the freq response is jagged as all get out. stick with the standard version.

thanks for the answer !
Could you explain what you mean by " the freq response is jagged as all get out" please ?

thaaaanx !

The consensus from my discussions with Schoeps dealer, Schoeps users, prospective users, discussions on the net etc etc is that its not worth the extra money. Only bats hear up there, and the CMC5 and 6 are just fine. You do not need such extended freq response to make great recordings and get great sound.

Supposedly for the new high definition audio media and techniques .... sigh.

My feeling is that whilst they do give "something" extra, maybe a little more "air", it's at the expense of making all your capsules sound brighter - and not necessarily in a nice way. I had a pair which I used for a specific project but when it was done I sold them and put the money towards another pair of M222s :)

for acoustic music you want a smooth graph, as flat as possible. if you look at the XT graph you will see a sharp rise with the 6db peak. Not good , especially for acoustic music, unless you are in to that sort of thing. most human men cant hear over 18kHz anyway.....complete waste of money, IMHO. Might make your internet manhood appear bigger to people that are wrapped up in audio buzzwords. Save the dough....people have been making superb recordings with the normal version, and will continue to.

Teddy

FWIW, the XT has turned into one of the microphones of choice for the LA film scoring community. They constantly use some of the most tweaked out gear out there for recording acoustic music. The reasoning is that the extended top end was beneficial to their recorded sound.

-Ben

For the curious, the expression as all get out means roughly quite, extremely, or very, e.g. as jagged as all get out, or very jagged. I believe the term originated in the hills of Appalachia (read: hillbillies).

At this point, I would also like to try to steer the conversation back to people that have actually HEARD the gear being commented on. You should know that a polar plot only tells a small part about the sound of a microphone.

I do not use these mics on a regular basis... I brought up my comment about the film scoring community as just another piece of information to consider. I tend to bristle whenever I see people making absolute comments about gear they have never heard.

The only post in this thread written from obvious experience was 0VU's...

Sorry for the rant, but I see this a lot out there on the internet (here and other forums/newsgroups) and it gets old....

--Ben

Sorry Ben, but I never claimed to have heard them. I had extensive discussions with the Australian Schoeps dealer when choosing my CMC5's and he sells a lot of Schoeps gear to audio, film and TV guys, hence my statement about the consensus. He also related info from the factory about the unpopularity of this preamp.

All this info is still useful for a prospective purchaser, I would actually debate, more useful, than perhaps one opinion of hearing it. I think my other statements are correct as well. :)

FifthCircle wrote: FWIW, the XT has turned into one of the microphones of choice for the LA film scoring community. They constantly use some of the most tweaked out gear out there for recording acoustic music. The reasoning is that the extended top end was beneficial to their recorded sound.

-Ben

I would classify the LA film scoring "community" (it's actually a mafia) as using recording gear as fashion. The Sony and Fox and other stages are wonderful rooms with excellent facilities. The acoustic is good. As far as the engineers having to have the latest and greatest gear to accomplish a recording, that's typical of Hell-A.

Actually, they have no different equipment as compared to any well equipped classical studio. In fact, they are missing the key ingredient in their work. They are missing a musical score with integrity and craftsmanship and they are missing a world class orchestra.

Maybe they should take care of those two problems before concentrating on and fetishizing the recording equipment.

In Hell-A--recording equipment is a FETISH and it is FASHION.
These two proclivities guarantee being up to date and being excited---they speak nothing of whether the recorded music will last or even be heard.

As for the Schoeps XT, we've used it and it provides no benefit. It does sound brighter and it was returned to the dealer.

I own the XTs and use them as my main pair.

What I've found is that, yes, they are brighter. Not brighter as in "ear-bleeding" brighter, but definitely brighter. I haven't found the need to sell them as they are still amazing mics. I find that I may have to add a foot or two of distance as compared with my usual set up when using the XT bodies.

I have contemplated selling the bodies because of the extra distance required - sometimes I don't always have that luxury.

They sure do sound nice though. Bright? Sure, but damn nice still.

J.

Jeremy,

Any other differences noted vs. the standard CMC6, or just the additional 'brightness'? I take it from you comments that you would not sell a CMC6 to 'upgrade' to the XT?

Michael

There is a sense of open-ness that's there with these bodies. It's there too with the standard bodies, but just a tad more with the XT's. I will not be replacing my other standard bodies with the XTs any time soon (probably ever).

J.