November 2025 – Dr Badphil

Audio Gear

Cheap and compact: musings on a holiday sound-recording rig.

November 18, 2025

Introduction

I’m not one normally obsessed by small sound recording kit, as my development of over-sized TIG-welded windshields attests. But just occasionally, I fancy some sound-recording kit that is ultra-compact and by that I mean even smaller than my Radius Windshields Mini-ALTO 115 and Sound Devices MixPre-3 combination: something that involves no tripod or stand or indeed anything as large as even this smallest of basket windshields. Now some use handheld recorders for such purposes, but since my Sony M10 died, I haven’t felt the urge to replace it with a recorder with inbuilt mics: I invariably used the Sony M10 with external mics (its internal mics being a pair of closely spaced omnis, which were of little use for stereo) and, doubtless unfairly, can’t get enthusiastic about the current crop of handheld recorders with inbuilt mics. Indeed, some of these are hardly that small – the Zoom H5 Studio and its ilk come to mind. Others will have different approaches and preferences, in many cases well-established and more thoroughly thought through: for them this blog-post will be a pointless read! But perhaps something here will resonate with the odd reader and, at least, give them food for thought for their own different and doubtless better solutions. Besides, it’s just a bit of fun!

Criteria

When putting together a mini travel sound-recording kit, it’s important to be clear as to what matters, especially if you have a stack of gear that is all crying out ‘take me’! My criteria for my latest travel kit – a trip from the UK by Eurostar/TGV to Avignon with my wife for a significant birthday – were as follows:

• small size of kit (obvious)

• discreet recording capability, for two reasons: a) to be able to make recordings without being obtrusive and b) not to turn a holiday into a sound-recording trip.

• simplicity: I didn’t want to be fiddling around with setting up etc., so that rather ties into the point above about being discreet, but also has to do with not holding things up.

• reasonable sound quality, a decent stereo field, no handling noise, wind protection, and low mic self-noise, so that the recordings are listenable.

• cheapness: when travelling for non-sound recording purposes, I don’t want to be worrying about expensive recorders and mics, any more than I want to be worrying about expensive cameras

Now looking at some of my kit, such as the well-used the MixPre-3, the new dinky little Nevaton MC59uS/C2 cardioids, or even a little MS rig in a Mini-ALTO 115, there are some appealing options that meet some, but far from all, of these criteria: it’s crucial to ignore such temptations! Well at least I thought so beforehand. Anyway, here’s what I chose:

Mics

Small mics using the Primo EM172 and EM272 (or, even, AOM-5024L-HD-R) 10mm diameter omni capsules are much beloved by field recordists, either DIYing their own or buying them from the various small-scale manufacturers that assemble them ready made, such as FEL Communications Ltd (Micboosters) in the UK, LOM in Slovakia, Oaka Instruments in the UK, and Earsight in France (which I have tested previously). In my case, I chose a pair of the Clippy mics made by FEL/Micboosters, who also sell capsules and other parts for DIY, for the good reason that I have them. The Clippy mics are also the smallest of the options, though I am not certain that the recessed capsule position means that they are the best sounding: one to test perhaps? The Clippy mics I have are a pair with the earlier EM172 capsule, which I prefer (this capsule doesn’t have the RFI issues that affect the Primo EM272 capsules, although FEL/Micboosters (run by the extremely responsive and helpful Nick Roast, who has been a BBC sound engineer for over 30 years) now offer an EM272 option that apparently doesn’t have the issue. LOM, Oaka Instruments and Earsight are less explicit as to what capsules they use, which is disappointing and perplexing, and, of course, creates uncertainty as to exactly which model capsule is being used in the mics you are thinking of buying. I went for my 3.5mm PIP pair rather than an XLR P48 pair, in the interest of compactness. They are cheap as chips if you DIY (and you can make housings that best suit your usage), but are hardly expensive if you buy them ready assembled: a stereo pair of Clippy mics using the new low-RFI EM272M capsule costs £111.48.

