Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DPA 4011s as a ORTF main pair?
are the dpa 4011s (the cards) a good choice for middle diffuse field
main pair. or is the bass roll-off at a distance just too much on these mics? the specs show them as flat in the near field (about 1 foot out), with fairly significant bass roll-off even at 1 meter out (-10dB at around 40hz). i had a pair of schoeps cmc64s that were balanced for the diffuse field (or so it seemed from my experience with them), and of course they seemed quite boomy to me in the near field, but they were a great ORTF pair between 10 and 20 feet. so, if i am looking for a nice pair of mid-field mics (10-20 ft), are the 4011s a good choice, or would a pair of omni 006s be better? thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
what source are you recording?
P h i l i p ______________________________ "I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa" - Dorothy Parker |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
what source are you recording?
P h i l i p ______________________________ "I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa" - Dorothy Parker |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
this is for chamber music, both in a studio setting and small venues.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
jnorman wrote:
this is for chamber music, both in a studio setting and small venues. 4015 appears to be more usable, 4011 is not a "main pair" kind of microphone and will need equalization for this use. A true "far field linear response" cardioid does not seem to be in DPA's product palette currently, I don't think they like the compromises it necessitates. 4006 used for live recording in small venues will give an excellent recording of all noises made by the audience, they can be used, but I would prefer to use them on something noisier if the audience is as nearby as it is likely to be. If you want the stereo imaging properties of a cardioid main pair you will have to look at some other brand than DPA, Schoeps does indeed come to mind. There was a thread about what Schoeps's to use for this specific type of recording a couple of months ago. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
jnorman wrote:
this is for chamber music, both in a studio setting and small venues. 4015 appears to be more usable, 4011 is not a "main pair" kind of microphone and will need equalization for this use. A true "far field linear response" cardioid does not seem to be in DPA's product palette currently, I don't think they like the compromises it necessitates. 4006 used for live recording in small venues will give an excellent recording of all noises made by the audience, they can be used, but I would prefer to use them on something noisier if the audience is as nearby as it is likely to be. If you want the stereo imaging properties of a cardioid main pair you will have to look at some other brand than DPA, Schoeps does indeed come to mind. There was a thread about what Schoeps's to use for this specific type of recording a couple of months ago. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"4015 appears to be more usable, 4011 is not a "main pair" kind of
microphone and will need equalization for this use. A true "far field linear response" cardioid does not seem to be in DPA's product palette currently, I don't think they like the compromises it necessitates. " Bull****. The 4011 makes an excellent main pair mic, especially for chamber music, no eq needed. I've had great success with them in all kinds of chamber music, early music being a specialty. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"4015 appears to be more usable, 4011 is not a "main pair" kind of
microphone and will need equalization for this use. A true "far field linear response" cardioid does not seem to be in DPA's product palette currently, I don't think they like the compromises it necessitates. " Bull****. The 4011 makes an excellent main pair mic, especially for chamber music, no eq needed. I've had great success with them in all kinds of chamber music, early music being a specialty. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
paul tumolo wrote:
"4015 appears to be more usable, 4011 is not a "main pair" kind of microphone and will need equalization for this use. A true "far field linear response" cardioid does not seem to be in DPA's product palette currently, I don't think they like the compromises it necessitates. " Bull****. The 4011 makes an excellent main pair mic, especially for chamber music, no eq needed. From a *technical* viewpoint your statement is incompetent nonsense. I've had great success with them in all kinds of chamber music, early music being a specialty. It may be that you from an artistic viewpoint feel that a bass roll off serves that music best because of noises in the room or because it attenuates the noise of nearby traffic. I frequently end up applying a high pass filter for those very reasons, but I prefer to alter the response an octave below useful instrument sound output only. See also Arny's recent thread about the issues to consider when considering the requirement for LF response extension. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
paul tumolo wrote:
"4015 appears to be more usable, 4011 is not a "main pair" kind of microphone and will need equalization for this use. A true "far field linear response" cardioid does not seem to be in DPA's product palette currently, I don't think they like the compromises it necessitates. " Bull****. The 4011 makes an excellent main pair mic, especially for chamber music, no eq needed. From a *technical* viewpoint your statement is incompetent nonsense. I've had great success with them in all kinds of chamber music, early music being a specialty. It may be that you from an artistic viewpoint feel that a bass roll off serves that music best because of noises in the room or because it attenuates the noise of nearby traffic. I frequently end up applying a high pass filter for those very reasons, but I prefer to alter the response an octave below useful instrument sound output only. See also Arny's recent thread about the issues to consider when considering the requirement for LF response extension. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Larsan 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. For years the 4011 has been a well accepted pair for this app- and it has nothing to do with "traffic" noise. your problem is this: you love the graphs in the scheops tech sheets. come on, admit it, you've never made a recording with a pair of 4011s. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Larsan 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. For years the 4011 has been a well accepted pair for this app- and it has nothing to do with "traffic" noise. your problem is this: you love the graphs in the scheops tech sheets. come on, admit it, you've never made a recording with a pair of 4011s. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 * ******************************************* |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 * ******************************************* |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Adding pair of loudspeakers to B system (newbie question) | Tech | |||
FS" Pair of 165's,Pair of LA-3a,s,Neumann U87aiMic Set Black | Pro Audio | |||
SASS pzm vs. ORTF, xy, spaced pair, etc. | Pro Audio | |||
Main speakers with builtin subwoofer - How to configure receiver? | Audio Opinions | |||
2nd Classical mic pair for location work | Pro Audio |