Browsing Category

Audio Gear

Audio Gear

Nevaton MC59 mics. Part 2: MC59/H Pro

April 18, 2026
MC59/H Pro capsule shown fitted with the MC59 standard preamplifier with its XLR connector (top) and the more compact MC59M preamplifier with its side-exit hard-wired connection (bottom).

Introduction

As I have noted previously, Nevaton’s MC59 mics – that is, its SDC range – are skewed towards the wider polar patterns, with no hypercardioid or supercardioid models available at present (though I hear one is coming!), yet a variety of omni, wide omni and cardioid options. The MC59/H is an exception to that, being a shotgun model: the MC59/H Pro is a new variation of that mic and is what I am testing here. The mic should be available soon, but the copy lent to me by the engineers is the only one in existence – hence the loan and the fact that, as I type, it is winging its way back to Austria!

Physical form

The capsule part of the mic is 120mm long with the 95mm-long interference tube having a diameter of 20mm, which broadens out to the 22mm diameter that is common to the MC59 mics for the part of the mic that contains the capsule itself. The overall length (and, of course, weight) of the mic depends on which preamplifier is used: ranging from the 49mm XLR-equipped MC59 down to the 5.5mm-long MC59uS. I suspect for practical usage – i.e. allowing for a more balanced mic and providing space for shockmount clips – that most will choose the standard MC59 or the 25mm-long hard-wired MC59S. Certainly with the various preamp options to hand here, I have been using the standard MC59 for the shotgun capsule.

In its physical appearance the mic looks identical to the existing MC59/H, so all the changes in the new ‘pro’ model are under the hood. I understand from the engineers that the main difference is that it has a double-membrane acoustic transducer like most of other capsules in the series (i.e. excepting the MC59/OW, open-wide cardioid, and the omnidirectional mics in the series – i.e. MC59/O, MC59/O+ and MC59/O2, which are pure pressure transducers with single membranes). The second membrane, or diaphragm, has no gold plating and is passive – as, indeed, seen in the Shure KSM42 cardioid LDC mic. The interference tube itself looks unusual in that it has oval openings rather than the more familiar close-spaced slots of most designs, although, of course, many a slotted interference tube covers internal circular openings as, indeed, they do with the Sennheiser MKH 8060 and MKH 8018 mics used in the comparisons for this post.

Self-noise

One of the stand out features of Nevaton mics is their low self-noise, and the MC59/H Pro is similar to the standard MC59/H and the other MC59-series mics in this regard. Nevaton themselves suggest -5 to -6 dBA, but, as ever, it is good to test rather than just repeat the specs, not least since self-noise of two mics with the same value can sound quite different due to different frequencies in the composition of the hiss. In this case, I compared the self-noise of the MC59/H Pro to two mics I have been using a fair amount and which I have tested previously: the Sennheiser MKH 8060, which has a very respectable published self-noise of 11dBA, and the Rycote HC-22, which has a still lower published self-noise of 8.5dBA. Both these published specs seem about right from my previous tests.

As usual with such tests, 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. I then recorded the three mics using a Sound Devices MixPre-3 recorder at 96kHz in the quietest space I could find in the house (under the usual 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 200Hz to remove any residual distant rumbles of traffic, tractors etc. Here are the recordings:

And here are the spectrum analyzer visualizations:

Nevaton MC59/H Pro self-noise.
Sennheiser MKH 8060 self-noise.
Rycote HC-22 self-noise.

The sound files and the spectrum analyzer visualizations show that the MC59/H Pro is indeed the quietest of the three mics, which takes some doing given the low self-noise of the MKH 8060 and, especially, the HC-22. The two Rycote and Nevaton mics have a broadly similar hiss, albeit at different levels, while the Sennheiser has a more noticeable high-frequency hiss: as with the more recent MKH 8018, the MKH 8060 is not tuned like its first-order siblings, where steeply rising self-noise towards 20kHz continues to rise to 48kHz, but, rather, sees the rise in self-noise start lower and is less steep, and then flattens off after 20kHz, resulting in the self-noise being characterized by more of a high-frequency hiss (say in the 6-12kHz region). In practical terms, these massively cranked-up self-noise tests will be largely immaterial for most recordings, as all the mics are quiet in normal use: but for some, say recording extremely quiet sounds in quiet locations (think effects recordings), there is no denying that the Nevaton has a significant edge in this regard.

