages don't sound that noisy, the mic just needs loud sources.

If it's really noisy then check the zeners...
 
It's a small diaphragm microphone with pre-polarized capsule, don't compare or expect it to be a LDCs. The samples at Thomann pages don't sound that noisy, the mic just needs loud sources.

If it's really noisy then check the zeners...
Hi @mhelin, thanks for your reply.

Any comparison was purely in terms of frequency and transient response - faster transient response typically being an advantage that SDCs have over LDCs, which is why I want to hang on to the e614. It has its place in the toolbox. I'm not interested in LDC behavior. I have my NT1 for that, and will pick up a second one when the need arises for an additional LDC.

And correct, even though the mic has a relatively high self noise on paper, it's really not that bad, as I stated in my original post. I'm just interested in exploring any possibility of lowering of self-noise for quieter scenarios - in addition to the loud source scenarios it was designed for - where I would need to really crank the gain. More versatility basically. Software noise removal is so good though, that I won't be heartbroken if I can't make any hardware improvements in the mic itself.

As for zeners, I know that they regulate voltage, but since I'm not an electrical engineer, I'm not exactly sure what I'm looking at on the PCB, especially without identifiers. Cutting and scraping and soldering are not a problem for me, it's knowing what I'm actually looking at, and what/why I would need to change and test. That's why I'm here:)
 
I'm not sure i can see any zeners on that board. 2F is the marking for BC850 (NPN transistor) and 4F is BC860 (PNP).
 
Normally I wouldn't say this because it's practically off topic, but since he made the video you linked, take everything Podcastage says with an entire box of salt. He's incredibly biased towards things that cost a lot, calling things much more neutral but cheaper than more expensive mics shrill, harsh, or sibilant, but a mic known for having an extremely aggressive high end, the Manley Reference C, was described by him as being bright but not harsh or sibilant. I think he mostly does podcasts, so I'm not sure how much his opinions on specs should be valued, especially when he's developed serious gear bias.

Remember, this mic is a drum mic which is why low sensitivity and higher self noise is fine on it. You're not doing much to fix it because it's an electret. I definitely agree they could use lower self noise and higher sensitivity because they sound great. Your best bet is something like a Fethead Phantom. There are some other mics like the iSK CM-10 with 24 dBA noise that I've found very noisy, but they're also intended to be used on instruments which masks the noise because of how loud the instrument will be.

There definitely are ways you could mod it, but it would largely be related to the capsule itself. [Edit: The conversation I had with Scott Dorsey wasn't very useful looking back. He just mentioned using electrets without internal FETs that the builder supplies a FET for)].

You could maybe do something like the Linkwitz mod, but I'm not sure what the E614 capsule is like. I would bother with a capsule replacement though, at that point I'd just sell the mic and get something like a Line Audio CM4 or Oktava MK-012, or the AKG SE300b with the CK93 capsule.
 
Last edited:
Normally I wouldn't say this because it's practically off topic, but since he made the video you linked, take everything Podcastage says with an entire box of salt. He's incredibly biased towards things that cost a lot, calling things much more neutral but cheaper than more expensive mics shrill, harsh, or sibilant, but a mic known for having an extremely aggressive high end, the Manley Reference C, was described by him as being bright but not harsh or sibilant. I think he mostly does podcasts, so I'm not sure how much his opinions on specs should be valued, especially when he's developed serious gear bias.

Remember, this mic is a drum mic which is why low sensitivity and higher self noise is fine on it. You're not doing much to fix it because it's an electret. I definitely agree they could use lower self noise and higher sensitivity because they sound great. Your best bet is something like a Fethead Phantom. There are some other mics like the iSK CM-10 with 24 dBA noise that I've found very noisy, but they're also intended to be used on instruments which masks the noise because of how loud the instrument will be.

There definitely are ways you could mod it, but it would largely be related to the capsule itself. [Edit: The conversation I had with Scott Dorsey wasn't very useful looking back. He just mentioned using electrets without internal FETs that the builder supplies a FET for)].

You could maybe do something like the Linkwitz mod, but I'm not sure what the E614 capsule is like. I would bother with a capsule replacement though, at that point I'd just sell the mic and get something like a Line Audio CM4 or Oktava MK-012, or the AKG SE300b with the CK93 capsule.
Thanks for the reply, and I don't think it's off topic. I take all comparisons with at least a few grains of salt. There are too many variables. I only posted the Podcastage video due to emphasis on voice and being done in a treated room with a decent preamp. The mic is fine as is, and I really enjoy its frequency and transient response. Most sources will be louder than the self noise, and of course in a musical context they will be in a mix which pretty much nulls the self noise issue. Like I said, I was simply curious if there were any improvements to self noise that could be made to the e614 without getting carried away to make it more suitable for recording softer sources (e.g. dialogue) from a slight distance at a higher gain. @kingkorg was able to lower the self noise of a black Rode NT1 by changing out at least one component if I understood correctly, even though the mic is already nearly silent. Wondered if the same was possible with the e614. No loss to me if it's not. It's a fine mic for what it was designed for.

