Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Dpa 4061 mics  (Read 5940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline one8ung

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
  • Gender: Male
Dpa 4061 mics
« on: July 05, 2016, 04:37:47 AM »
Can i buy two random Dpa 4061 mics or must i be a pair?
Mics: Countryman B3 - DPA 4061

Power: CA-UBB - SP-SPSB-10

Recorders: Tascam DR-2d (4x)

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3861
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2016, 05:03:21 AM »
Personally, I would either get a pair, or, if you don't want the whole kit that entails, get two from the same production batch (close serial numbers).  A DPA USA rep once told me that if you get two with close numbers, they will be quite closely matched.  That was my experience, but I do know someone who found otherwise...

Offline hi and lo

  • Trade Count: (38)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2294
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2016, 09:28:26 AM »
Excellent advice. DPA 4060x mics can be wildly unmatched, differing by as much as 3-5 dB in worst case scenarios. It is possible to get by with two random mics if you're on a tight budget, but you'll need to account for any sensitivity differences every time in post.

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2016, 11:57:18 AM »
Personally, I would either get a pair, or, if you don't want the whole kit that entails, get two from the same production batch (close serial numbers).  A DPA USA rep once told me that if you get two with close numbers, they will be quite closely matched.  That was my experience, but I do know someone who found otherwise...

I can attest to this.  I picked up a two new 4061s several months back here on the YS that were 3 serial #s apart.  They were not a matched pair, but I found them to be matched within 1 dB across their entire range.  From what I've read here and elsewhere, that result is better than you may get with one of the SMK stereo kits.

Test graphs here:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=175358.msg2169301#msg2169301
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline SmokinJoe

  • Trade Count: (63)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4210
  • Gender: Male
  • "75 and sunny"... life is so much simpler.
    • uploads to archive.org
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2016, 12:19:53 PM »
I have a pair where someone bought individual mics off ebay, I presume used off Broadway probably, and put them together in a standard 1/8" miniplug.  That's the story which was told to me, and they were pretty reasonably priced, so I believe it.  I use them into CA9100 > R05, which doesn't have individual gains.  One is about 1db hotter than the other, which is easy enough to fix in post.  Otherwise than that they seem identical.  I guess the point is even if you don't have a matched pair they may not be far off anyway.  I've had similar (or closer matching) results with random individual AT853's I've bought off ebay as well.  My Gefells are off by about the same amount too.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2016, 12:23:05 PM by SmokinJoe »
Mics: Schoeps MK4 & CMC5's / Gefell M200's & M210's / ADK-TL / DPA4061's
Pres: V3 / ST9100
Decks: Oade Concert Mod R4Pro / R09 / R05
Photo: Nikon D700's, 2.8 Zooms, and Zeiss primes
Playback: Raspberry Pi > Modi2 Uber > Magni2 > HD650

Offline yug du nord

  • ...til things never seen seem familiar…
  • Trade Count: (56)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • made with natural flavor
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2016, 12:25:06 PM »
i recall that one of our well respected TS gurus stated that matched capsules are what makes a stereo pair a stereo pair.....  except for omni's.  omni's don't need to be matched.  especially when they are run as split omni's.  and i can't imagine that omni's that are worn on the body would need to be matched either.
YMMV.
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2016, 01:05:16 PM »
i recall that one of our well respected TS gurus stated that matched capsules are what makes a stereo pair a stereo pair.....  except for omni's.  omni's don't need to be matched.  especially when they are run as split omni's.  and i can't imagine that omni's that are worn on the body would need to be matched either.
YMMV.

Hmm, that's interesting.  I would think that you'd still want omnis to be just as closely matched as any other mics.  My reasoning is that with omnis you're dealing with mainly time-arrival difference to create your stereo image, and if you have any significant difference in sensitivity or response between the two, I could imagine the resulting image would become distorted. 

For example, a dead-center source would not appear to be centered, because the equal time arrival of the sound to the two mics now has phase differences due to the different sensitivity and frequency response.  It wouldn't have those differences or the resulting phase shifts if the pair were matched.  I know that for classical recording, matched omnis are always what you want.  In the brief time I've used them that way, I've found the imaging to be very solid (for omnis, that is).  I really don't think that would be the case if my 4061s were not as closely matched as they are.

Maybe the guru you speak of is watching this thread, and can chime in and set me straight. ;)
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline MIQ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Gender: Male
    • Stereo Mic Tools
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2016, 04:36:04 PM »
Hi Volt,

I want to start by saying the mics you have will make great recordings and what follows is more academic than practical, but it seems like you are open to more info on how matched your mics are...