Frequency response

Prospective purchasers of Nevaton mics are not aided by the lack of published polar and frequency plots, although, as with the MC59 Twin, the engineers at Nevaton have provided me with specific frequency response measurements of the actual mic I am testing (with none of the smoothing of published graphs):

Nevaton’s frequency plot (unsmoothed, measured in large workshop) for the MC59/H Pro pre-production model tested here.
For reference: frequency plot for the MKH 8060 mic used for most of the comparisons in this blog post.

The two frequency plots show broadly similar responses for the MC59/H Pro (at 0 degrees) and for the MKH 8060, with a significant bump in the high frequency response. That latter is typical of many shotgun mics and I assume is there in both cases to counter typical use with windshields with attendant loss of high frequencies, and for clarity with dialogue. Anyway, let’s leave the graphs and do some real world tests!

Yet again, back to the massive early 12th-century cathedral belfry, for some loud and high-frequency tests: the windshield fur was removed for the photo, but replaced for the tests.

Kicking off with high frequencies, I returned to one of my old haunts in the belfry of Norwich Cathedral where the overtones of the bells provide an interesting sound source. Sticking with the MKH 8060 comparison (as I do for most of this blog post), I rigged this and the MC59/H Pro in a Mega-Blimp (as usual, there was a bit of a breeze blowing through the belfry), and recorded the mics into a Sound Devices MixPre-3. Here are the resultant recordings:

And here is a spectrogram of the recording, showing the chimes. There isn’t a great deal of difference between the two mics in terms of high-frequency response, although the MKH 8060 shows a little more signal above 20kHz, albeit with more self-noise.

Spectrogram of the bells tolling 3 p.m. On the left: MC59/H Pro. On the right: MKH 8060. The vertical axis extends to 48kHz.

I’ve used the cathedral bells for some time for such tests, but recently discovered a more homely and controllable – but, yes, more boring – source of high-frequency sound, useful for exploring mic response in the form of the humble shaker (that simplest of percussion instruments). Here are simultaneous recordings made using the two mics, adding to the exploration by recording on axis, at 90 degrees and 180 degrees, all at the same distance (1.5m). The recordings, which were made outside to reduce reflections, at the three different angles are separated by brief silences.

Listening to these recordings, you can hear the different side and rear rejection of these two mics at the frequencies produced by the shaker (i.e. above 400Hz).

The MC59/H Pro and MKH 8060 rigged for testing in a Mega-Blimp.

Turning to the other end of the spectrum, I set up a Sennheiser MKH 8060 and the MC59/H Pro pair in a single windshield aimed at the exhaust pipe of the rear of a parked car (with the engine idling, of course). Then the mics were rotated side-on to the exhaust and, finally, angled 180 degrees to the sound source. Here are short clips from the recordings, each having the on-axis recording followed, after a very short silence, by the 90 degree recording and, then, the 180 degree recording:

And here are the spectrum analyzer visualizations:

Car exhaust recorded on axis with the MC59/H Pro.
Car exhaust recorded on axis with the MKH 8060.
Car exhaust recorded at 90 degrees with the MC59/H Pro.
Car exhaust recorded at 90 degrees with the MKH 8060.
Car exhaust recorded at 180 degrees with the MC59/H Pro.
Car exhaust recorded at 180 degrees with the MKH 8060.