Also, if you saw my first post, I do actually have a Fethead Phantom, but I'm almost certain it only benefits the preamp by amplifying the mic's output to alleviate the need to crank preamps up, especially bad if the preamps are noisy. I'll test that on the Zoom F3 once it arrives, with and without the Fethead Phantom, but I'm almost certain the e614 straight from the F3 will already be better than the H4n Pro and Fethead Phantom combo. Whether or not the Fethead Phantom does help the self noise of the mic itself is a technical question for anyone here, but I'm assuming it doesn't since I believe it only amplifies the output of the mic. In any case, I will go by the spectrum in RX9 to determine what the Fethead Phantom is actually contributing in terms of lowering the overall noise floor. The good thing about that is it carries the advantage of being a temporary bolt-on and reversible "mod" that doesn't require fundamentally altering or potentially destroying the mic (a la Linkwitz mod) just to find out if it works or not. If it contributes nothing or very little, I can sell it and be on my way.

Speaking of which, if I understood the Linkwitz mod correctly, it helps alleviate capsule distortion at higher decibels, but at the cost of adding more self-noise. Or am I way off? Based on the handful of sources I read, I wasn't able to clearly make the connection between that mod and what I was asking about the e614:)

All that said, as far as modding the mic, anything beyond changing a couple PCB components ultimately doesn't interest me enough.
 
Thanks for the reply, and I don't think it's off topic. I take all comparisons with at least a few grains of salt. There are too many variables. I only posted the Podcastage video due to emphasis on voice and being done in a treated room with a decent preamp. The mic is fine as is, and I really enjoy its frequency and transient response. Most sources will be louder than the self noise, and of course in a musical context they will be in a mix which pretty much nulls the self noise issue. Like I said, I was simply curious if there were any improvements to self noise that could be made to the e614 without getting carried away to make it more suitable for recording softer sources (e.g. dialogue) from a slight distance at a higher gain. @kingkorg was able to lower the self noise of a black Rode NT1 by changing out at least one component if I understood correctly, even though the mic is already nearly silent. Wondered if the same was possible with the e614. No loss to me if it's not. It's a fine mic for what it was designed for.

Also, if you saw my first post, I do actually have a Fethead Phantom, but I'm almost certain it only benefits the preamp by amplifying the mic's output to alleviate the need to crank preamps up, especially bad if the preamps are noisy. I'll test that on the Zoom F3 once it arrives, with and without the Fethead Phantom, but I'm almost certain the e614 straight from the F3 will already be better than the H4n Pro and Fethead Phantom combo. Whether or not the Fethead Phantom does help the self noise of the mic itself is a technical question for anyone here, but I'm assuming it doesn't since I believe it only amplifies the output of the mic. In any case, I will go by the spectrum in RX9 to determine what the Fethead Phantom is actually contributing in terms of lowering the overall noise floor. The good thing about that is it carries the advantage of being a temporary bolt-on and reversible "mod" that doesn't require fundamentally altering or potentially destroying the mic (a la Linkwitz mod) just to find out if it works or not. If it contributes nothing or very little, I can sell it and be on my way.

Speaking of which, if I understood the Linkwitz mod correctly, it helps alleviate capsule distortion at higher decibels, but at the cost of adding more self-noise. Or am I way off? I wasn't able to clearly make the connection between that mod and what I was asking about the e614 based on the few sources I read:)

All that said, as far as modding the mic, anything beyond changing a couple PCB components ultimately doesn't interest me enough.
I don't think there's anything that can be done on the PCB. It's a prepolarized capsule that likely has a built in FET. I would imagine that's where the noise comes from. Yeah, I think that's what the Linkwitz mod does, but I'm not sure what the actual noise increase is. If the internal FET can be bypassed and the capsule is connected to a new low noise one I'd imagine it would at the very least have much less self noise. I'm not sure how doable this is one an E614 capsule. And yes, the Fethead Phantom is primarily to avoid preamp noise, this means you'll be able to turn a preamp up more without introducing a ton of noise, which may not be the goal, but it will certainly help the mic because the lower sensitivity means you need more gain.

The low sensitivity is the one thing keeping me away from the E614 because I think it sounds good on the voice and could make a good plant mic or travel voiceover mic if it had less self noise and better sensitivity.
 
