Audio Gear

Nevaton MC59 mics. Part 1: fig 8 and Twin

January 26, 2026

The Nevaton MC59-8 (fig 8), on the left, and the MC59 Twin, on the right: the significant difference in length is in part due to the XLRM connector built into the MC59-8, but also reflects the more miniaturized preamp of the new MC59 Twin.

Introduction

I first came across Nevaton mics through Magnús Bergsson’s excellent Hljóðmynd – Soundimage website. Magnús uses a wide range of mics, including some real top-drawer models, and is full of praise for the Nevaton MC59 models. I then had some direct experience with a pair of prototype side-address supercardioid Nevaton mics with 27mm capsules on the MC59 preamp body, but this was only a brief loan from the folks at a sound library for whom I was making an ORTF-3D windshield. I was impressed with these mics, so I was excited when Egor and Dmitry at Nevaton decided to send me a pair of their MC59S +59/C cardioid mics, followed, in due course, by a pre-production pair of the MC59uS + 59/C2. The former appeared in my blog post back in May this year on fitting ORTF pairs into the diminutive Mini-ALTO windshield, and, for those not familiar with the mics or the company, provided a brief introduction to them. In a subsequent post, in July, this year, on fitting an XY pair into the Mini-ALTO, I introduced the new cardioid option from Nevaton – the MC59uS + 59/C2. The sharp-eyed will have also noticed that these Nevaton mics pop up in some of my subsequent posts, such as those on double mid side (DMS). In one post on DMS I also include an example using an MC59-8, which is the fig 8 of the series. Yet to appear in any of my blog posts are additional mics from the series, which I have since been testing, comprising the omni (which has been around for some years) and two new (again, pre-production or prototype) mics: the MC59H/Pro (a shotgun mic) and the MC59 Twin (rather obviously a twin mic, with separate outputs for the back-to-back capsules). Evidently, rather than the mics making the odd walk-on appearance in blog posts, it is high time I consider the Nevaton MC59s in more detail, with tests along usual lines. My dilemma, insofar as you can call it this (yes, I know many won’t be too sympathetic to me having to cope with all these mics!), has been how to tackle this motley and growing range of different polar patterns, since to test/review all of them in one post would make it inordinately long. On reflection I think it most sense to consider the fig 8 and twin in this post (they are so closely related in terms of design), then the two cardioid models that I have in another post, and, then, the omni mic and the shotgun mic in two more posts. I will doubtless also consider many of the mics together on a single recording project too. So, in short, there will be a flurry of MC59 posts here as, indeed, there have been similarly for other mics (e.g. Rycote and Sennheiser). There isn’t a huge amount of information out there about the Nevaton mics and there are some rather unusual aspects to their design, so hopefully the posts will be of interest to some.

NB Just in case you were not aware, although with a long history in Russia, Nevaton relocated its whole operation (development, research, production, service and support) to Austria in 2024. The new factory is in Siegendorf, which is about 40 miles south of Vienna. They have a new website here.

A clutch of Nevaton MC59 mics (but not, I should add, the full range) here, including the MC59 Twin and the MC59-8 fig 8, which are the focus of this first blog post on the series. Tests – and blog posts – on the MC59uS/C2 and MC59/C cardioids, the MC59/O omni and the MC59/H Pro shotgun will follow.

The MC59-8 fig 8 and the MC59 Twin

As readers of this blog may have noticed, I do like a fig 8 mic due to my love of mid-side recording along with double mid side and horizontal native B-format rigs. The latest fig 8 mic I have been testing is an intriguing one sent to me by the good folks at Nevaton: the MC59-8. It is not a new design, having been around a few years, but it is new to me, and one I wanted to be able to test as part of an MS pair. The fig 8 forms part of the MC59 series, but in this case is not modular: its preamp, with an XLR connector, is integral with the capsule. There’s nothing particularly unusual about a non-modular design (the highly regarded Sennheiser MKH 30 is similarly so), but the fact that it has a switch to select between fig 8 and omni polar patterns is distinctive: this, of course, reveals that it is a dual-diaphragm design. I’m not snobbish about only using single-diaphragm fig 8s (indeed, the Rycote BD10 is a decent dual-diaphragm fig 8 in the unpopulated c.£500-600 area; and the much more expensive Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin is very well regarded, including when used as a fig 8): rather, I’m intrigued as to how it compares to other fig 8s I use.

Given the dual-diaphragm design of the fig 8, and its switchable omni mode, the MC59-8 has obvious potential to become either a multi-pattern mic or, better, a twin mic. Both, of course, allow for the further polar patterns, but only a twin design allows for the outputs of the two diaphragms to be output separately, either to a mixer or, more normally, recorded as two separate channels. I was excited to hear earlier in 2025 that Nevaton were going down the route of developing an MC59 Twin and even more so when they sent me one of the first ones just before Christmas. Exciting for the scope of having a continuously variable pattern mid mic (from omni to fig 8) for MS and, also, the scope that it opens up, when used in conjunction with the MC59-8 (or, indeed, a second MC59 Twin) for a more compact and less clunky DMS rig. Its diminutive size – just a third of the length of the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin, and a quarter of the length of Nevaton’s existing LDC twin (the MC550) – opens up all sorts of rigging opportunities.

Physical form

The MC59-8 eschews the form of the other fig 8 mics I have here, in that the side-facing capsule is not housed within a continuation of the cylindrical mic body, but, rather adopts a distinctive lollipop form. The preamp body is 22mm diameter, like the other MC59 mics, although it narrows to 19mm for the XLR connector part. Overall length is 80mm.

The ‘lollipop’ capsule design of the MC-59 Twin is identical to that of the fig-8, but the body is quite different. Most notably the MC59 Twin lacks the omni switch (obviously) and, more significantly, has no XLR connection: instead it is hardwired with a side-exit cable. This allows the mic to achieve a compact 48.5mm overall length. The side-exit cable helps ensure that the advantages of a short body length are not lost to a lengthy rear-exit connector and cable, and, moreover, allows the mic to be flush mounted either via its two M1.6 threaded holes or, for slick mounting options, magnetically (the base has two internal magnets in it).

Both mics have brass bodies that have been sandblasted and nickel plated. Past MC59-8 mics have then been fully powder painted in black, but mine is an example of the new approach, which is to leave the capsule part with its nickel finish. The newer MC59 Twin follows the same approach. Inside, the capsule of both mics is identical, with the two diaphragms placed 7.1mm apart, and symmetrical from each side. The spacing between the capsules is pretty similar to that of the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin.

Self-noise

SDC fig 8 mics never seem to reach the low self-noise figures of their siblings with different polar patterns, and this is no different with the Nevaton MC59s than any other series of SDC mics. But, given the low self-noise of the MC59 series, it is no surprise to find that the MC59-8 and the closely related MC59 Twin are quiet mics. Nevaton’s own published self-noise figures for the fig 8 are those measured with an equal capacitor (i.e. the standard method according to the IEC), which is about 6 dBA, with overall (i.e. including the capsule) self-noise for fig-8 mode being about 13.5 dBA, and for double-membrane omni mode being about 7.5 dBA. First off, I did some self-noise tests on the MC59-8 in fig 8 mode, comparing it to four other SDC fig 8 mics: the Sennheiser MKH 30 (published spec of 13dBA); Sennheiser MKH 8030 (published spec of 13dBA); Schoeps CCM8 (published spec of 18dBA); and Rycote BD10 (published spec of 18dBA).