In the two recordings you can hear and (from the spectrum analyzer visualizations) see that the fundamental at 26Hz is much more pronounced with the MC59/H Pro than with MKH 8060, by around 10dB, reflecting the reduced bass roll-off in the Nevaton mic. At ninety degrees, even this low frequency is attenuated in both mics, as you would expect: by around 11dB in the case of the MKH 8060 and by around 7dB with the MC59/H Pro. At 180 degrees, however, the two mics are quite different in the case of low frequencies: with the MKH 8060 the 26Hz fundamental is louder than at ninety degrees, and only 6.5dB down compared to the on-axis sound, while the 26Hz fundamental in the MC59/H Pro recording is down 21.5dB compared to the on-axis recording. There’s nothing very unusual about the MKH 8060 in this regard: it is a shotgun mic with a good low-frequency response on axis and with low frequencies also quite evident in the rear lobe, which is an inevitable feature of most conventional shotgun mic designs. The MC59/H Pro has a stronger bass response on axis, but also, and much more unusually, its double-membrane acoustic transducer means that it doesn’t have a back lobe at low frequencies, and the effect is both noticeable and dramatic. Of course, this may or may not be useful for any given recordist or situation. In many uses of a shotgun mic, especially if mounted on a boom pole, then a high-pass filter is almost certain to be required anyway, obscuring much of the effect of the different design. In that case, if rear rejection is wanted, a mic such as the Sanken CSR-2 might be more useful (its rear rejection isn’t for very low bass, but rather above this in the 80Hz to 1kHz range) or the Schoeps SuperCMIT (though Schoeps caution that much care is needed using the latter’s preset 2, which gives maximum reduction of the rear lobe). However, there are many situations where a shotgun mic might be mounted statically and where on-axis bass response is wanted (e.g. music recording, or a sound effect recording where the low-frequency content is significant), but where the absence of low frequencies (e.g. traffic rumble, the sound of distant aircraft or even, and this is especially relevant to indoor recording, reflections of the source sound) in the rear lobe will be a significant advantage. Obviously, if choosing a shotgun mic with rear lobe reduction – be it one such as the Sanken CSR-2 or Schoeps SuperCMIT models with active second transducers, or the Nevaton MC59/H Pro with its passive second diaphragm – the application and, of course, the sound of the mic need to be considered carefully.

Handling noise

More so than in the case of condenser mics with other polar patterns, a shotgun mic is likely to be handheld, be that in a pistol grip or at the end of a boom pole, so handling noise merits consideration. For this, as with other comparative tests, I mounted the MC59/H Pro alongside an MKH 8060, both on identical shock mounts (Radius Windshields RAD 2s) on a short stereo bar fixed at the end of a boom pole.

Here are the sound files, in which I describe how I am using (or, rather, abusing!) the boompole:

And here are the spectrum analyzer visualizations:

MC59/H Pro: handling noise (exaggerated twisting in bare hands).
MKH 8060 handling noise (exaggerated twisting in bare hands).

With no high-pass filter applied, the MC59/H Pro has a much greater susceptibility to handling noise, especially below around 60Hz, than the MKH 8060. In part, this doubtless reflects its increased bass response. But, of course, handheld or boom pole mounted shotgun mics invariably require use of a high-pass filter to reduce both handling and wind noise, and applying a typical 80Hz (24dB per octave) high-pass filter to both mics levels things up considerably. In short, I wouldn’t be concerned about booming the MC59/H Pro.

Here are the sound files with the 80Hz HPF applied:

And here are the spectrum analyzer visualizations with the 80Hz HPF applied:

MC59/H Pro: handling noise (exaggerated twisting in bare hands) with 80Hz high-pass filter applied.
MKH 8060: handling noise (exaggerated twisting in bare hands) with 80Hz high-pass filter applied.