I don't think there's anything that can be done on the PCB. It's a prepolarized capsule that likely has a built in FET. I would imagine that's where the noise comes from. Yeah, I think that's what the Linkwitz mod does, but I'm not sure what the actual noise increase is. If the internal FET can be bypassed and the capsule is connected to a new low noise one I'd imagine it would at the very least have much less self noise. I'm not sure how doable this is one an E614 capsule. And yes, the Fethead Phantom is primarily to avoid preamp noise, this means you'll be able to turn a preamp up more without introducing a ton of noise, which may not be the goal, but it will certainly help the mic because the lower sensitivity means you need more gain.

The low sensitivity is the one thing keeping me away from the E614 because I think it sounds good on the voice and could make a good plant mic or travel voiceover mic if it had less self noise and better sensitivity.
That's a good piece of information about components on the capsule itself, I honestly just never looked. I'm new to all of this. So out of curiosity, I pulled the mic apart and looked up into the capsule mount -- you are correct! So then I disassembled the mount to get a clear picture of all the components on the capsule. Can you (or anyone else) make any sense of what you see there?

And yeah, if better sensitivity / lower noise could be resolved, the e614 would be super versatile. As for a travel voiceover mic, it might still serve you well if you have a good recorder and aren't against using a little noise reduction in post, especially if you knew your vocals would be mixed with BGM. But the market is flooded with plenty of other better-suited options. Anyway, all of my bases are covered for now with the black NT1, Deity S-Mic 2S, and as long as the possibility of using the e614 exists and I don't need / can't afford a better SDC, there's little reason to get rid of it. It has its place in the toolbox.

I will admit, I bought the e614 a couple years ago out of ignorance to sensitivity / self noise / signal-to-noise ratio. With a focus on video and voice, I was looking primarily at the response curve and the fact that it was supercardioid pattern. Having those two things in one nice sounding SDC at $200 is an excellent value. But of course, much to my disappointment, I had to crank the H4n Pro all the way up the first time I plugged it in and...that's when I started to read and study a whole lot more haha. I ended up with the Fethead Phantom mostly as a band-aid until I invested in a better recorder, and eventually a better SDC if/when the need arises. It really did help though. I tried it on my black NT1 just for fun and the spectral was ridiculously clean but it was of course way too sensitive to be usable in a normal situation haha..
 

Attachments

  • Sennheiser e614 capsule underside.JPG
    Sennheiser e614 capsule underside.JPG
    487.8 KB · Views: 2
@kingkorg was able to lower the self noise of a black Rode NT1 by changing out at least one component if I understood correctly, even though the mic is already nearly silent.
With NT1 i was able to rise the pol voltage, however this one seems to be an electret, so it is not possible with stock circuit. Having in mind it's a Sennheiser, i'm pretty sure they've done everyting to make it as silent as possible. The noise probably from the fact it's a small diaphragm condenser. Can you read the code on the fet?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220920_164727.jpg
    Screenshot_20220920_164727.jpg
    289.1 KB · Views: 2
With NT1 i was able to rise the pol voltage, however this one seems to be an electret, so it is not possible with stock circuit. Having in mind it's a Sennheiser, i'm pretty sure they've done everyting to make it as silent as possible. The noise probably from the fact it's a small diaphragm condenser. Can you read the code on the fet?
The e914 only has 19dBA of noise so I think it's either the FET or some other part of the circuit. I'm seeing a lot of capacitors on the capsule, I wonder if that can be attributed to the noise. Any idea what they're for?
 
The only way they could contribute to noise would be if there is some attenuation going on, hard to know without a schematic. I cant see high value resistors, so the fet might be one of those with built in diodes. In that case it might be possible to find a quieter one. However modding that board could be tricky, and could easily damage the capsule because of the heat. Also there is the protective coating, removing it could add more noise.
 
With NT1 i was able to rise the pol voltage, however this one seems to be an electret, so it is not possible with stock circuit. Having in mind it's a Sennheiser, i'm pretty sure they've done everyting to make it as silent as possible. The noise probably from the fact it's a small diaphragm condenser. Can you read the code on the fet?

The FET appears to have no markings either on the top or the sides, unfortunately. Unless they are microscopic (if that's a thing).


The e914 only has 19dBA of noise so I think it's either the FET or some other part of the circuit. I'm seeing a lot of capacitors on the capsule, I wonder if that can be attributed to the noise. Any idea what they're for?
The only way they could contribute to noise would be if there is some attenuation going on, hard to know without a schematic. I cant see high value resistors, so the fet might be one of those with built in diodes. In that case it might be possible to find a quieter one. However modding that board could be tricky, and could easily damage the capsule because of the heat. Also there is the protective coating, removing it could add more noise.