A couple of things stick out when looking at your posts.  You need to keep in mind there are two different aspects of mic performance that need to be matched for the mics to be a "matched pair". 

1. Freq Response - this is the shape of the freq response plots of each mic.  You are showing these in the captures you posted from Tombstone.  One thing that is a little deciving in your captures is that you are using a 100dB scale.  Almost anything will look good when you zoom out that much!  To put these measurements in better perspective you need to use a much smaller scale so the differences are more apparent.  Like 20-50dB.  Each division in your graphs is 5dB.  If you zoom in a little more you can see the differences more easily.  The area of the curves you posted just before 6kHz with a near vertical slope shows a difference that is likey worse than the 1dB difference you are claiming.  One easy way to see this is to click the L-R button at the top of the Tombstone screen.  If you zoom in on the difference graph you should be able to see exactly how different they are at every frequency.  The spec sheet for DPA SMK4061 stereo matched pairs allows each mic they make to vary from their ideal target response by +/- 2dB from 20-20kHz.  https://images.static-thomann.de/pics/atg/atgdata/document/specs/113026.pdf  This means two random mics' freq response curves could differ by 4db at any frequency.  Clearly the mics you have, being very close in response shape look better than this.  Others have noted that DPA hints that the repose curves for mics with closely matched serial numbers tend to be much better than the allowable spec. 

2.  Mic sensitivity - this is the difference between the overall level of each microphone's signal when exposed to the same sound intensity.  In the DPA data sheet I linked above you can see that the "Nominal Sensitivity" for any random mic can be +/-3dB from the target sensitivity for these mics (6mV/Pa).  So any two random mics could be different in sensitivity by 6dB worst case.  But please note there is a second specification for these matched mics in the kit - "Sensitivity Selection Tolerence".  This is specified at +/-1.5dB.  So they have improved the nominal random matching sensitivity tolerence by 1/2.  This could be a big deal if you did not have an easy way to correct for this in post (bump up the lower gain mic channel by the difference between the mics).  Fortunately most people around here are able to accomplish this easily with software so again this should not stop you from getting great results.

From what I gather, DPA is doing sorting similar to what happened with your mics.  They are choosing mics with very similar freq responses (probably very close in the same batch) and then sorting further for close gain matching.  Knowing DPA, they are likely doing MUCH better than the absolute worst case they are listing in the specs.  I have not measured my SMK4060s but I would not be surprised if the responses and sensitivities were both within +/-1dB.  This means that without any adjustments, their responses are within 4dB at all frequencies.  Just a guess...  Two random mics could be 10dB different at the extreme worst case.

You noted that you adjusted the mic gains between runs to get the curves to overlay better.  This is due to the difference in sensitivities between your mics.  Do you recall how much you needed to adjust the gain to get them to closely overlay?  This would give you an indication of how far from a "factory matched" pair your sensitivities are. 

From your curves, it looks like you did a nice job placing both mics in the same position when taking the measurements.  Small differences in the position of the mics can lead to big differences in their responses especially at high frequencies.  This is a major problem for people trying to take accurate mic measures at home.  Making a jig like you described certainly helps a lot. 

I don't buy into the thought that split onmi's don't need to be matched.  Since your brain is still using both level and time differences to resolve the position of the sound sources, differences between mics will cause the image to be different than it should.  If sensitivity and response matching didn't matter with split onmi's, shouldn't you be able to pull the level of one channel down or spin the treble knob for one channel in post and NOT have it affect the image?  Try it out.  :)  The great thing about split onmi's is that for distant sound sources, if both mics are matched, the image relys solely on the time difference between the mics created by the distance they are separated.  Since the mics have an omni polar pattern the angle the sound is hitting the mics shouldn't matter.  If the mics sensitivities are not matched, there will also be level differences fouling that up.  As usual there is a whole spectrum of "how different" the mics need to be for this to really cause an issue.  The further you separate the mics, the less this level difference can foul things up for sound sources that are at the far edges of the recording angle since the time differences are big.  You would need a lot of level difference to overcome that (the closer mic much less sensitive than the far mic).  But for sound sources that are in the center of the recording angle, there is no time difference between the mics, so any differences in level will shift the center image.  A 1dB level difference leads to about a 7.5% shift in image position over most of the recording angle (Wittek & Theile). 

Again, the mics you have look like a really nice match (freq response).  If there are any sensitivity differences you can eliminate them in post and end up with matching that is as good as the overlays you created in Tombstone.  Bet they sound damn good!

