 Sanken's CS-3 Shotgun
Mic
Field Test #1
Recently, I was the mixer on a film commercial and I chose the Sanken
CS-3, for no particular reason other than to see how it would perform. As
it turned out, the CS-3 solved some problems we would have otherwise had to live
with. In short, the production was better because of the Sanken CS-3.
Highly regarded boom pole veteran Mark Zimbicki instantly liked the
light weight of the microphone and noted the nice (almost rubbery) flat black
finish. The CS-3 was perfectly happy being suspended in the PSC Universal
Shock Mount and the same foam windscreen used for the Sennheiser 416.
The first shot was in a sound stage. It had Willard Scott
walking along the finest wooden walkway that gripology could produce: apple
boxes supporting 1" plywood covered with furniture pads. Truthfully,
the walkway was well built, but apple boxes have a unique resonance that we’re
all too familiar with. I, for one, would prefer living without it.
The shot was a medium-wide. We were able to work the CS-3 microphone at a
distance of about three feet, with the typical downward angle. During
rehearsals everything seemed fine. When the stage finally got quiet
(which, of course, was not until we rolled on the first take) Mark and I were
annoyed by the footsteps on the wooden structure. As usual in this
situation, we assumed we would just have to live with it. Then I
remembered this microphone’s characteristic of extreme rejection from the
sides and rear, even with low frequencies. So, I had Mark
"flatten" the angle of the microphone a little. The foot steps
were more off axis, and guess what?…they all but completely disappeared.
It really was amazing. This is especially amazing when considering its
very forgiving, 50 degree, "front door" pick-up pattern. Willard
could be his animated self, turning his head at will, without us worrying so
much about him getting out of "the sweet spot".
Working the mic at a flatter angle meant that the microphone had to be
a little further from the talent to remain out of frame. Since the CS-3’s
increased rejection results in "longer reach", the added distance was
not a problem.
Another strong point of the CS-3 is its complete absence of proximity
effect (the accentuation of low frequencies as the microphone moves closer to
the source, typically causing close-ups to sound muddy). To test this
characteristic in a real work situation we worked the CS-3 at hairline level
(pretending Willard had a hairline) during the close-ups. Sure enough, the
close-up boominess that is such a problem with, for example, the Schoeps MK-41
(hypercardioid), was not a factor.
Field Test #2 (It proved itself again.)
More recently, while shooting a clothing commercial on location at a
golf course, the CS-3 performed its "miracles" even more noticeably.
On this job, most of the problem sounds that concerned the boom
operator and I were from the generator, the frequent nearby train and the
occasional airplane.
The first thing my boom operator noticed was, as usual, the generator
was parked too close for comfort. Before going through the tooth pulling
routine of getting it moved, we decided to see what it sound like with the CS-3
off axis. I wish you could have seen the smile on the boom operator’s
face as he cued the CS-3 toward the generator and then away from it. It
was almost as if the generator had been shut down. The constant low
frequency rumble that seems to always be there, no matter which direction the
mic is pointed, was actually gone (the electric department instantly took a
liking to the CS-3).
There was a nearby train that was, at best, 90 degrees off axis (or 90
degrees on axis, your choice), so we did stop for it. However, we were
able to roll right through the buzz of small airplanes cruising by overhead; the
same ones we would have stopped for using the MKH-60 or 416. Once again,
the CS-3 was not only a good choice, for this particular production it was the
best choice of any microphone available.
Sound Quality
Regarding sound quality, in my opinion the CS-3 is well within the
acceptable fidelity range for most situations. The first thing you will
probably notice while listening to this mic is what appears to be a slight
absence of low frequencies. True, the CS-3 does not have quite the low end
sensitivity of the Sennheiser MKH Series, and certainly not that of the Schoeps,
but the most significant factor causing this apparent lack of low frequency is
actually quite an achievement for Sanken: When off axis, the low frequencies are
attenuated at almost exactly the same rate as the high frequencies; much more so
than any other directional mics I have used. So, when comparing the CS-3
with, say, the MKH-60, most of the additional low frequencies you hear with the
MKH-60 will be from off axis ambience.
The early CS-3’s had a slight problem when used with some preamps
which caused low frequencies to be further attenuated. This problem has
since been remedied.
To be fair, the CS-3’s weak point (though weak may be too strong a
word) is probably in its self-noise level. While it still has respectable
specs, it is not as quiet as the familiar standard boom mics (i.e. Sennheiser,
Schoeps, Neumann). This would only become a factor using very good preamps
(i.e. Cooper, Sonosax, etc) in a very quiet sound stage during those low level
whisper scenes mic’d at a distance (you know the drill). For those
scenes, I have yet to find a replacement for my Schoeps MK-41 with the
CUT-1. For most film dialogue applications, and certainly for ENG
production, the self noise of the Sanken CS-3 simply would not be a problem.
In Summary
In summary, one or two of the Sanken CS-3 shotgun microphones would
work well in any sound mixer’s package. It is a tool that I predict will
become standard, if not mandatory, as mixers become familiar with its
attributes. While its extreme and flat off axis rejection, relatively wide
pattern (for a shotgun), light weight, and lack of proximity effect can be
appreciated by anyone in the business, the microphone may find its most
appreciative fans in news and other ENG type production; no, second thought,
probably film production; no, maybe commercials; no, probably Sit-coms;
Documentaries?
Anyway, what ever type of production you are involved with, if you
give this mic a fair chance, I think you will agree. --Glen Trew |