To start with, I measured sensitivity rather than just going with the manufacturers’ figures. For this I set up each mic in turn in my studio using a jig so that the centre of the front of the actual diaphragm was in exactly the same place, then played a 1kHz tone through a Vivid S12 speaker, and compared levels using a narrow band-pass filter centred on 1kHz. Obviously there were no absolute figures from this, but relative sensitivity was measurable. The figures were broadly in keeping with the published figures, though there were some obvious differences: for example the MKH 30 was 2.9dBV less sensitive than the MKH 8030 rather than the expected 1dBV. I then recorded all the mics using one of my Sound Devices 788T recorders at 96kHz in the quietest space I could find in the house around midnight (under a great pile of duvets etc.) at full gain (76dB), brought the files into Reaper and applied the small gain adjustments to match levels based on my sensitivity measurements. I applied a 24dB/octave high-pass filter at 150Hz to remove any residual distant rumbles of traffic etc.

Short clips of the results can be downloaded here:

Of course, there is more to self-noise than simple level: for example, the Rycote mic has more of a noticeable high-frequency hiss than the CCM8; the two Sennheiser mics sound remarkably similar; and the MC59-8 has less of the higher frequency hiss (which is often the most noticeable element of self-noise) than the two Sennheisers. And, needless to say, as you go up the frequency range – beyond my hearing but relevant to younger ears and, above 20kHz, to sound designers reducing the pitch of sounds – the self-noise of the MC59-8 stays remarkably flat, again just as the MC59S/C does, in contrast to the other mics. But. for most practical use, the results are as expected: the MC59-8 is broadly in the same range as the two Sennheisers, the Rycote is significantly noiser and the Schoeps is the noisiest (despite it having the same published spec as the Rycote). The spectrum analyzer visualizations show something of these differences:

The self-noise (and, indeed, sensitivity) of the MC59 Twin matches that of the MC59-8, which, given the use of the same capsule, is not surprising. My slightly homely self-noise tests found a 0.3dB difference, which doubtless is more than covered by measurement error. In omni mode the MC59 Twin again has lower self-noise, as it also does in cardioid mode (i.e. with a single diaphragm).

Frequency response

The discussion of frequency response of a fig 8 mic that also offers an omni mode and an infinitely variable twin mic, with both using the same dual-diaphragm capsule is necessarily complex. Life would be made easier for prospective purchasers if frequency response plots and plots for the main different polar patterns were published, but this absence of information from Nevaton isn’t unique: I can’t find such information on the long-established Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin either! However, to give Nevaton their due, they provided me with specific frequency response measurements of my actual mics (with none of the smoothing of published graphs): for the front and rear capsules for the MC59 Twin, and for the front and rear of capsules of the MC59-8 as well as for omni mode. For both mics a clear correspondence between front and rear capsules is evident in terms of frequency response.

Nevaton’s frequency plot (unsmoothed, measured in large workshop) for MC59-8 serial no. 027 (i.e. that I have here), showing the flat response and the consistency between the front and rear diaphragms.

For overall frequency response, previous experience of the MC59 cardioids gave me high hopes of decent response at both ends of the spectrum. Taking as an example for the high-frequency ability of the mics the 96kHz train recording that you can find further down this blog post, the spectrograms of the MC59-8 and the Sennheiser MKH 8030 are informative:

Spectrogram of the steam train passing: MKH 8030 (left) and MC59-8 (right). The vertical axis extends to 48kHz.

The Nevaton MC59-8 comfortably exceeds the specified 20kHz upper limit to the frequency range, with signal clearly discernible up to the maximum of 48kHz shown on these spectrograms. The MKH 8030 shows a stronger signal over 20kHz, as expected (given its ultrasonic credentials), but with the self-noise above normal limits of human hearing much more in evidence. So an excellent response over 20kHz from the Nevaton MC59-8, which was exactly repeated with the MC59 Twin (hardly surprising given the commonality in their capsules).

While thinking about high frequencies, I was interested to see what the fall-off was with the omni pattern at 90 degrees. So I placed the MC59-8 next to the MC59 Twin, both in omni mode, but with one on axis and one at 90 degrees to pinknoise played back via a single nearfield monitor in my studio. Obviously a long way from an anechoic chamber and with a less than useful low end, but the spectrum analyzer visualizations are useful nonetheless.

MC59-8 in omni mode off axis (red) overlaid on MC59 Twin in omni mode on axis (green): that is, the MC59 Twin was aimed directly at the pinknoise sound source, while the MC59-8 was rotated 90 degrees to the sound source.

In the visualization I have set the lower end of the scale at 100Hz to remove the less than informative detail at this end of things (I cover the bass performance below). In the image, which shows the on-axis MC59 Twin in omni mode and the off-axis [at 90 degrees] MC59-8 also in omni mode, we see a significant fall off above 15kHz. There is nothing at all surprising about this as it is exactly what you would expect given the progressively greater fall off of such higher frequencies at 90 degrees with any cardioid mic, and it is, therefore, an inherent feature of the omni mode in similar dual-diaphragm mics (not just the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin, but, indeed, the many multi-pattern LDC mics). And, of course, most true pressure omni mics have an increasingly directional polar pattern at such high frequencies, with significant fall off at 90 degrees and more to the rear: it is just that with a dual-diaphragm omni this pattern is different, with more fall off at the sides and none at the rear. So using a dual-diaphragm omni mic, like any polar pattern, needs thought and awareness of how that pattern changes with frequency. Aimed on-axis for many sound sources the MC59-8 or MC59 Twin in omni mode will sound fine, but aimed off-access (in effect used as an end-fire mic) they are less likely to be successful. This last use might seem an unlikely one, but in the past I have come across those advocating the use of the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin as a single mic solution to omni MS (i.e. using the same capsule for the fig 8 and the mid mic): more experienced voices counter this, of course, noting that the omni mid mic (made of sideways-facing cardioids) will have significant loss of high frequency facing forward. This applies equally well to the MC59 Twin, or any such mic, and I mention it here as a cautionary note: there is much to love about the flexibility of a twin mic, but best not get carried away (and, if your ears are old, forget that frequencies beyond your hearing might be rather curtailed)!

After that slight – and possibly slightly esoteric – detour, let’s get back to the broader discussion of frequency response. For the lower frequencies, this time when doing my frequent test with a car exhaust I wasn’t happy as the fundamental was rather high (just under 40Hz): my new (but old) car is evidently rather high pitched! So, having pondered over asking a cathedral organist to play some 16Hz notes for me, I went for the lazier option of playing 10Hz, 16Hz and 20Hz notes through my little Vivid S12 monitors. I was surprised that I got decent output with all three low frequencies and escaped without de-coning the speakers. The results were pretty much the same for all three frequencies, so I have just chosen 16Hz as it seems (not least given the 32′ organ pipe relevance) most reflective of real world use. Here are the spectrum analyzer visualizations:

MC59 Twin in fig 8 mode, with 16Hz sine wave played through a single Vivid S12 speaker.

Sennheiser MKH 8030 fig 8, with 16Hz sine wave played through a single Vivid S12 speaker.

MC59 Twin in omni mode,with 16Hz sine wave played through a single Vivid S12 speaker.

Sennheiser MKH 8020 omni, with 16Hz sine wave played through a single Vivid S12 speaker.

MC59 Twin in cardioid mode, with 16Hz sine wave played through a single Vivid S12 speaker.

As expected, there is a vast difference between the bottom end of the fig 8 mics and their omni counterparts. More interestingly, the MC59 Twin in fig 8 mode has more low end than the MKH 8030, which itself has a pretty good bass response for a fig 8 mic; and, also, the MC59 Twin in omni mode holds up well against the MKH 8020 true pressure omni, indeed with a little bit more at the very low frequencies (below 20Hz).