Miq
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 04:42:45 PM by MIQ »

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3861
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2016, 06:31:52 PM »
^ In the mails with DPA USA that I mentioned in my previous post, there were a couple of other interesting tidbits that fit with your post (we were talking specifically about 4060s, but I would imagine this applies to 406x in general).  The first was that inter-batch variation was greater than intra-batch variation.  He also said that frequency response was very consistent between batches and sensitivity somewhat less so, although it was very consistent within batch.  This is most likely why he recommended close serial numbers.  He also said that there are a lot of QC steps performed in each batch, with outliers culled from the crop, so that the final batch was even closer than the complete run.  I need some synonyms for "batch", apparently.

I think you are right about the spaced pairs, too.  They should be matched, unless I am missing something...

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2016, 06:44:15 PM »
^ Miq, thanks for your detailed explanations.  In answer to the things you've brought up:

1. I cannot find any way to change the vertical dB scale in Tombstone; it seems as though 5 dB is the only option.  I also have the sweep files saved from Tombstone, but somehow they only contain left channel data so that's not helpful.  If Tombstone had saved the actual audio files (which it doesn't) I could view them in iZotope RX which has a 1 dB vertical division.  I see what you're saying about the 6 kHz area though, so 1 dB matched is probably wishful thinking on my part.

Prior to finding out about Tombstone, I used my jig to record a few sweeps that I was able to save and then analyze in RX.  But at that point I had not achieved very good consistency with my mounting setup going from one mic to the next.  Screenshots of those earlier tests are below, but again, realize that my mounting was not completely consistent at that point.  The part of the mounting that is difficult to get every time is the exact distance from the headphone driver to the mic capsule, and obviously that shows up in the high treble on the graphs.

Tombstone is what allowed me to dial in that consistency, as it gave me instant visual feedback if the two graphs looked very close or if they looked rather far apart which told me I had fouled up my mounting.

At some point I'll re-run the sweep tests I recorded myself and see if I get different results.

2. I am aware of how important sensitivity is in this discussion, but I don't have any way to test for it right now.  If you know of a way I could test for sensitivity at home, I'd be interested to know about it.

3. When I said "I tweaked the input level slightly between each run", I mean that I adjusted the mic input gain on my interface a bit before the second pair of sweep tests, meaning the gain was not touched from one mic to the next as the test was run.  For each test, the mic gain was the same, as was the PFA between the mic and the preamp channel used.  Between each sweep, I just swapped the mic itself leaving everything else alone.  That's what you're seeing as the difference between the two screenshots posted earlier.  Each image represents a pair of sweeps run where no levels were touched.

4. If you want to hear how this pair of mics sound, here's a recent post of a choir concert I recorded where they were spaced 40 cm: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=176324.msg2189688#msg2189688
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2016, 07:41:33 PM »
I see no reason a close match between two microphones intended as a  stereo-pair for music recording would be less important for omnis than directionals.

Of the all various attributes which make for a good match*, a good frequency match is most important, and more so than a super-close sensitivity match.  That's because it's quite easy to adjust channel levels before, during or after the recording has been made, yet a significantly greater challenge to attempt to correct for differences in frequency response.  Also consider that when recording using any preamp and/or recorder which feature separate infinitely-variable level controls for each channel rather than detented gain-switches, there is little assurance that gain level differences between the two signal paths beyond the microphones will be closer than the difference in sensitivity between the two microphones.  The difference may or may not be visible on the meters of the device, and even if it is, it may or may not reflect a difference that should be corrected for.. 

So it's best to listen and adjust the level balance between the two channels as needed afterwards by ear as a standard part of your regular post-processing tasks, regardless of how closely level matched the microphone pair may be.  Remember, stereo recording and playback of music is an auditory illusion and we are the magicians in charge of working the trick to best advantage - fundamentally this is a very different task than making calibrated acoustical measurements, and different rules apply.

*There are other aspects which can be matched besides sensitivity and frequency responses. Phase match is very important for some measurement omnis, such as those used in pairs in sound intensity probes, and other measured responses can also be matched such as self-noise, distortion thresholds, or whatever.  But frequency response and overall sensitivity are the common measures for matched stereo pairs of microphones intended for music recording.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 07:47:02 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline MIQ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Gender: Male
    • Stereo Mic Tools
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2016, 08:05:20 PM »
Aaron, that's good info and follows along with what we are seeing.  Also explains why these tiny mics are ~$500 ea.  There is a lot of selecting of components and assemblies to make sure they are so close, even before the stereo kit matching occurs.  The component suppliers are selecting the closest matched components to supply to DPA (or DPA is sorting them) so the costs get driven up.  It takes more time and there is less yield.  Similarly DPA is further sorting the assemblies for matching.  The cost of the parts that don't make the grade (trashed) get pulled into the cost of the parts that make it to the customers. 