Windshields

Getting furry windshields for such small mics is no trouble. In the past I have used Rycote ones made specifically for the Clippy mics, but these had separate foams inside which either got easily lost, or ended up rather squashed over time. So I have been pleased to see that Radius Windshields have made neat little fur windcovers with in-built foams and handy loops that stop the furs getting lost. Simon Davies kindly arranged for a couple of pairs to be sent in readiness for my trip, and they proved fine for modest breezes (naturally, there are limits to what such small windcovers can do, even for omni mics): I would heartily recommend the Mini Windcovers for EM172/272 capsuled mics.

Recorder

As per my recent post, I was intrigued by the little Tascam FR-AV2 for its potential for those rare occasions when I want to go ultra compact, so bought one a month or two ago for this very purpose. For my thoughts on the recorder and, more specifically, its functionality as an example of the current crop of 32-bit float dual-ADC recorders, then do look back at that blog post from last month. For this present post, the key factors are that it is significantly smaller than the already tiny MIxPre-3; it is frugal with power consumption (so reduces power supply related bulk: I just took a spare set of fully charged Eneloop Pro AAs, and didn’t even need them); has a decent PIP mic input (i.e. including a 5V option, which better suits the Primo capsules than a lower voltage: incidentally, the PIP preamps on the FR-AV2 sound better than the PIP inputs on the MixPre-3, which are not a great strength of these Sound Devices recorders); and is relatively cheap (I paid £318 at CVP).

The little Tascam FR-AV2 with a pair of Clippy mics plugged in.

Headphones

Normally headphones are fine for sound recording, but they don’t really fit into the criteria above too well. Obviously, more people wear full headphones in public for listening to music nowadays, but there is something very different about how you look when wearing headphones and recording: perhaps it’s the standing still and the evident concentration? Whatever, it certainly draws attention to the fact that you are recording. Or perhaps that is just unnecessary self-consciousness? Now earbuds would be more discreet, of course, but from time to time I buy a set and, yet again, discover that I really don’t get on with them (they refuse to stay in my ears!), and then pass them on very quickly to one of the offspring. Perhaps I have weird ears, or perhaps should just splash out and get some properly moulded bespoke ones to fit. Anyway, for this trip, I packed a pair of Sennheiser HD-25s (my standard cans for recording), and decided to mostly record – as nothing was remotely critical – without anything if in a public area. It goes against the grain, but needs must!

Bag

What, you might wonder, am I doing with a bag if going minimal when the kit listed above is pocketable? Well, there is a logic to this. A pair of small mics like the Clippies, which (surprise, surprise!) have clips for attaching to things like lav mics, need to be mounted in some fashion. Now you can mount them on your specs or hat if you don’t mind looking like a total prat and are happy with the inevitable handling noise or the odd change of perspective when you move your head, or you can mount them on something. If in nature, you might find a handy tree and tie them either side of its trunk for the much-loved ‘tree ear’ solution, but handy and willing trees popping up whenever I wanted in a mainly urban context seemed extraordinarily unlikely, so I went for a shoulder bag: this allows mounting mics either side of the bag, which is fairly discreet (especially if the furry windcovers are roughly colour matched), and for recording either standing still or, better, putting the bag down on a handy wall etc. or just on the ground. And, of course, a bag was useful for other things when travelling, not least for the light rain jacket I needed on hand (Provence in October was warm, but far from consistently dry). As for what bag, well I’ve long been a lover of the pinestone coloured canvas ThinkTank Retrospective bags, but wanting something smaller than the models I already had, I picked up the baby of the family – the Retrospective 4 v2.0: £88 from Camera World. This allowed mounting the clips either side: only a modest 260mm apart, but gubbins inside the bag helps with the effectiveness of the spaced pair. And, while my wife looked askance at the two little fur windcovers either side of the bag, I don’t think anyone else noticed: well, I like to think that was the case. Besides, it was more subtle than me doing a dance on the Pont d’Avignon to satisfy the demands of family and friends back in Blighty…

Recording in the Place des Palais (outside the Palace of the Popes), Avignon, under gloomy skies. The bag and mics does look a lot like a koala bear, so perhaps I was optimistic about being discreet!

