paul tumolo wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote "From a *technical* viewpoint your statement is
incompetent nonsense."
Peter get your head out of the tech (freq resp) sheet and use your ears.
What you don't bother to quote is:
"It may be that you from an artistic viewpoint feel ..."
You're the one being rude, not me.
For years the 4011 has been a well accepted pair for this app
I don't contest the obvious qualities of that fine microphone, I just
don't want to have one until they make one with a linear far field
response.
- and it has nothing to do with "traffic" noise.
I said traffic noise, no quotes included. If you don't have a problem
with that, then you just prove my assertion that less sensitivity to
such is one of the virtues of the characterestics of the 4011.
your problem is this: you love the graphs in the scheops tech sheets.
Never bothered checking them, nor do I own any. But I have frequently
been a part of the team when their sub cardioids have been used. Just
one of the virtues of relaxing the pattern is that it gives a better
bass response.
come on, admit it, you've never made a recording with a pair of 4011s.
I never said I had. I just said that their specs differ from the optimum
characteristics of a main pair for far field deployment and that they
need bass EQ to be usable, this because they are designed for close
miking in the studio or on the stage. According to the proximity effect
graph they need about 8 dB of bass boost at 50 Hz, beginning at 500 Hz,
when deployed as far field mics.
Please do understand that I don't live all that far from where DPA
resides, only some 20 miles, and that I feel very happy about
recommending their stuff for what it is good at, but not for what it is
not even designed for, if it works for you: fine, but it is not - as it
is spec'ed by DPA - a mic that will work for the recording style I use,
the 4015 probably would, but it is poorly matched to the output
impedance of my bank account. The difference between the off axis
frequency response and attenutation of the 4011 and the 4015 are likely
to be an excellent illustration of the trade-offs that are unavoidable
in the design of directional microphones.
Take a look at another cardioid, one that is optimized for far field
use: the AKG 451, and compare off axis response with the response of the
4011, and you will see that, in terms of this parameter only, AKG's
engineers certainly got a very respectable result, the cost of the bass
response is what seems to be a resonance at 23 Hz and the related
somewhat large wind noise sensitivity. We may disagree somewhat less
than your poor manners suggest.
There is more to overall sound quality than just directionality, DPA
stuff tends to sound very well indeed, and I would very much like to
have DPA sound quality and the CK1 pattern, but if the choice is the
4011 or the 452's I have, then I have to choose the 452/CK1's because of
their way of grabbing the sound that I want to record. You may feel
similarly about the 4011, but allow me to suggest that you try the 4015,
because it at the very least has its specs with it, rather than against
it, for main pair use.
I have no experience with other Schoeps mics than the sub-cardioid, so I
can not comment on other of their models, but their overall sound
quality is in the same general league as DPA, admittedly the 452/ck1
don't quite make it to that league, I don't know whether they are
improveable.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
--
*******************************************
* My site is at:
http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************