I'm guessing that some of the "bigger" variation in sensitivity is due to differences in the active circuit elements they are using inside the capsule (transistors).  I imagine sorting transistors for lowest noise is weighted more heavily than gain matching but I don't have any inside info to prove it...

Volt, funny that tombstone lacks this fundamental control ... I just looked at the website and noticed they are showing graphs with a 50dB scale.  Might be buried in the menus somewhere.  I bet you need to have a 2 channel interface to assign one channel to L an the other to R.  Then using each channel you can capture an L and an R sweep instead of two L sweeps.  This would allow you to perform the L-R function. 

You are right about having to have the curves overlayed on the same display to really see what's going on.  It's just too subtle (especially at a 100dB scale) to to compare side by side.  There are a few other good freeware measurement software programs available.  I've only played with Room EQ Wizard for a few minutes but it looked promising.  It seems very feature rich for freeware. 

A quick test for sensitivity differences can be made if your measurement software includes an SPL meter function.  Bundle the mics tightly together with their faces lined up as closely as possible.  Plug them into different channels (gains set exactly the same) or alternately connect them to the same channel as you blast a sine wave or pink noise from a speaker directly in front of the mic bundle.  Look at the SPL reading for each mic and the relative difference between the readings will give you a good idea how different the sensitivities are.  It's not NIST certified :) but should give you a basic idea of the difference.  From the plots you posted and the explanation you gave below on how the Tombstone measurements were made, it looks like they are very close in sensitivity. You may not see any differences using this method. 

Took a quick listen to the tracks you linked.  Good stuff.  I knew these mics would sound great!  I bet the choir appreciated such a good sounding recording. 

Miq

Offline yug du nord

  • ...til things never seen seem familiar…
  • Trade Count: (56)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • made with natural flavor
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2016, 08:17:00 PM »
i recall that one of our well respected TS gurus stated that matched capsules are what makes a stereo pair a stereo pair.....  except for omni's.  omni's don't need to be matched.  especially when they are run as split omni's.  and i can't imagine that omni's that are worn on the body would need to be matched either.
YMMV.

alright.......  maybe i pulled this one out of my place where the sun don't shine.  :-X
of course, i have no proof of nothin'.....  but i swear i recall reading this info.

if i can dig up anything relevant regarding this potential mis-information, i'll report back.
 :P

.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2016, 08:28:14 PM »
Some interesting info on the aspects and matching requirements for measurement omnis in this document (from the parent company from which DPA originated)- Primers: Measurement Microphones (BR0567-12) - Brüel & Kjær

..i can't imagine that omni's that are worn on the body would need to be matched either.

I've long been curious about measuring the response of these kinds of microphones "as worn" in the intended configuration, and the generation of an inverse correction curve based upon that.  At least within the limits of the repeatability based on the particulars of the setup and the wearer.

musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2016, 08:32:34 PM »
Volt, funny that tombstone lacks this fundamental control ... I just looked at the website and noticed they are showing graphs with a 50dB scale.  Might be buried in the menus somewhere.  I bet you need to have a 2 channel interface to assign one channel to L an the other to R.  Then using each channel you can capture an L and an R sweep instead of two L sweeps.  This would allow you to perform the L-R function. 

Maybe I was misunderstanding you earlier.  What I'm seeing on their website does show a 50 dB vertical scale which I've found can be dragged up/down as needed, but I thought you were saying that the 5 dB vertical divisions are too coarse to be meaningful.  I'm not seeing anything in their screenshots or in the settings that suggests those divisions can be changed / zoomed / whatever.  As I said, it would be nice if this program saved the actual audio from the tests; we could then analyze it in something better.

Regarding the channels used: I do have an interface with 2 mic inputs (Focusrite Saffire Pro 14), but I purposely chose to use the L mic input channel of my interface both times so that I could take any possible variation between its two mic preamps out of the equation.  I also used the same PFA both times, just swapping out the mic itself as stated earlier.  I felt as though if the two mics were fairly close already, I didn't want to have anything else coloring the results.  In reality, I'm sure Jon's PFAs are very close as he handmade both of them together.  The interface I'm not so sure.  Focusrite's preamps have quite a reputation, but this is still a mass-produced product (albeit an excellent one).

You are right about having to have the curves overlayed on the same display to really see what's going on.  It's just too subtle (especially at a 100dB scale) to to compare side by side.  There are a few other good freeware measurement software programs available.  I've only played with Room EQ Wizard for a few minutes but it looked promising.  It seems very feature rich for freeware. 
Actually I found a way to compare pretty well with those RX screenshots in my last post.  If you take a full-screen capture or very close to that, you put both images in the same directory and use a photo viewer in full-screen view.  Then you use your mouse or keyboard to quickly toggle between the graphs to see where the differences show.  I didn't capture these particular ones exactly the same, but if you download the images you can try it yourself to see what I'm talking about.