In the field

Well, there’s not a great deal to add except to include a few snippets of recordings from the jaunt, plus a few photos of the rig in the field.

First off, here’s a short clip from recording with the travel rig placed on a wall in the Place des Palais, as in the above photo:

Sticking with the Place des Palais, here’s a second clip of a recording, this time about 100m to the south, adjacent to an outdoor (but covered) restaurant area, with the bag with the mics carried on my shoulder (I remained standing still during the recording):

Of course, where there’s an opportunity for clipping the mics to something other than the sides of the bag, then that can provide a different spacing, as here with the mics attached to window boxes outside a window overlooking the Place de la Principale, Avignon.

Here freeing the Clippy mics from the narrow spacing of the shoulder bag (see photo above) was only partially successful: there isn’t much going on in the street below, and when the wind picks up towards the end of the clip, you can hear how the mics are overloaded. The Mini Windcovers did a good job most of the time, but there are limits, of course: if there weren’t, none of us would bother with full basket windshields!

Recording one of the surviving waterwheels in the Rue des Teinturiers (the street of dyers) in Avignon.

The remaining water wheels – of which there were previously so many more – for the numerous former dye works of the Rue des Teinturiers produce an enchanting sound, of the water passing through and the clanking of the wheels (especially the noise from the shackles that hold the wooden blades to the iron wheels). Here, again, the rig is perched on a wall.

Recording by the Pont du Gard: a shortish bus ride from Avignon.

Although it was 1 p.m. when we arrived at the famous Roman aqueduct of Pont du Gard, near Avignon, there were few people about. I guess that’s October for you. A wonderful place to visit, not least finding continuations of the aqueduct well away from the main structure. Oh, sorry – back to the recording: well, the lack of people was rather matched by the lack of wildlife at that time of the year and day, so here’s a recording down by the river with the rig set as shown in the photo above. There’s a bit of distant birdsong and a distinct boom and echo at one point, which I assume was an explosion in a quarry in the vicinity.

Conclusions

There’s nothing profound and universal to conclude. The kit all performed as expected, and the sound is OK(ish). It delivered the discreet and quick to use side of things fine. Even the weird lack of monitoring wasn’t as terrible as I feared. Sure, a wider spacing of the omnis would have helped, but really the mics, polar pattern and modest wind protection were all just as limiting. None of the sound samples are very interesting or, for me, would really merit recording with care except, perhaps, the water wheels on Rue des Teinturiers: and for that a key improvement would be to record with far less ambient noise (say in the middle of the night) as well as with a better rig. So these, and the other files I recorded, are little snapshots: the unexceptional audio equivalent of a typically unexceptional holiday photograph taken with a phone or compact camera. A handheld recorder would have been a good, perhaps better, alternative if such a device had appealed to me, but at least the FR-AV2 can function well with better mics and set ups (perhaps I should even get around to trying it for a drop rig?). So, at a personal level, the main thing I drew from it is that such casual, hasty and unfocused sound recording, juggled around travel for other purposes, is very divorced from that which I usually do, where mics and rigs are carefully thought through, and where, often, I retrace my steps to locations again and again in much the same way as a landscape photographer returns to the same spot, trying to best capture the scene. Would I bother again with a compact holiday sound kit? Sure, but perhaps where the soundscape is likely to be more intriguing and where audio snapshots might have more of a resonance in the future. And would I change the travel kit in any way? Well, I really do think my tiny Mini-ALTO 115 MS rig would be the answer (it would still fit in the little ThinkTank bag), even if more conspicuous, used, I’d have thought, with a micro tripod that could double as a pistol grip. I suspect, though, that this might go down rather less well with any travel companion(s). And, of course, would rather defeat the idea of cheap and cheerful. Hmm. Well, food for thought. When and if I get a chance to try something different – perhaps in the warmth of next summer – I’ll revisit this subject.