Polar patterns and nulls

I mentioned above that the MC59-8 and MC59 Twin are like the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin (in fig 8 mode) in lacking published polar plots, which is a pity. One of the oft-repeated downsides of dual-diaphragm fig 8s is the lack of consistency in frequency responses off axis: indeed, the single-diaphragm fig 8 has the most consistent polar pattern across audible frequencies of any first-order mic. But, that said, my other dual-diaphragm SDC fig 8, the Rycote BD-10, has a very symmetrical and consistent fig 8 pattern across a wide frequency range, along with effective nulls, so I made no assumptions about Nevaton’s version. Producing accurate polar plots is outside the scope of what I can do, but what is feasible is making some comparative recordings to explore how the nulls of the fig 8s compare and, related, how the on-axis and off-axis sounds compare. For this I compared the MC59-8 to the Sennheiser MKH 8030 at 0 degrees (on axis), at 45 degrees, and at 90 degrees (the null). To do this, I mounted the two mics in a Mega-Blimp with capsules adjacent, and directed a bluetooth speaker playing pinknoise at the mics at a distance of 1.8m at the three angles. The set up was outdoors in a large grass field 130m away from the nearest building, to reduce reflections, with the mics and sound source at head height. Although the small speaker means bass is limited (hence the cut-off at 200Hz in the spectrum analyzer visualizations below), the results were more useful than other tests I tried. These show that the attenuation in the null is pretty consistent compared to the on-axis sound at all frequencies, although there is no doubt that the null of the MC59-8 is not quite as deep as that of the single-diaphragm MKH 8030. Measuring the overall attenuation in sound between 200Hz and 20kHz for the MKH 8030 gave a figure of 23.5dB RMS while with the MC59-8 the figure was 20.7dB RMS (i.e. a difference of 2.8dB). It should be stressed, however, that these tests are far from absolute measurements of the nulls, and there will some effect from the windshield, non-pinpoint source, residual reflections, and background noise: needless to say, an anechoic chamber would give more dramatic (and accurate) results. Rather my tests are simply meant as a real-world comparison. Moreover, not all single-diaphragm fig 8s have such deep nulls as the MKH 8030, with, for example, previous tests showing the AKG CK94 having about 1.8dB less attenuation in the null (those tests being indoors, with more reflections). There is also a suggestion from the MC59-8 to MKH 8030 comparison – insofar as these tests can be relied on (although I repeated the tests in different outdoor locations, with the same result) – that the MC59-8 has a more consistent (i.e. in reference to the on-axis sound) frequency response at 45 degrees than the MKH 8030 at high frequencies (around 8kHz and above). Anyway, the bottom line is that I am reassured that the MC59-8 (and MC59 Twin) have effective nulls and, also, consistency in the frequency response off-axis. I’m not sure I would overly focus on any tests, however, be they my more homely ones or more expert ones: the critical test is how the mics function in real use, not least, from my perspective, in MS (for which see recordings below).

MC59-8 null test, using pinknoise: green = 0 degrees (on axis); yellow = 45 degrees; and red = 90 degrees (null).

MKH 8030 null test, using pinknoise: green = 0 degrees (on axis); yellow = 45 degrees; and red = 90 degrees (null).

Nevaton’s frequency plot (unsmoothed, measured in large workshop) for an MC59-8 in the factory, kindly made for me (with a video too) to demonstrate how Dmitry and Egor go about the task with their Brüel & Kjaer measuring equipment. It provides a useful comparison to my pinknoise tests of the (different) MC59-8 that I have here: it is good to see the consistent pattern measured in this case to 60 degrees (I only measured at 0, 45 and 90 degrees).

Fitness for cold and damp field recording?

In my comparisons in this blog I have compared the fig 8 and twin Nevaton MC59s to Sennheiser MKH mics, which, with their RF technology, are well-known for their ability to operate in extremely damp and humid conditions. As such the Sennheisers have become my go-to mics for field recording, even though the UK is hardly the tropics. Back-electret mics are pretty robust too, but true condensers are usually more susceptible to dampness and humidity. Nevaton’s website has a cautionary note about the use of their classic condensers and humidity, which goes as far as pointing out the superior performance – in this regard – of RF mics: that’s some refreshing honesty! But the website also has a tantalizing note about the heated capsules in its LDC mics and, relevant to us here (or, at least, those like me who use mics for outdoor location and field recording) a reference to the ‘slight heating’ in the preamplifiers, which apparently helps to prevent condensation in their SDC mics. During my many emails with Egor at Nevaton, he has sent me thermal images of the MC59 mics showing this effect, which has further piqued my interest. What was missing from my perspective was any analysis of how this worked in basket windshields, which are my default for the field, versus the more insulating – but less useful – foam windshields for mics. With cold and damp wintry weather here in Norfolk, I decided to do some tests myself. I did play around with trying to get a thermal camera inside a Mega-Blimp, with only partial success, but feel a different test is more relevant to others. I first imaged the mics outside and turned off with no windshield. I then turned them on and added a Mini-ALTO windshield and its fur, letting the rig stabilize over around 25 minutes, at which point I quickly removed the fur and windshield and imaged the mics again. And then, finally, I left the mics switched on but with no windshield, again giving the set up time to stabilize before imaging again. Here are the three thermal images:

Thermal imaging tests, with the MC59 Twin mounted above the MC598-8. Left: mics outside on a chilly winter’s evening, switched off. Centre: mics then enclosed in a Mini-ALTO and fur, left for 26 minutes, and the windshield removed and an image recorded immediately. Right: mics left switched on but without windshield, having been given a further 11 minutes for the temperature to settle.

It’s clear from these tests that, as expected, the preamps of the mics, and especially the MC59 Twin, raise the mic body and capsule temperature a little above the ambient temperature and that it is a bit more noticeable when the mics are inside the windshield with fur: I suspect that’s probably more to do with protection from the cooling effect of the cold wind than the whole windshield interior being heated up. I feel there is a lot more to explore with this, especially in relation to dew points, condensation and high humidity, but it is certainly evident even from this basic test that a useful by-product of the Class A preamplifiers is that they bring the temperature of the capsules of the MC59 mics a few degrees above the ambient temperature. And despite testing the mics in damp winter conditions, I had no issues with condensation and humidity.

A clutch of fig 8s that I have been using here, comprising, top to bottom: Schoeps CCM8; Sennheiser MKH 8030 with MZL; Sennheiser MKH 8030 with XLR connector; Nevaton MC59-8; Rycote BD-10; and Sennheiser MKH 30.

A comparative field test with fig 8s

With that reference to using the mics in the field, you will anticipate that I ventured outdoors with a clutch of fig 8s, albeit, for this recording, in benign conditions. It’s not a profoundly interesting recording, but serves to show the M59-8 against some familiar fig 8 alternatives. I don’t own a Schoeps fig 8, but the company lent me a CCM8 last year for my various Schoeps DMS tests, so I was able to do a quick comparative test during the brief overlap following the arrival of the MC59-8, along with the other fig 8s that I own: the Sennheiser MKH 8030 and MKH 30, and the Rycote BD10. Here are some short excerpts from a recording of my quiet Norfolk village street, with a passing car and birdsong, unedited apart from level matching:

A bit of DIY: MS and DMS clip for the MC59 Twin and MC59-8 pair, using 3d-printed clips (that for the MC59 Twin uses magnets, taking advantage of those in the mic) connected by stainless-steel 4mm tubing with M3 stainless-steel threaded rods inside.

MS and DMS rigging

Aside from such test recordings, I don’t use fig 8s as mono mics for field recording and I don’t imagine anyone does: all the more so with twin mics. The chief interest of the MC59-8 and MC59 Twin to me is, as I said in the intro, for MS and DMS. In this context the physical form of the two mics is not a matter of purely academic interest, but, rather, fundamental to their usefulness, especially for DMS. In my recent three-part blog-post series on double mid side, I looked closely at rigging options, both in terms of mounting the mics to reduce colouration from the effects of adjacent mic bodies, the mounts themselves and the windshield baskets. The MC59 Twin is a really useful addition in that it opens up new ways to approach DMS rigs for field recording that, say, the excellent but much longer MKH 800 Twin does not. While the short length of the MC59 Twin is the key factor, slightly perversely a bit more length to the MC59-8, with its XLR connection, helps too: that is, the fig 8 is easy to mount using shockount clips, while its smaller twin stablemate can be suspended above.