Voice/dialogue

Moving to voice, again I compared the MC59/H Pro to the MKH 8060. First, here is a test with the two mics mounted with back-to-back clips in a single Mega-Blimp, which was statically mounted outside:

And here is a test that combines indoor recording, with the mics mounted together (with back-to-back clips) on a boom pole: in this case the speaker/talent is moving forward the whole time and the boom is never stationary. Sorry about the less than ideal boom swinging: I could blame my current tendonitis, but I think that is just me searching for an excuse! Anyway, the indoor space selected was chosen to be a worst case scenario, being a small reverberant room (4.4m x 4.6m) with a low ceiling (2.14m) with a wooden floor and no soft furnishings, to expose any comb filtering arising from the interference tubes of the two mics.

These short snippets are doubtless a poor demonstration of the efficacy of the two mics – and their differences – when used for dialogue (and my booming for the second pair of recordings does leave a lot to be desired), but I am conscious that production sound recordists really do need to spend time themselves with a shotgun mic to see if the nuances of one versus another suits their purposes or taste better. At a crude level, however, my experience from use of the two mics is that I would be very happy with either for dialogue recording, and I must confess I expected much worse of the two mics in that difficult reverberant interior.

Train leaving Holt station on the North Norfolk Railway, pulled by WD 2-10-0 – 90775 ‘The Royal Norfolk Regiment’ and – I have no idea why – also pushed by a British Rail Class 31 diesel (5631). Don’t be deceived by the two Mega-Blimps in the photo: the two shotgun mics were in the same windshield, with the other one being used for a test recording of the MC59 Twin – for which see my separate post.

Effects/location recording

As so often featured in these blog posts (too often now perhaps?!), I went down to the local steam railway again for a recording test. It might be getting a bit repetitious, but, nonetheless, as a sound source it seems to have a good bit of variety in terms of frequency (from steam hissing, to low-frequency rumbling and engine noises, the latter especially evident in this case with the diesel locomotive pushing the train too), as well as movement. And, as ever, the larger furry windshields gave the chaps in the signal box a good laugh: it’s always good to brighten someone’s day! Anyway, here we go with the two recordings:

A bit of music: something bluesy down in the woodshed…

Well, with apologies to Stella Gibbons for the subheading, but not really a woodshed: rather, the nice and spacious workshop of woodcarver Luke Chapman, who will be familiar by now to readers of this blog for his long-suffering of my mic tests, putting down his chisels and chainsaws to pick up a guitar. In this case he provided a bit of impromptu blues slide guitar playing in front of a test rig comprising the MC59/H Pro, the MC58/8 fig 8 (so you can hear the shotgun mic used in an MS pair), the MC59 Twin (so you can hear how the MC59/H Pro MS pair sounds compared to other MS pairs with different mid mic polar patterns – wide cardioid, cardioid and supercardioid), and the Sennheiser MKH 8018, which is, of course, a stereo (MS) shotgun mic. All plugged into a Sound Devices 788T. Here is a video, where the mic set ups keep switching (with the current mic set up clearly shown on the screen):

And here are the individual tracks in full, which you can download and scrutinize should you so wish. First off, here are the MC59/H Pro and MKH 8018 mono shotgun recordings:

And here are the stereo recordings using the the two shotguns – the MC59/H Pro paired with the MC59/8 fig 8, and the MKH 8018 used in its stereo MS mode:

And, finally, here are the comparative MS recordings used in the video above, made using the MC59 Twin to create wide cardioid, cardioid and supercardioid mid mics, combined with the MC59/8 fig 8:

Conclusions

As ever, it is largely for readers to draw their own conclusions from the tests above, insofar as the recordings and comparisons allow. As with any mics, especially when you are talking higher-end mics suited to professional use, choosing a particular mic often comes down to taste and, of course, usage. With regard to the latter, I would undoubtedly be keener to take an RF mic (such as the MKH 8060) if heading off to the extreme humidity of the tropics for some recording than a true condenser mic (even if with some heating of the capsules from the preamps as in the Nevaton mics), and, conversely, would prefer to use an MC59/H Pro either where self-noise was a critical matter (e.g. for very quiet effects recording) or where the low-frequency rejection of the rear lobe was useful. As I said, the latter has applications for music recording and, in this context, it is interesting to learn that Nevaton’s existing standard MC59/H capsule is often used for classical music recordings: I suspect the new capsule will appeal all the more to such users.