Meanwhile, rest assured, it’s back to usual field-recording here for me with heavier gear: just off to test a pair of Mega-Blimps each on its own tripod, and one with a new 3D-Tex inner jacket…

0 Comments

Audio Gear

Sennheiser MKH 8018 vs MKH 8060 (and MKH 8030)

November 3, 2025

Sizes and rigging options. Top to bottom: MKH 8018 with low-profile XLR; MKH 8060 + MKH 8030 with low-profile XLR; MKH 8060 + MKH 8030 with MZL; MKH 8060 + MKH 8030 with custom MZL; MKH 8060 with MZF 8000ii filter module and low-profile XLR; and MKH 8060 with MZF 8000ii filter module and MZL. All XLR and custom MZL cables from ETK Cables, and mounts (including those great MS clips) from Radius Windshields Mini-ALTOs.

Introduction

In my first blog post on the new Sennheiser MKH 8018 stereo shotgun I concentrated on a short review of the salient specs and then on tests considering the basics (self-noise, susceptibility to RFI, handling noise and wind noise) and its use in the field as a stereo mic. To give a reference for the latter, I mostly tested the MKH 8018 against a mid-side (MS) stereo pair of its siblings, comprising the MKH 8050 (supercardioid) and the MKH 8030 (fig 8). Given the better polar pattern and placement (i.e. above, not behind the mid mic capsule) of the MKH 8030, and the more consistent off-axis performance of the MKH 8050 supercardioid, the better stereo imaging of the two-mic MS pair was entirely expected and is evident in the various recordings I posted previously. As I noted, however, these sonic differences may be too subtle for many users or uses, and for some recordists and situations will be outweighed by other features of the MKH 8018. One aspect I didn’t address (and flagged up that this was the case) is how the MKH 8018 compares to alternatives as a mono shotgun. For some this may well be a determining consideration for buying the mic: in other words, would the MKH 8018 meet their main needs as a mono shotgun mic, whilst providing a stereo option, without the need to swap out mics, for those occasions where it might prove useful? As I said in the previous post, there is a vast array of short shotgun mics out there, but there is some merit, I think, in comparing the MKH 8018 as a mono shotgun to its MKH 8060 sibling. And, while doing this, some merit too – as it has the same functionality – in comparing the MKH 8018 as a stereo mic vs the MKH 8060 as part of an MS pair with the separate MKH 8030 fig 8.

PS I should add, again, that the good folks at Sennheiser, having sent the MKH 8018 gratis for my unfiltered scrutiny, have since sent the MKH 8060 too for this comparison.

Size , weight and rigging

It’s hardly surprising that the MKH 8018 stereo mic is larger than the MKH 8060 shotgun: it measures 230mm long and 22mm diameter vs 178mm and 19mm diameter for the MKH 8060. And, of course, the MKH 8060 can be shortened by 33mm by removing the MZX 8000 XLR module and using MZL connectors instead of XLRs. In terms weight, however, the two mics are almost the same (115g for the MKH 8018 vs 112g for the MKH 8060, but again this can be reduced for the latter by removing the MZX 8000 XLR module, shaving 32g off the weight.

The use of MZLs with the MKH 8060 is particularly interesting since by using them in preference to XLR modules sees the combined weight of the MKH 8060 and MKH 8030 MS pair and MZL connectors weigh in at 148g, while the MKH 8018 plus low-profile XLR weighs in at 146g: using MZLs, there is essentially nothing to choose between them weight wise. And with MZLs in place the MKH 8060 and MKH 8030 MS pair ends up significantly shorter: 180mm (or 155mm if the custom side-entry MZL is used) vs 253mm for the MKH 8018 plus low-profile XLR. That shorter length can translate to a different windshield, reducing overall size and weight: for example, using the Radius Windshields Mini-ALTOs for a compact rig (as I have been doing), that can mean the difference between a Mini-ALTO 180 for the MKH 8060 + MKH 8030 pair vs a Mini-ALTO 250 for the MKH 8018. But, as the saying goes, there’s no such thing as a free lunch: using MZLs for the MS pair doesn’t leave a lot of body barrel left for the mic clips (which you can see in the composite image above), so many might well prefer using the MZX 8000 XLR modules and low-profile XLR connectors for more stability: I certainly prefer this even if – sticking with Radius Windshields – it pushes up the windshield size to the Mini-ALTO 210. And, then, to add complexity, the MKH 8060 lacks the built in high-pass and pad switches of the MKH 8018, so if you want to add these, you will need to add an MZF 8000 ii filter module, which adds another 29mm in length and 26g in weight. Of course, the impact of this can be mitigated by use of an MZL connector, which, in this scenario, doesn’t result in too short a barrel for the mic clips to offer effective support. All these variables are getting complex, I know, so the image I have made (above), with various options photographed at the same scale, should help.