Photos showing the MC59-Twin mounted above the MC59-8 for DMS in a Mini-ALTO 180: a very compact and transparent DMS solution.

The image above shows my approach to the mounting opportunities offered by the pair, with a simple Ø22mm clip for the fig 8 linked by a pair of M3 stainless-steel bolts (through 4mm stainless-steel rods) to the mount for the MC59 Twin above. The small diameter of the rods, which pass in front of the fig 8 capsule, has negligible impact on the sound of the mic (even within its ultrasonic range). The MC59 Twin mounting takes advantage of the magnets in the mic, with a corresponding pair in the mount. This DMS clip will fit many a shock-mount and windshield, but I was particularly pleased that it works so well with a compact Mini-ALTO 180: unlike my previous – and, as I have said previously, rather unsatisfactory – attempts at DMS in a Mini-ALTO, this does not result in the fig 8 mic capsule being located at the chunky plastic rings where the two halves of the windshield join, but pushes them well clear of this and the base (or ‘smiley face’) of the Mini-ALTO. As a result it is a very transparent rig: obviously for more wind protection in can be mounted in larger windshields using the same clip. And for the ultimate in transparency I have been rigging the pair so one mic is top mounted and one is bottom mounted in a Mega-Blimp, doing away with the need for any connection between the two mounts.

A DMS comparison: Sennheiser MKH 8030 + two MKH 8040 along with Nevaton MC59 Twin and MC59-8, as WD 2-10-0 ‘The Royal Norfolk Regiment’ powers up the incline on the North Norfolk Railway on the last day of 2025. Those white spheres are not microphones but some Christmas lights: decorating a whole railway line seems remarkably ambitious!

Mid side and double mid-side tests

I headed down to a familiar haunt at the nearby steam railway, capturing a passing train with the new DMS in a Mini-ALTO rig. The train was hammering along faster than I expected (I suspect that the Christmas ‘Mince Pie’ special doesn’t stop at stations en route), and it was great that the skies were clear of planes, and the nearby paths free of chatting (or barking) passers-by: in other words, it was a fairly clean recording. For it I used the MC59 Twin and MC59-8 combination alongside a Sennheiser 2 x MKH 8040 and MKH 8030 DMS rig, to give a useful – and familiar – comparison.

First up, we have the individual files for each of the three mics in each array. The files can be downloaded, and have been level-matched to allow for the different mic sensitivities. This means that anyone can play around with MS, MS with different mid-mic polar patterns, or DMS, and, with the latter, output to surround, stereo or binaural formats.

Here we have the recordings from the two DMS rigs rendered to binaural output using Harpex-X:

And, finally, here is a stereo output from Harpex-X for speakers (with output configuration set to coincident cardioids with 90 degree angle):

Listening to the various options, especially using the individual mic tracks in your DAW, provides scope for drawing your own conclusions: as ever, many prefer different mics. My own thoughts is that the Nevatons compare very well to the MKH 8000 mics: indeed, when sending them to a classical recording engineer friend, he too gave a slight edge to the Nevatons in a blind test, despite being wedded to MKH 8000 and MKH 800 Twin mics for his recording work!

A little bit of music

Popping over to my good friend Rob’s workshop (where he makes his amazing kinetic sculptures, as well as welds the odd Mega-Blimp basket) he was happy enough to strap on his melodeon at short notice and give it a quick squeeze for something a bit different to the train recording above. This time it was the same mics in DMS (i.e. MKH 8040 x 2 and MKH 8030, alongside MC59 Twin and MC59-8), albeit with the windshields removed. Now Rob’s workshop is large, warm, unbelievably neat, and even has a pub pool table, but the acoustic, as you might expect, is not fantastic: size and, perhaps, a metal floor and ceiling covering are key factors. But here we go nonetheless, with, first up, the six individual mic tracks:

Here are stereo files derived from using the mics as MS pairs (balanced 50:50), so ignoring the rear-facing cardioids:

Here are the three-channel files rendered to binaural output using Harpex-X:

And, finally, here is a stereo output from Harpex-X for speakers (with output configuration set to cardioids with 110 degree angle and 17cm spacing – i.e. ORTF):

Conclusions

Testing two different mics, even if closely related, in one blog post is a challenge, and the more so when one mic offers two polar patterns and the other an infinite number. There is much I have left out: for example, those wanting to hear the Nevaton mics compared to others (not least the MKH 30 and, for the MC59 Twin, the MKH 800 Twin) on acoustic music in a good room. But I will be revisiting the mics in upcoming tests, which include a classical piano recording, so please do stay tuned. From the above you may have drawn some initial conclusions or, perhaps, I may have piqued your interest enough to test the mics for yourself (ultimately much more satisfactory). Personally, I have found that the mics have lived up to my high hopes and that, in the MC59-8 and MC59 Twin, I have a combination that is particularly suited to DMS for field recording in view of the compact, transparent and unshadowed configuration that the form of the mics allows. I look forward to using the combination more and, along the way, providing more samples for readers here.

6 Comments

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!

4 Comments

Audio Gear

Dual-ADC and 32-bit float tests with the Tascam FR-AV2 (with comparisons to the Sound Devices 24-bit MixPre-3 and 788T)

October 10, 2025

Introduction

Before getting into the blog post proper, I should point out that it comes with two caveats! First, I should clarify that this isn’t a full review of the Tascam FR-AV2 recorder: rather, it is a tale of dipping a toe in the water of 32-bit recording for me, exploring some of the aspects of such recorders that I have wondered about and about which I have struggled to find any authoritative analysis, let alone related to this specific recorder. It may well be that all these aspects are covered somewhere, but obscured by the smokescreen of so much (including a fair bit of nonsense) for and against dual-ADC 32-bit float field recorders. Whether I can add anything useful is another matter as, indeed, is the question as to whether anyone else is interested in the aspects of 32-bit float field recorders that have intrigued me. And, second, this post comes from the perspective of someone whose current main recorders are a pair of Sound Devices 788T recorders (one with a CL-8), along with a Sound Devices MixPre-3 for when I want lighter kit or simply don’t need the larger channel count. For a few years I also owned a Zoom F8n, but it has been a long time since I have bought, or even used, a cheaper and smaller recorder such as the FR-AV2. That said, in the increasingly distant past I have owned a Zoom H4, a Zoom H2n, a Tascam DR70D and a Sony M10: the last I valued as truly pocketable device, and was sad when it died. But I cannot claim to have had hands-on experience of the current options for, say, sub-£500 recorders, so please do bear that in mind!

Back in July 2024, when I last wrote about field recorders, I said ‘doubtless some find 32-bit float handy (e.g. for drop rigs for nature field recording, or for inexperienced recordists), but, personally, I see it as a solution to a problem I don’t have (without increasing mic input headroom – so many of these 32-bit recorders only have a 4dBu max mic input – and, also, introducing issues related to switching between ADCs)’, and to a great extent my feeling was the same a year on, before doing the tests outlined below. I’m not doing drop-rig or other unmonitored recording, and haven’t been bedeviled by recordings ruined by clipping nor, equally, suffering from self-noise arising from using excessively conservative gain. Moreover, most of the 32-bit recorders out there lack many of the features I value in my existing 24-bit recorders, with notable exceptions being the Sound Devices 8-series recorders: but I’m not in the market for one of these expensive recorders at present. So my interest in testing a 32-bit dual-ADC recorder came in a roundabout way (and, not, I hasten to add, because someone sent me a freebie: they didn’t!): with my little Sony M10 long dead, and just occasionally my MixPre-3 being not small enough for ultra-compact use, I wanted to buy a tiny recorder, which needed to have two channels of P48 (phantom power) and also to offer PIP (plug-in-power); to be able to handle mid-side recording, allowing recording of the M and S ISOs, while decoding to LR stereo for monitoring; to have no built-in mics; and to have decent-sounding preamps with low self-noise. Of the available options, the Tascam FR-AV2 seemed the best, if not only, candidate, and the required functions were certainly evident, although ‘decent-sounding’ preamps were not guaranteed (I have found no clear test), but there was reason to be optimistic: unless marketing hyperbole, the unit – with its ‘Ultra HDDA’ preamps – appears to have the same preamps as the excellent sounding but now discontinued HS-P82 recorder (it is unclear whether all Tascam’s ‘Ultra HDDA’ preamps are identical, but evidently there is at least some common ground). Its relatively cheap price (I paid £318 from CVP) was a bonus, although, of course, the flip-side of this is plastic construction and, perhaps, the absence of a few useful hardware features. While its 32-bit float dual-ADC design was rather incidental to my criteria for a tiny recorder, it, nonetheless, provided a good opportunity to explore such technology, so I think it would be fair to say that this was very much an extra reason to buy the recorder. And, of course, it is that aspect of the design that is the main subject of this post.