As a final note, of course, I must return to the fact that the MC59/H Pro is a pre-production or prototype model. This might suggest that this blog-post has no relevance to other sound recordists, but, evidently (by the fact I have written it!), I don’t think this is the case: on the one hand the MC59/H Pro has much in common with its currently available sibling (the MC59/H), and, on the other, it flags up what Nevaton are developing in terms of their shotguns (and doubtless they might be persuaded to accelerate development of this model if there is interest) and, also, (as with my other pre-production model tests, such as that for the Sennheiser MKH 8030) there is value in having independent tests and reviews available for when a microphone becomes available. When that day comes, I do hope that I can manage to get hold of an MC59/H Pro again, and just not as a loan: it is certainly an impressive mic and I can see applications where it might be uniquely useful. So, crossing fingers here that it won’t be too long!

0 Comments
Audio Gear

Using a twin mic on its own for MS recording?

February 15, 2026
A chilly but, for once, dry day down at the station for some omni MS tests. OK, I’ll be honest, I was down there to test some shotgun mics, and just brought the omni and twin mics along on a whim!

Introduction

In my previous blog post on the Nevaton MC59-8 (fig 8) and new MC59 Twin mics, I touched briefly – as an aside – on the question of using the MC59 Twin or, indeed, any similar twin mic (such as the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin) for mid-side (MS) recording on its own: i.e. without a second mid mic. This means using the combined output of the two (cardioid) capsules with the rear (or right) out of phase to create the fig 8,and simultaneously using the two outputs combined in phase to create the omni. Evidently this allows the single mic to be used for omni MS, although no other variation of MS (i.e. with a different polar pattern for the mid mic) is possible with such usage: only the omni pattern will create a mid mic at 90 degrees to the side (fig 8) mic. Of itself this isn’t a problem since, while many assume a cardioid or, perhaps, a supercardioid mid mic only is necessary for satisfactory results for MS, an omni mid mic is eminently usable, even desirable, in many situations. Indeed, in a previous post I provided (simultaneously recorded) comparisons of MS rigs with different polar patterns – the MKH 8020 (omni), MKH 8090 (wide cardioid), MKH 8040 (cardioid) and MKH 8050 (supercardioid) – so you can hear how they compare. Rather, assuming omni MS is appropriate for the recording, the issue with using a twin mic on its own for MS is to do with the fact that the polar pattern of an omni created by the two diaphragms is imperfect: whereas most SDC omni mics are also imperfect, typically becoming more directional from, say, around 8kHz (I am thinking here of the polar pattern of my MKH 8020 mic), the frequency response on axis remains consistent, while the omni polar pattern of a dual-diaphragm mic is best at the front and rear (i.e. on axis to the individual diaphragms) but sees significant high-frequency fall off at 90 degrees, as illustrated in my previous post. This isn’t a particular issue if using a twin mic as an infinitely variably patterned mid mic in MS in conjunction with a separate fig 8 mic, since the mid mic is facing forward to the assumed focus of the sound source. However, when using a twin mic on its own for MS, the two diaphragms are necessarily facing sidewards for the fig 8, so the omni mic (created from the same two capsules) is aimed poorly for sounds directly in front of the mic. On the positive side, though, the fig 8 and omni mic are truly coincidental, having none of the vertical separation of the two mics in a normal MS pair.

The diminutive size (48.5mm overall length) of the MC59 Twin (shown here in comparison to an MKH 8030 fig 8) makes in particularly tempting for those who fancy a miniscule omni MS rig with just the one mic!

