Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
jnorman
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Fill X
 
Posts: n/a
Default

what source are you recording?


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker




  #3   Report Post  
Fill X
 
Posts: n/a
Default

what source are you recording?


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker




  #4   Report Post  
jnorman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

this is for chamber music, both in a studio setting and small venues.
  #5   Report Post  
jnorman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

this is for chamber music, both in a studio setting and small venues.


  #6   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
paul tumolo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
paul tumolo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
paul tumolo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
paul tumolo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adding pair of loudspeakers to B system (newbie question) Henrik Johannisson Tech 40 May 1st 04 09:55 PM
FS" Pair of 165's,Pair of LA-3a,s,Neumann U87aiMic Set Black Ken Pro Audio 0 February 25th 04 02:31 PM
SASS pzm vs. ORTF, xy, spaced pair, etc. Bob Smith Pro Audio 10 October 31st 03 10:11 PM
Main speakers with builtin subwoofer - How to configure receiver? Michael Harder Audio Opinions 0 October 29th 03 12:18 AM
2nd Classical mic pair for location work NJI Pro Audio 0 October 8th 03 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"