The Tascam FR-AV2 along with the Sound Devices 788T and MixPre-3 recorders used for comparative testing: the FR-AV2 is usefully smaller than the fairly dinky little MixPre-3.

Overall impression

As I said, this isn’t a full review of the FR-AV2 and certainly not a re-hash of its specs, but a few observations might be relevant to those considering buying the device.

Physically, the plastic form gives it a budget feel (slightly toy-like, if you want to be harsh), but that very much comes with the territory at this price point. And, in case anyone is wondering why aluminium would be used beyond aesthetics and affectation (that premium feel!), decent preamps kick out heat and aluminium cases are often essential parts of heat management (my Sound Devices recorders get warm, as designed). A few slightly odd design features stand out immediately: the ‘premium’ (as Tascam names the non-Neutrik) XLR sockets have catches that are rather proud (liable to catch when stuffed in a pocket?); there’s a 1/4″ thread on the bottom, but why not 3/8″, which would have relevance to field-recording (described as an intended application of the FR-AV2), but which would also allow an inserted adapter for 1/4″ for the camera fraternity if preferred?; the battery door is one of those awful push-down-and-try-and-slide-off jobs, that is resistant to moving and will be a grim feature for someone lacking good grip or in some difficult field location (and you can’t, to mitigate this, charge the batteries while in the recorder); and, above all, the buttons have no back lights. Given the lack of a touchscreen (no big deal to me, though I like those of the MixPre recorders) the last seems decidedly odd: in low light, or with a half glance, it’s far from doddle to find the right button. Even some dimples on the ‘home’ button would help locate fingers.

Turning on the recorder, the screen is nice and clear, although the menu doesn’t seem quite as good as it could be (but there the recorder is in good company at any price point!) and there are some unexplained and annoying quirks. For example, why can’t the user have pre-roll (‘pre rec’) without having to have the pause option too? The immediate and unsatisfactory answer is that the latter also puts the recorder into standby mode, without which there is no pre-record, but the other recorders I use do not require a standby mode to have been pre-pressed (and for five seconds to have elapsed first): what on earth was Tascam thinking? More worryingly, the screen looks almost identical in recording and recording standby mode (surely the top part of the screen could be, say, orange for standby then red only when actually recording, rather than red in both instances?), although a flashing red LED indicates paused or standby mode vs the solid red LED of actual recording. It all seems a little prone to encouraging the classic error of thinking you are recording when you are not, which seems especially ironic given that a major part of the selling point of 32-bit recorders is easier use: reducing chances of cock-ups should be part of that.

Scope for confusion? The two rather similar screens for standby (top) and recording (bottom).

The FR-AV2 has a distinct advantage over the Zoom F3 (its most obvious competition) in that it has provision for MS recording. On the one side the implementation is needlessly clunky (why not have adjacent menu options for ‘stereo link LR’ and ‘stereo link MS’?), but, more positively, it is possible set gain for the two channels separately. While gain is to some degree irrelevant (see below), this difference carries through to your DAW, and gives precision when monitoring (more so than the ‘wide’ function, which is similar to the MS width option on a MixPre recorder). You can even ‘gang’ the inputs and change the overall gain whilst keeping the difference between the two channels intact. This means you can compensate in the field for the very normal situation of different sensitivities for your mid and side mics, though, evidently, you need to know those sensitivities and not confuse yourself by continuing to use these different gains when swapping to a pair of mics for LR stereo.

Plug-in-power (PIP) is another feature absent in the Zoom F3, but found in the FR-AV2 and, as I said in the intro, something I want in such a small recorder: a pair of PIP omni mics (such as any of the Primo EM272-based mics: e.g. the Clippies from Micbooster) makes for a very compact rig for when travelling with the most minimal sound equipment. And, it is good to see that the FR-AV2 offers a choice of 2.5V and 5V: many of these mics benefit from something less anaemic than the common 2.5-3.0V.

Moving on to outputs, the FR-AV2 has a fairly modest headphone amp, delivering 50 mW + 50 mW into 32 Ω, which is less than the hardly stellar Zoom F8n I used to own (100 mW + 100 mW) into 32 Ω, and is well short of the 300 mW + 300 mW of the MixPre-3, but proves usable with my HD-25s (70 Ω) and, if needed, you can always crank up the recording level (without fear of clipping the actual recording) near to the peak output level for monitoring.

Turning to getting your recordings off the FR-AV2, the USB connection seems poorly implemented: just shifting a stereo file to your computer takes an age, which is surprising in such a new device. In the comparative samples I have moved from recorder to PC while testing, USB data transfer rates have been around four times slower than my MixPre-3 (2017 technology) and seven times slower than my 788T (2008 technology)! This seems bizarre. But at least it’s only a two-channel recorder!

So a mixed bag: a far from ideal recorder, with some of the obvious hardware improvements being cost-neutral to have implemented, some (such as the backlit buttons) that would have been worth a modest price increase. The software-related issues, of course, are open to being fixed in a future firmware release, but I have no idea whether Tascam will be responsive (I have provided feedback and so far the response has been about as far from Sound Devices as possible!). I am uncertain whether the competition at this price point is better or worse in terms of hardware design and software implementation: doubtless there are YouTube reviews, blogs and forums full of comparisons between the FR-AV2, the Zoom F3 and other obvious competitors that cover this, and, indeed, discuss aspects I haven’t touched on here (e.g. the FR-AV2’s implementation of timecode and Bluetooth). And perhaps some of the quirks that have surprised me will be seen more positively by others: I could well be missing something!

Right, let’s get on with the 32-bit float recording side of things…

Recording level

Funnily enough, when doing a bit of background reading on the FR-AV2 I noticed some confusion about the recording level options, so, given that the manual sheds no light at all on this (a little surprising!), it is probably worth being crystal clear here. The setting of recording levels in 32-bit float mode (at least) does not bake in any analogue trim/gain: it is to help set levels for monitoring and outputs, to allow compensation to be made in the field for different mic sensitivities in the two channels (most obviously for MS recording), and to set the levels at some more immediately useful level for when you bring the recordings into your DAW. To double-check this I recorded a mechanical stopwatch in the quietest location I could manage (in an impromptu enclosure, under a pile of duvets, in the quietest room of the house, and with the electricity turned off!) and using an extremely low self-noise mic (Nevaton MC59/C: an apposite choice given that Dmitry and Egor at Nevaton suggested the mechanical stopwatch approach for mic tests) at recording levels of 0dB,+ 20dB, +40dB and +60dB, then brought the files into Reaper, adding/subtracting gain there so that the overall gains from the recorder plus in post were matched: all four adjusted recordings sounded identical, with no difference in self-noise. Voila: as expected!

On a related note, the peak level indicators (a red LED for each channel), which the manual describes as lighting up ‘when the input level exceeds the peak level’ are dependent on the recording level setting, so their function isn’t as indicators of mic input overload, but as indicators of overload of the outputs: i.e. to the headphones and if running a line out to camera. The indicator for overloading the analogue inputs of the recorder is, rather, the fact that the level indicator meter for the input channel will turn entirely red, as opposed to its normal green: if not red, peaks will be recoverable in post irrespective of the recording level settings and any indicated output level overloads. And, just to double check, I tested this too. Again, voila: as expected!