Field testing

The introduction above is just an amplification of my cautionary aside on use of twin mics in their own for omni MS in my previous post. But so much for theory: the point of this short present post is to provide an example of a simultaneous field recording so that others can download and scrutinize the files, compare and analyse short snippets in a DAW etc. as they wish and draw their own conclusions. I have deliberately chosen a field recording since it is hard to imagine anyone would accept the very high-frequency loss in, say, a classical music recording, and it is the most likely scenario – due to compact rigs – where someone might be tempted to make an MS recording with a single twin mic. And I have gone for one of my, perhaps all too frequent, railway loco recordings as it is good to have a varied sound source crossing the stereo field. So here we go with the two sample recordings, one using the MC59 Twin only and one using the MC59 Twin with the omni MC59/O as the mid mic:

Just as with the pinknoise test in my previous post, this field recording reveals the fall off in high frequencies at 90 degrees to the omni mic created from the MC59 Twin, which, in this MS use, becomes on-axis for frontal sound sources. You can see this in the spectrum analyzer visualization below, which is a snapshot of the sound as the steam loco passes directly in front of the mics. Whether or not you can hear a significant difference is another matter as the drop in sensitivity to high frequencies really only kicks off in this example around 15kHz.

MC59 Twin in omni mode off axis (red) overlaid on MC59/O omni mic on axis (green): that is, both mics set up for MS use, with the main sound coming from directly in front of the mics.

Conclusions

The main purpose of this short blog post is to provide an example comparing the all-in-one omni MS recording with a twin mic vs the more normal approach taken with separate mid and side mics. Take from it what you will! From my own perspective, while it sounded better to my ageing ears than I suspected, I can’t really think of circumstances where I would find it helpful to use the MC59 Twin on its own and accept the pay-off of high-frequency loss on axis. I would much rather use the twin more flexibly as the infinitely variable mid mic of an MS pair, along with an MC59-8 fig 8, in which set up, of course, it can also function as a DMS rig, with all the choices made in post: and, as we have seen before, this is still a very compact pairing, capable of use in the field in a small windshield such as the Mini-ALTO.

1 Comment
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:

Nevaton MC59-8 self-noise.
Sennheiser MKH 30 self-noise.
Sennheiser MKH 8030 self-noise.
Schoeps CCM8 self-noise.
Rycote BD10 self-noise.

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)! That said, it is perhaps useful to those still interested to give an example of omni MS with the MC59 Twin alone and with the MC59 Twin used as the fig 8 with the omni mid mic being an MC59O: as more of a general interest than specific to the MC59 Twin, I have done this in a separate blog post.

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.

Rigging in a Mega-Blimp makes use of the TIG-welded basket for a top mount too, thus avoiding the need for any additional support structure for the top mic passing the capsule of the lower mic: is this the cleanest DMS rig in a windshield?!

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. Coupled with the minimalist structure of the TIG-welded basket, this makes for the least coloured DMS winshield rig I have managed to DIY, or have come across as a commercial product, to date: for the first time there is essentially nothing to impede soundwaves reaching the front or rear-facing cardioids or the fig 8 mic. For my earlier review of DMS rigging options, in which using Schoeps side-address CCM4V cardioids (again taking advantage of a top mount in a Mega-Blimp) gave the then least impeded set up see my post of last year.

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.

Edit (5.3.2026): I understand from Nevaton that they are now taking orders for the first small batch of MC59 Twin mics, which is welcome news!

13 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.

A stereo pair of Clippy EM172 mics, with a 3.5mm plug for PIP. Similar alternatives include DIY.

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.

The Radius Windshields Mini Windcover for the Clippy (as well as Lom Uši and Oaka Verdi) mics. The blue retaining loops and inbuilt foams are practical features.

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!

Packed up and ready for action, along with camera, spare batteries, headphones and waterproof coat for that autumnal weather, all in the dinkiest of bags. The stuff in the bag provides a bit more of a useful baffle between the omni mics.

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…

2 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:

MKH 8018 shotgun (mid mic) capsule polar pattern.
MKH 8060 shotgun mic polar pattern.

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