So where does this leave us? Well, connector choice will come down to use and the individual recordist, but the reality is that there’s not a lot in it in terms of weight and overall size of the MKH 8018 vs the pairing of the MKH 8060 + MKH 8030, and, certainly, the latter is shorter and can – if MZLs are used – be no heavier than the new stereo mic. Obviously if the MKH 8060 is to be used alone – as a mono mic – and with MZLs then the difference becomes a lot more evident. Whatever the case, it’s clear that the MKH 8018’s primary selling point – from a rigging perspective – is one of convenience rather than compactness, although the vertical centrality of the MKH 8018 vs an MS pair does mean, of course, that the capsules are further from the windshield basket, with a consequent slight increase in windshield performance: this last is relevant if wanting a compact MS rig in a Mini-ALTO, Rycote Nano Shield or Cinela Cosi.

Polar pattern

In my previous tests and review of the MKH 8018 I looked at some of the key specs of the mic, so do refer back to the earlier post for that: I’ll try to keep any repetition here to a minimum. The mics are almost identical in terms of sensitivity (-24dBV or 63mV/Pa for the MKH 8060 vs -25dBV or 56mV/Pa for the MKH 8018 mid mic) and self-noise (at 11dBA the MKH 8060 has a modest 1dBA advantage over the MKH 8018’s mid mic). The frequency responses are pretty similar too, as you would expect, although the MKH 8060 has a little bit more low end (which you can just about detect in the recordings below). Although the MKH 8018 is significantly longer, as we have seen, much of this results from the fig 8 capsule, which sits behind the mid mic shotgun capsule, and the much more substantial barrel that contains the electronics (mic preamps, pads and filters), so this rather obscures the fact that the MKH 8060 has the longer interference tube (105mm compared to 83mm for the MKH 8018). As you would expect, given this, the two shotgun mics have significantly different polar patterns, which can be seen below:

The polar pattern plots show that at lower frequencies, up to 1kHz, the MKH 8018 mid mic has a very slightly wider pattern than the MKH 8060, but with a much smaller rear lobe. Above that there is more divergence: by 2kHz the MKH 8060 has a significantly tighter pattern and this increases with frequency, along with a less noticeable rear lobe. The MKH 8018 remains more like a supercardioid up to 4kHz (and in my previous post on the MKH 8018 I drew the comparison with the MKH 8050), but, thereafter, the MKH 8018 gets more directional, as you would expect, although it remains less directional than the MKH 8060 at all frequencies. As with all polar plots for interference tube mics, by 8kHz those for both mic show erratic, or lobar, form, but the response from a sine wave at a specific frequency is very hard to translate to use: this is where listening to the mic is critical. Moreover, it is in listening that you can hear that the difference between these two short shotgun mics isn’t that vast: indeed, the effectiveness of such short interference tubes means that such mics are not chalk and cheese compared to a supercardioid (sometimes I do wonder if some over-estimate the directionality of a short shotgun mic vs a supercardioid or hypercardioid, but perhaps that’s being uncharitable!).

Field testing – mono and stereo

Picking up on the polar pattern aspect of the two mics in practical use, here are a couple of crude tests of the two mics as mono shotguns outdoors, with on and off-axis sounds, spoken and clapping, around 15ft (5m) from the mics.