Input overload indication on the FR-AV2 shown by the red level meter, here just overloading for mic channel 1.

Self-noise

Following on from recording levels, and the consistency in self-noise irrespective of the setting, what then of absolute self-noise? Given that level setting of the FR-AV2 lacks the clarity of a more conventional recorder with trim/gain, I repeated the mechanical stopwatch test, using a Rode NT1 mic (for its very low [4dBA] self-noise), and compared it to a MixPre-3 (first generation: i.e. 24-bit) and a 788T using a passive three-way splitter. I set the FR-AV2 recording level at +40dB, although, as we have seen, this will make no difference to the self-noise, and then recorded parallel clips with the MixPre-3 and 788T at 76dB gain (i.e. the maximum gain on both) and then 56dB, 36dB, 16dB and 6dB gain (the last being the minimum gain possible on the MixPre-3). In Reaper I then raised the level of the FR-AV2 clips to match the 76dB-gained MixPre-3 and 788T clips, and then raised the remaining progressively quieter MixPre-3 and 788T clips to match (i.e. in turn adding 20dB, 40dB, 60dB and 70dB of gain in post). The results of the tests can be heard (and downloaded) below (and if you want to cut to the chase, just listen to the FR-AV2 and MixPre-3 clips in test 5!): and don’t forget, these are massive gain levels applied to three extremely quiet recorders and a mic that is as quiet as they go.

First: the two 24-bit recorders at max input gain (76dB) and the FR-AV2 with its level raised in post to match:

Second: the two 24-bit recorders at input gain of 56dB with 20dB gain added in post, and the FR-AV2 with its level raised in post to match:

Third: the two 24-bit recorders at input gain of 36dB with 40dB gain added in post, and the FR-AV2 with its level raised in post to match:

Fourth: the two 24-bit recorders at input gain of 16dB with 60dB gain added in post, and the FR-AV2 with its level raised in post to match:

And, finally, fifth: the two 24-bit recorders at input gain of 6dB with 70dB gain added in post, and the FR-AV2 with its level raised in post to match:

Sorry about the slog for anyone who actually went through the clips and compared them!

There are three aspects of these self-noise comparison tests that merit comment:

• First, the three recorders have indistinguishably similar self-noise when the two 24-bit recorders were gained to suit the quiet sound source, which is not surprising from the specs: equivalent input noise (EIN) of the FR-AV2 is –127 dBu, while that of the MixPre-3 is -128dBu and the (oddly unspecified) 788T is apparently -128dBu too.

• Second, the self-noise of the FR-AV2 means that it is very effective for recording quiet sounds (OK, this is obvious from the specs, but it is perhaps useful – given the confusion that surrounds dual-ADC 32-bit float recorders – to be reassured that this applies to the quietest signals).

• Third, and I suspect this may well be a big surprise for some, the 24-bit MixPre-3 recordings showed no more evident self-noise if recorded with 76dB (the maximum) gain or extremely low 6dB gain (i.e. its minimum mic input setting) with 70dB gain then added in post. The 788T recordings behaved similarly (i.e. no more self-noise) until gain on the recorder was dropped to 16dB (so the point where self-noise increases is somewhere a little above this) and at 6dB (with 70dB added in post) the recorder was noticeably hissier. Obviously, a mic with more self-noise would mask this and bring the effective constant self-noise lower, nearer to the MixPre-3.

The third point reinforces the lack of need to record at very hot levels with a 24-bit field recorder with decent preamps and, a point often missed, the 24-bit MixPre first generation recorders have no additional self-noise across the whole trim/gain range from 6dB to 76dB (they have a quite different preamp and ADC design to the 7-series recorders, with two op amps per channel feeding into two ADC channels per mic input, which are then combined in the ADC: here is an informed tear-down of a first generation MixPre-6).

Clipping

This leads neatly onto the subject of clipping. Now this was something about which I had no prior doubt: despite the much-touted no clipping side of dual-ADC 32-bit float recorders, this cannot compensate for overloading the mic input. Like many budget recorders, the Tascam FR-AV2 has a fairly modest +4dBu maximum input level for microphone input, when the gain is at minimum. This isn’t unusual, and can be found outside the small handheld recorders with which, perhaps, the FR-AV2 is most likely to compete: it is, for example, the same as the Zoom F8n Pro. The last is odd, since the preceding (24-bit) Zoom F8n (which I used to own) had a significantly higher maximum input level of +14 dBu, as does my MixPre-3 (first generation): the second generation MixPre-recorders (i.e. with 32-bit float and dual ADCs) also have a maximum input level of +14 dBu. Turning to my older 788Ts, these offer mic inputs with +8 dBu maximum (but, note, when gain = 10 dB, yet trim/gain for mic inputs can be reduced to 0.1dB); and, for line inputs +26 dB maximum (gain = 0 dB): the last might seem irrelevant to mics, but, crucially, the 788T can supply 48v phantom power when in line-input mode. The current 8-series recorders from Sound Devices have almost exactly the same input specs as the 7-series (though slightly more line-level headroom at +28dBu) and also allow P48 in line-input mode. Looking at another example of a current professional recorder, the Sonosax SX-R4 has a + 21dB max mic input level. So, if on the deck of an aircraft-carrier recording jets landing, any of the Sound Devices or the Sonosax (and other similar professional) models will see you home sans clipping (as long as your mics can handle the SPL) while the Tascam FR-AV2 is likely to struggle. The higher maximum input levels of my other recorders has certainly been put to good use a few times by me (e.g. when close-miking loud bands with condensers) and are there for good reason, not for some only theoretical need. And turning to my own tests for this post, using a sensitive mic (an MKH 8060 shotgun), I found a simple hand clap enough to get the Tascam FR-AV2 to overload the inputs, while the 788T had no trouble at all.

Now the MKH 8060 is capable of outputting a maximum of around +12dBu, which is by no means unique, so, as with all such common +4dBu inputs on more modest recorders, you just need to bear this in mind and remember that the 32-bit float format doesn’t solve the hardware limitations of the FR-AV2 and its ilk. If recording extremely high SPLs with sensitive mics with no built in pads, then make certain to pack a couple of, say, 20dB in-line attenuators (make certain they have P48 pass-through). Likewise, the user needs to be beware of mics with modest maximum SPLs causing clipping earlier in the chain. But, for most use by most users, the Tascam FR-AV2 should be fairly clip proof, and is certainly less likely to result in clipping in most common usage than a poorly or non-monitored 24-bit recorder, a 24-bit recorder set with too high an input gain (possibly, as we have seen, out of an irrational fear of getting too low a recording and burying signal in preamp self-noise), or when recording an unexpectedly wide dynamic range. So, yes, of course, in many cases the Tascam FR-AV2, or similar, will help recordists avoid clipping.

NB If you don’t have an expensive 24-bit recorder aimed at production sound professionals, or a more modest 32-bit device such as the FR-AV2, the tried and tested alternative of dual-recording (where, say, a stereo pair is recorded at two different gains to two pairs of channels) is found on many a 24-bit recorder, including the modest but great value Tascam DR-70D.