So, you guys seem to think the noise could be coming from the FET, or from a lot of attenuation, or both? Could the e614's flat response be explained in terms of a lot of attenuation, and therefore the high self noise? I don't know how common it is for cheaper mics to have such a great capsule, although there is the black NT1...

As far as testing the FET, it's my understanding it would have to be removed from the capsule first? If so, as you mention the heat and risk involved, at this point it's probably not worth it against just keeping and using it as-is until I can justify making a jump right into an "end game" SDC like the MKH 8050 (the only other super flat super-cardioid Sennheiser SDC but with nearly half the self noise, 2x more sensitive, better bass response, smaller, lighter, and modular with other capsule options) without wasting time and money experimenting with other mics. I think the $1,299 price tag is justifiable with a clear and consistent need and use for it.

Then again, knocking down the self noise a bit in the e614 would make it hard to justify an 8050 at all if modularity isn't essential.

Thoughts on taking a shot at the FET? Could be a good challenge if you guys are willing to help me walk through this. On one hand I can use the mic as is, but on the other hand, I'm not using it very often and I'm really curious. Worst case scenario, what is the possibility of replacing the capsule and/or board with something else? Does that option exist, and exist affordably? That option really only has appeal if it will have frequency response as flat as the e614 though.

In any case, I appreciate you guys trying to help.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't bother replacing the capsule. I'd say just sell it and get another mic like the Line Audio CM4 which is cardioid. I think the capsule might be the only thing worth salvaging because I think it's a plastic body which wouldn't be my first choice to build something in. The supercardioid electrets I've seen have all been bright, this one sounds great but for whatever reason it's nosiy. The reason I believe it's the FET or some of the other circuitry on the capsule is because noisy electrets ofter do have the FET to blame but also Sennheiser's e914 which is externally polarized and cardioid has only 19 dBA of self noise. That's still a bit high IMO but just slightly above an Oktava MK-012 or AKG SE300B. I really couldn't help you with how to improve the e614 capsule but I'm sure it's doable. Actually if you have another SDC with a lower self noise you could try connecting the capsule to that, though I'm sure there's an easier way to check if the noise is from the preamp (though you'd probably still have to de-solder the capsule wires from the PCB).

The MKH 8050 is a great mic. Not only is it low noise, but it's moisture and RF interference resistant (it is an RF microphone) and has an extended frequency response up to 50KHz. It's also incredibly light. I might pick up a second one soon. If you can afford AND justify it I would definitely get one.
Oddly e914 manual lists equivalent noise level A-weighted 24 dB, CCIR-weighted 34 dB.
Also e614 is super-cardioid whereas e914 cardioid. e 914 capsule is KE 14, might be e614 is using KE 10 super-cardioid capsule.
Strange that Sennheiser's site says 19 dB A.
 
Only popping in to mention the e914 is an electret as well (spec sheet says "pre-polarised condenser microphone").
Ah. I was basing my assumption on the fact that Sennheiser's site calls the e614 a "polarized condenser microphone" and specifically describes it as pre-polarized, but the e914 is called a "Recording Instrument Microphone" and the website makes no mention of it being pre-polarized and also says it requires 48v unlike the 12-48v the e614 requires.
 
Thanks all for your replies and contributions even to my thought process. And yeah as I've said, the e614 is a great little mic, the self noise is not a deal breaker, and I'm not at any loss by keeping it and using it until I can justify something like the MKH 8050 as to not mess about with anything in between.

I wouldn't bother replacing the capsule. I'd say just sell it and get another mic like the Line Audio CM4 which is cardioid. I think the capsule might be the only thing worth salvaging because I think it's a plastic body which wouldn't be my first choice to build something in. The supercardioid electrets I've seen have all been bright, this one sounds great but for whatever reason it's nosiy. The reason I believe it's the FET or some of the other circuitry on the capsule is because noisy electrets ofter do have the FET to blame but also Sennheiser's e914 which is externally polarized and cardioid has only 19 dBA of self noise. That's still a bit high IMO but just slightly above an Oktava MK-012 or AKG SE300B. I really couldn't help you with how to improve the e614 capsule but I'm sure it's doable. Actually if you have another SDC with a lower self noise you could try connecting the capsule to that, though I'm sure there's an easier way to check if the noise is from the preamp (though you'd probably still have to de-solder the capsule wires from the PCB).

The MKH 8050 is a great mic. Not only is it low noise, but it's moisture and RF interference resistant (it is an RF microphone) and has an extended frequency response up to 50KHz. It's also incredibly light. I might pick up a second one soon. If you can afford AND justify it I would definitely get one.