Nothing radically different, although for some – say experienced production-sound recordists capturing dialogue – hands-on experience with both will be essential to explore the nuanced differences of the polar patterns of the two shotgun mics.

These clips were taken from recordings in my nominally quiet village garden (becoming all too familiar to readers of this blog), and here are some stereo clips (50:50 balance M to S) from the same session, naturally with the MKH 8060 paired with the MKH 8030. It’s a collection of sounds with autumnal birdsong and passing cars interspersed with some deliberate sound effects (using the garden like an oversize Foley stage!) of distant shoveling, a ringing and dragged spade (I rather like the bell-like sound) and the loud rumble of a wheelie bin. A bit odd, I know, but roll with it, please, as it gives a wide range of outdoor sounds and at different angles to the mics:

Steam loco ‘Britannia’ (a 4-6-2 BR Standard Class 7) entering the cutting at Kelling Heath, and – apart from two furry windshields in the foreground! – making for a nice autumnal scene.

Then it was down to one of my regular mic-testing haunts at the nearby North Norfolk Railway, to the cutting at the east end of Kelling Heath where locos have to work hard up the incline (so a good noise). Actually it wasn’t that tough for the visiting loco – the powerful Pacific ‘Britannia’ – which used to work the main line expresses from Norwich to London in the 1950s , and it fairly flashed past.

First up, here is the sound from the two mono shotgun mics. It’s quite instructive repeatedly comparing brief sections of the recordings (not least those way off-axis – such as the final whistle – once the whole train has passed):

And here are the two stereo files, again with the M and S capsules mixed 50:50 (allowing for their different sensitivities, of course):

OK I wouldn’t choose a shotgun mid mic for an MS pair for this type of recording in this location normally, but both do a pretty reasonable job, without a great deal to choose between them.

Conclusions

Having previously focused on comparing the MKH 8018 to an MKH 8050 + MKH 8030 MS pair, it’s been an interesting exercise now comparing the new mic to the MKH 8060 (both with and without the MKH 8030). Doubtless those who really tune into the subtle differences between short shotgun mics will find the nuances such that they will prefer one of the two mics for its mono shotgun performance, perhaps differently for different uses, but for many the on-paper differences of the two shotgun capsule polar patterns – and the very slightly greater directionality of the MKH 8060 – will be rather too subtle. This will become more the case, of course, when the two mics are considered when used for MS recordings, when the merest tweak of the ratio of M to S will outweigh the impact of the different mid mic polar patterns. Likewise the differences in sensitivity, self-noise and frequency response are very minor and unlikely to influence choice between the mics. So for most – especially those using the mics for field recording or, dare one say it, camera mounted (and Sennheiser describe it as ideal for both) – the choice of MKH 8018 or MKH 8060 + MKH 8030 (or, indeed, any other MS pair) will come down to practicalities.

Of those practicalities, foremost, perhaps is cost: the MKH 8018 (£1675) is significantly cheaper than an MKH 8060 and MKH 8030 (£2321 in total), and even more so when you add a pair of MZF 8000 ii filter modules to the latter (which brings the total to £2981: all these prices are current at the time of writing from Pinknoise Systems in the UK). But, conversely, the recordist may already own an MKH 8060 or an MKH 8030, and, equally, the individual mics – especially the MKH 8030 – will have other uses, so the cost question is more complex.

The second main practicality is that of rigging. Some will find the simplicity of the single stereo mic overwhelmingly compelling (and for them the decoded LR stereo outputs, rather than the M and S outputs, might be attractive too). Others will be only too happy to rig an MS pair with one mic above the other (especially if made easier with those new Radius MS clips!) and, in so doing, have scope for a more compact (shotgun) MS pair, and the option of using the MKH 8060 on its own (say for dialogue), and the MKH 8030 for other purposes, especially including MS with different (non-shotgun) mid mics. As we have seen, such flexibility might be relevant to the cost comparison.

Well, it’s good to have choices!

2 Comments