Recording extreme dynamic ranges

Taking these thoughts and tests on self-noise and clipping forward, the oft-cited benefit of dual-ADC 32-bit float recorders is their performance in situations where there is unpredictable and extreme dynamic range. Recording both gentle rain and thunder claps is one example often given. Weather is a fickle thing and we don’t have much in the way of thunder storms in Norfolk anyway, so for a more mundane, but equally telling, test I headed outside and went for the combination of a coin spinning, a burst from a hammer drill (drilling into concrete) 300mm from the mic (this time an MKH 8020 omni SDC mic, with still very respectable 10dBA self-noise), and also the quiet background noise of a few birds tweeting and the distant rumble of a military jet: this presents a huge dynamic range . For the tests, I compared the FR-AV2 (set with ‘rec level’ at 0) with the MixPre-3 (gain at the minimum of 6dB) and the 788T (gain set at 20dB, so that the level indicators were at the top of the orange band and just shy of the red for the drill sound: i.e. how many might record the drill, but not the quiet sounds). In none of the three cases was the signal loud enough to overwhelm the mic input stage: the aim was to give the FR-AV2 a fair test and not simply reveal the limitation of its analogue mic inputs again. With 6dB gain on the MixPre-3, this was recording very conservatively for the drill sound, let alone the quiet background and coin spinning, so headroom for any louder still sound was considerable (as it turned out, a substantial 21dB) and well short of limiter territory. Here are the three recordings, unedited apart from the levels of the FR-AV2 and MixPre-3 recordings raised a little to match the 788T recording (by use of a 1kHz tone, which is included in the clips, with a narrow band-pass filter applied):

As expected, the overall recordings sound pretty much identical, but, of course, with extreme dynamic range (and think back to the thunder and soft rain example), the recordist will often want to edit the recording so that the loud and the quiet parts are both audible – in short raising the quiet part. You can download and play with the files and try this yourself, of course, but, as a more immediate alternative, here are some short excerpts from these recordings to show the consequences of doing this on the quiet sounds, first of the coin, with the level of each recording raised in post by another 30dB from the full-length recordings above:

And here are some short excerpts of the distant and faint bird (and jet plane) sounds from the full-length recordings above, this time with the matched levels raised by a whopping 50dB in post:

To my ears the recordings sound largely identical, and, certainly, there is nothing different in terms of self-noise. Even the previously observed slight rise in self-noise of the 788T at very low gains and with a low self-noise mic (i.e. at 16dB gain with the 4dBA Rode NT1) is no longer evident with the recorder at 20dB gain and with the MKH 8020 (10dBA) mic. Food for thought for some perhaps? Slightly ironically, this serves as a reminder that conservative gain settings on a 24-bit recorder (plus, of course, decent limiters though they were not used in this test) may well cover the issues of the unexpectedly loud sound (and consequent fear of clipping) that have led many to buy a dual-ADC 32-bit recorder!

From gentle birds tweeting (and a bit of background traffic on the distant coast road) to the massive sound of a WD 2-10-0 loco (‘The Royal Norfolk Regiment’) passing inches from my mics represented a pretty good example of extreme sound level change: but – and here’s the cautionary tale – you don’t gain anything from dual-ADCs with 32-bit float vs the first generation MixPre-3 (i.e. 24-bit) even for such an extreme recording..

And for another example, I popped along to nearby Kelling Heath Halt on the North Norfolk Railway, for a bit of field recording with a huge range in sound levels. Here, the little halt station (a request stop) is not used by trains on the upward incline from Weybourne, so is a good place to be able to place mics right by the wheels (and cylinders) as the locomotives come past working very hard. And I was especially in luck this time, as the steam loco that passed was one of the largest on the line. The recording was made using a Sennheiser MKH 8018 stereo shotgun into the FR-AV2 and, again, the MixPre-3 set at its minimum gain of 6dB. Here are the two recordings with 15dB gain added in post to the MixPre-3 recording and the FR-AV2 leveled to match (and, also, the fig 8 side channel of the MKH 8018 was also given an additional 7dB gain in post to match its sensitivity to the mid mic capsule):

As before, you can download the wav files to play with them yourself, but, again, to make things easier here are two very short excerpts from the quietest parts, with much more gain added in post: another 65dB gain was added in post, giving a total of 80dB gain to the MixPre-3 field recording (plus, of course, that additional 7dB for the less sensitive fig 8 side capsule).

Again, there is significant difference between the dual-ADC 32-bit float FR-AV2 and the 24-bit MixPre-3 recordings, and no difference in self-noise even when the low level MixPre-3 recording is pushed to extreme measures in post. The MKH 8018 is a very high output mic (56mV/Pa; -25 dB ref (1V/Pa)), and yet the MixPre-3 recording had 19.4dB of headroom above the peak level for that channel (and much more for the fig 8) and, of course, came nowhere near needing its effective limiters. In normal use I would not have set the MixPre-3 gain quite as low as for this demonstration, mainly to aid monitoring. Given the ability of the MixPre-3 to recover extremely low-level signals (without any self-noise penalty) just as well as the FR-AV2 (and, obviously, similar 32-bit float recorders with very low EIN), and its greater ability to handle high input levels, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where extreme variation in sound levels and the wish to raise quiet sections whilst editing means that the FR-AV2 and similar recorders offer any performance advantage.

NB Don’t be mistaken: I am not advocating that, if you have a first generation MixPre recorder that you should leave it permanently with the gain at 6dB: for quiet sounds you will struggle to monitor (through headphones and on the meters), will have low output levels, and will find the waveforms nigh on invisible when you take the files into your DAW. And if you pass files on to someone else for post you will be decidedly unpopular.

Switching ADCs

There are blogs, videos and forums that have demonstrated, illustrated and discussed the issue of switching ADCs in dual-ADC 32-bit recorders (and, indeed, dual-ADC 24-bit recorders such as the Sony D100 that also use switching). By issues, I mean the effects of the on-the-fly switching of the source of the recorded signal from the low-gain ADC (i.e. that for high-level audio) to the high-gain ADC (i.e. that for low-level audio) and vice versa. The main problem, insofar as it is a problem at all, appears to be the jump in self-noise when the switch is made between the ADCs: at face value, this seems unlikely to be an issue if the change in self-noise is masked by the signal. The key then would seem to be if switching ADCs can be heard on the fading tails of sounds. Of course, there may be more to the different ADC performance than self-noise (distortion, for example), and, with this in mind, I have wondered about any implications for different ADCs being used for different channels (both for L and R stereo and especially, M and S pairs) due to significantly differently levels. I have yet to find anything crystal clear on this (apart from a few seemingly well-informed comments). Being nothing of an electronics engineer, I am poorly equipped to understand, analyse and communicate exactly what is going on with switching dual-ADC designs, but that puts me in the same boat as most who choose between single-ADC 24-bit recorders and dual-ADC recorders (be they 24-bit or 32-bit). So, for me there are two practical tests I can do with the FR-AV2: first, see if the switching of ADCs is observable; and, second, and more importantly, see if the switching can be heard.

Spectrograms left to right: Sound Devices 788T, Tascam FR-AV2, and Sound Devices MixPre-3. The ADC switching in the FR-AV2 at the louder signals is quite clear to to see. The 96kHz sample rate means that the vertical scale is up to 48kHz.

Well the observable part is easy in the sense of visual indication on a spectrogram, as shown above: in this example (using the FR-AV2, MixPre-3 and 788T, with levels matched by a 1kHz tone) some gentle taps on the mic body (MKH 8060) to cause high-level low-frequency peaks are accompanied by a jump in self-noise in the FR-AV2, which I crudely measured at about 10-20dB, but only distinguishable from around 24kHz. But as the sound level drops, so quickly does the ultrasonic self-noise, as the recorder switches ADC. Here are the sound files from which the above was derived:

I’ve played around with this and other tests, dropping the pitch a couple of octaves (relevant to some sound design) doesn’t lead to any obviously audible switching-related increase in noise or other artefacts. As I said, I have no claim to have any expertise in this, but my conclusion – from a sound recordist’s perspective – is that the FR-AV2’s implementation of switching between its dual ADCs has no audible effect: but if someone can show differently that would be interesting!