Strange that Sennheiser's site says 19 dB A.

I appreciate all of that. A couple questions and notes:

1. The CM4 has great specs for a great price and I see it mentioned often around here. Am I really seeing 16dB self noise in the specs? Super flat as well..and looking at the polar pattern, it does seem like it's not that far off of the e614 despite being a cardioid. Is that fair to say? Sometimes I think I'm splitting hairs between those two polar patterns. In all I think the cardioid pattern likely gives more consistent results in most situations, is that also fair to say? Let me know your experience.

2. The e614 has a solid metal body, brass I believe. Not plastic:)

3. I do not have another SDC, so that rules out swapping capsules.

4. I appreciate the affirmation on the MKH 8050. Yeah, the added moisture and RF resistance have big appeal for me given the possibility of working outdoors with it. An 8050 and 8060 (short shotgun) combo would be my "end game" combo and be covered for everything indoors and outdoors. But I'm just not at that level, and for now the S-Mic 2S covers me outdoors for pretty much everything. Black NT1 and an SDC cover everything indoors.
 
Thanks all for your replies and contributions even to my thought process. And yeah as I've said, the e614 is a great little mic, the self noise is not a deal breaker, and I'm not at any loss by keeping it and using it until I can justify something like the MKH 8050 as to not mess about with anything in between.



I appreciate all of that. A couple questions and notes:

1. The CM4 has great specs for a great price and I see it mentioned often around here. Am I really seeing 16dB self noise in the specs? Super flat as well..and looking at the polar pattern, it does seem like it's not that far off of the e614 despite being a cardioid. Is that fair to say? Sometimes I think I'm splitting hairs between those two polar patterns. In all I think the cardioid pattern likely gives more consistent results in most situations, is that also fair to say? Let me know your experience.

2. The e614 has a solid metal body, brass I believe. Not plastic:)

3. I do not have another SDC, so that rules out swapping capsules.

4. I appreciate the affirmation on the MKH 8050. Yeah, the added moisture and RF resistance have big appeal for me given the possibility of working outdoors with it. An 8050 and 8060 (short shotgun) combo would be my "end game" combo and be covered for everything indoors and outdoors. But I'm just not at that level, and for now the S-Mic 2S covers me outdoors for pretty much everything. Black NT1 and an SDC cover everything indoors.
I read it was plastic, good to know that's not the case. The S-Mic 2S I had was literally unusable, it sounded like a waterfall, glad to hear some of them work cause it soured me on Deity products so much I might not even try their lavs or wireless systems. The Deity has pretty much nothing in common with an MKH 8050 btw. The S-Mic 2S has poor off axis rejection compared to even the cheapest of super or hypercardioids I've used, it definitely felt like a sub/wide cardiod.

You could try building another circuit for the e614, something to increase polarization, but I don't know if that would help an electret like this. I can't think of any supercardioid capsules that would be a good fit because the ones I know available for purchase are bright.

There is a difference between cardioid and super and hypercardioid. Basically slightly better rejection from the side, like at 90 and 120°. But you have some wider hypercardioids (people say the Oktava MK-012 is wide for a hypercardioid) and some tighter cardioids like the Shure KSM137 amd KSM141. There are times when a cardioid is better in reflective environments than a supercardioid, and cardioid mics were boomed for Game of Thrones' interior scenes (according to DPA) Unrivaled sound for Game of Thrones throughout The Seven Kingdoms.

I can't comment on whether the CM4 actually has 16 dB A of self noise, but it definitely doesn't have anything too noticeable.
 
Last edited:
I read it was plastic, good to know that's not the case. The S-Mic 2S I had was literally unusable, it sounded like a waterfall, glad to hear some of them work cause it soured me on Deity products so much I might not even try their lavs or wireless systems. The Deity has pretty much nothing in common with an MKH 8050 btw. The S-Mic 2S has poor off axis rejection compared to even the cheapest of super or hypercardioids I've used, it definitely felt like a sub/wide cardiod.

Strange, my Deity copy sounds pretty good even plugged into an H4n Pro without the Fethead Phantom. Can’t speak to the rejection though in a wide range of practice. I haven't used it enough. Time will tell the more I start understanding the mic’s shortcomings.

I'll think more about the CM4, as it would seem like an improvement over the e614, and pretty much an even trade in terms of price.

As for other mics/upgrades, I have a lot to learn in actual practice, not just in theory. I'll let time and experience and demand dictate my needs.

Thank you again for the help, suggestions, and general conversation. I’m feeling welcomed here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top