Conclusions

Well first off I should say that I am happy with the Tascam FR-AV2: I bought it for its tiny size and other key features described in the introduction. With its dual-ADC and 32-bit float design it delivers low-self noise across what, in normal terms, would be described as any gain level. This is very different than was the case with the 24-bit cheaper handheld recorders I have owned in the past. I think that this is the crucial point: prospective purchasers of this and similar recorders (say the Zoom F3) are going to be comparing them to budget 24-bit recorders.

But when compared to my (first generation) MixPre-3, the FR-AV2 offers no practical advantage in high dynamic range recordings: it offers no better ability to bring up the quiet sounds in post, while handling extreme loud sounds at the same time and, as we have seen, has less capability of handling extremely high mic input levels. The last may not be an issue for many, or even most, users, so perhaps we could say that for most the two recorders are equal in this regard and that all the FR-AV2 does is solve the ‘issue’ of the MixPre-3/6/10 user who is inexplicably afraid of setting trim/gain at very conservative levels for such use! Now, of course, not all non-budget 24-bit recorders exhibit such consistent self-noise and dynamic range across the whole trim/gain range (as we have seen here with the older 788T: although in practical use – as in the recordings of the hammer drill etc. and the steam train – this is hardly significant), so that means you need to know exactly how your recorder performs (and not just with a 150k resistor shorting the inputs, but with mics that you will use: their self-noise will come into the equation).

As for the switching ADC issue, I am relieved to find that this seems much less of a concern than the on-line discussions and demonstrations might suggest: that might reflect my ears, my use and, indeed, that the FR-AV2 is a more recent dual-ADC and 32-bit float design. So, yes, through testing the FR-AV2 I have modified my view from July 2024, when I wrote about field recorders and said ‘doubtless some find 32-bit float handy (e.g. for drop rigs for nature field recording, or for inexperienced recordists), but, personally, I see it as a solution to a problem I don’t have (without increasing mic input headroom – so many of these 32-bit recorders only have a 4dBu max mic input – and, also, introducing issues related to switching between ADCs)’: certainly with regard to the FR-AV2, I don’t have the ADC switching concern, though perhaps am just left with a niggling, lingering feeling – however irrational perhaps – that something isn’t quite right and that, for a critical – say music – recording, I would stick to a non-switching dual-ADC recorder. This is rather theoretical anyway for me personally, as given the channel count of the FR-AV2, its less than ideal ergonomics and its lack of so many other features, I would be highly unlikely to use it for an acoustic music recording. That said, I will try and remember to take a split of the main pair on some future music recordings to really give those ‘Ultra HDDA’ preamps a good check: so far, I think they sound fine. And, in the meantime, although the dual-ADC and 32-bit float aspect of the recorder remains a solution to a problem I don’t have, I would have no hesitation in using the FR-AV2 for sound effects or field recording should I need something smaller than my MixPre-3. The FR-AV2 has met my specific needs, but, of course, may well have a much wider application for many and, for them, offer significant advantages over existing or alternative options.

21 Comments

Audio Gear DIY Projects

Do we see eye to eyelet on the ideal field recording bag? A case (or bag) of minor butchery.

September 29, 2025

My Think Tank Retrospective 7 (old style) before butchery. Tough as old boots, compact, hold all the bits and bobs I need, and doesn’t yell ‘expensive sound recording kit’.

Bags for audio location recording are made a plenty, for all sorts of sizes of mixer/recorders and ancillary gear. But they have one thing in common: they are all geared for production sound or similar use. I’ve had several over the years, and just have one nowadays for a Sound Devices 788T paired with an CL-8. It’s fine for when I am recording or mixing sound for film/video, but I’ve never got on with such bags for field-recording. For that I’ve found the needs are quite different as, if not hiking and requiring a backpack (and for that I use a Vango Trail 35 or a North Face Borealis), I want a shoulder bag that has several attributes missing from a sound bag: it needs to be discreet, and must have capacity for additional things such as pens, notebooks, cables, a camera, mics and a windshield. Even a bottle of water. More to the point it must be able to carry those things – especially little items – securely: sound bags are so permeable that even if you can fit additional items in them, there is a high risk of them slipping out, which ain’t too good if you are knee-high in nettles, squatting in the salt marsh, or strolling down the Kilburn High Road. Equally, a production sound bag has things I simply don’t need in the field: I don’t need a raft of pockets for wireless receivers; I don’t need a clear plastic lid to allow me to ride the faders for a live mix while standing in the rain; and I don’t need to be able to connect a harness. I’ve seen many persisting with audio bags in the field and have no idea why so many do: being charitable, perhaps they find them perfect in a way that I simply don’t; or, being less charitable, perhaps they think a sound bag must be the right tool even if there’s no boom pole or actor in sight, and just suffer the inconvenience? I suspect a mix of the two. And, of course, while a production sound bag might be the right tool for one day’s field recording, it might be the wrong too for the next day’s session, even in the hands of the same recordist.

Anyway, I can only speak for myself (evidently!) and I’ve long used other bags for most field recording projects. The ones I have used – initially bought for cameras – for many years have been the rather lovely thick canvas Think Tank Retrospective bags. Of these, my favourite for field recording is my smallest one: the Retrospective 7. It’s smaller than my production sound bag, yet is so more space efficient. In short it’s my perfect small rig field-recording bag apart from one slight niggle: it’s a little fiddly routing mic cables from the sides of the mixer/recorder since, of course, the bag lacks the side exits for cables that I have just lambasted in production sound bags. OK I could have low-profile XLR jumpers, but that rather goes against the streamlined minimalism in the field. At the back of my mind for years has been the thought that one day I would find some massive eyelets to make a few neat holes that would help with cables, but which wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater and lose the fact that the bag could hold things safely like…well, like a bag should!

This weekend, I finally got around to it. A little bit of research had showed that what I needed to comfortably fit an XLR plug and, say, another cable through a hole would be 25mm (internal diameter) curtain eyelets. I ended up on the website of specialists Hanolex, in Rochdale, and goodness gracious they were fantastic on the phone when I asked the gormless question: what is the difference between a curtain eyelet and other eyelets (the answer: nothing really, just size and the availability of different finishes). Within a couple of days I had the tools and eyelets (their antique nickel ones were a great match) in hand and set-to, destroying my lovely bag…

The tools for the job, and some antique nickel eyelets that are a pretty good match for the metalwork on the bag.

Oooh: cables now coming out the sides, like a production sound bag…

I just went for a couple of eyelets in each side of the front pocket (one of three main pockets), keeping them high enough up so that small things won’t slide out, not that I have many such things in the same pocket as the recorder.

It’s a small bag, and I often use it with my little MixPre-3. But as filled here it also has a camera (micro four-thirds) and – you can just about see this – a Mini-ALTO 250 windshield (with an MKH 8018 in it), as well as usual spare batteries, headphones, other cables, and many little items.

But, hey, if I fancy it, I can even stick a 788T in the bag.

Now it may not be quite as ergonomic as my production sound bag for actual mixing, but it’s perfectly accessible for setting gain etc. and, I don’t know about you, but I don’t ride the faders to mix live to the LR mix tracks for field recording!

Now, it is entirely reasonable to wonder why on earth would anyone write a blog post about making four holes in what was a perfectly nice bag beforehand? On one level it is as silly as posting a photo of a meal you are meant to be eating or, worse for others, a live gig you are meant to be enjoying (yes, I can be a stereotypically grumpy middle-aged bloke), but there may be someone out there who is unthinkingly struggling with a production sound bag, perhaps attracting unwanted attention when not actually recording, and losing items in the long grass. And there may be someone out there who has never come across the Retrospective bags or some other equally useful equivalent, or, if they have, hasn’t got to grips with whatever little niggle that stops it being the perfect field-recording bag for them. If so, this blog post is for you: get hold of an eyelet punch or whatever tool you need, and get butchering your bag. Just don’t blame me when it all goes wrong. And if you find production sound bags perfect for all field recording uses, then that’s fine, of course, though I suspect you won’t have reached the end of this post!

0 Comments

Older Posts