I'll take a look at REW - thanks.

A quick test for sensitivity differences can be made if your measurement software includes an SPL meter function.  Bundle the mics tightly together with their faces lined up as closely as possible.  Plug them into different channels (gains set exactly the same) or alternately connect them to the same channel as you blast a sine wave or pink noise from a speaker directly in front of the mic bundle.  Look at the SPL reading for each mic and the relative difference between the readings will give you a good idea how different the sensitivities are.  It's not NIST certified :) but should give you a basic idea of the difference.  From the plots you posted and the explanation you gave below on how the Tombstone measurements were made, it looks like they are very close in sensitivity. You may not see any differences using this method. 

That's a interesting idea, since with these tiny mics bundled together you wouldn't have to worry about consistency of mounting between tests.  I could see that being an issue for full-size mics though.  Maybe that's worth a try next time.

Took a quick listen to the tracks you linked.  Good stuff.  I knew these mics would sound great!  I bet the choir appreciated such a good sounding recording. 

Thanks.  I was disappointed to have to compromise the vertical placement as much as I did, but hopefully they were happy with it.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2016, 08:35:38 PM »
Some interesting info on the aspects and matching requirements for measurement omnis in this document (from the parent company from which DPA originated)- Primers: Measurement Microphones (BR0567-12) - Brüel & Kjær

This is great!  I think all technical publications should be illustrated like Schoolhouse Rock! ;D
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline yug du nord

  • ...til things never seen seem familiar…
  • Trade Count: (56)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • made with natural flavor
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2016, 08:37:30 PM »
i recall that one of our well respected TS gurus stated that matched capsules are what makes a stereo pair a stereo pair.....  except for omni's.  omni's don't need to be matched.  especially when they are run as split omni's.  and i can't imagine that omni's that are worn on the body would need to be matched either.
YMMV.

alright.......  maybe i pulled this one out of my place where the sun don't shine.  :-X
of course, i have no proof of nothin'.....  but i swear i recall reading this info.

if i can dig up anything relevant regarding this potential mis-information, i'll report back.
 :P

i found what i was thinking of...  and it turns out to be opinion......  but IMO, a highly respected opinion.
so, take it as you will....
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=169601.15
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline MIQ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Gender: Male
    • Stereo Mic Tools
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2016, 08:53:13 PM »
I would never try to speak for David, but reading his post, it seems like he is talking about matching sensitivities " down to the last fractions of a dB".  That's quite a bit different than "omni's don't need to be matched".

Miq

Offline yug du nord

  • ...til things never seen seem familiar…
  • Trade Count: (56)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • made with natural flavor
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2016, 09:16:48 PM »
^certified matched is matched though. 
and all mike manufacturers have different "matching" tolerances.
but a pair is either matched or not.

i may have paraphrased poorly...
he is referring specifically to spaced omni's though. 
....but a person should trust their ears...  not always just the tech specs.
YMMV.
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2016, 09:21:15 PM »
I would never try to speak for David, but reading his post, it seems like he is talking about matching sensitivities " down to the last fractions of a dB".  That's quite a bit different than "omni's don't need to be matched".

Miq

The other thing to note is that different manufacturers will have different tolerances, matched pair or otherwise.  When David is saying he doesn't need to have his omnis and fig8s matched, he's talking about Schoeps, whose non-matched mics from the same production batch may very well be closer together than some "matched pairs" sold by other brands.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline fandelive

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Dpa 4061 mics
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2016, 02:43:12 AM »
I have a pair where someone bought individual mics off ebay, I presume used off Broadway probably, and put them together in a standard 1/8" miniplug.  That's the story which was told to me, and they were pretty reasonably priced, so I believe it.

Be really careful when buying DPA 4061 off ebay !! I've been sent 3 said to be 4061, only to discover after I chopped the LEMO plugs (and 4 fully distorted recordings) that those actually were 4060...  :banging head:

Here are 3 important rules to check out before buying DPAs from an Ebay reseller.

Mics : Sony ECM-717, MM-HLSC-1 (4.7k mod), SP-CMC-4 (at853), 2x DPA4060, 2x DPA4061
Battery box : SP-SPSB-6524 w/bass roll-off filter, MM-CBM-1
Preamp : Church Audio CA-9100
Recorders : Sony MZR-700PC, Edirol R-09HR, Tascam DR-2d

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.096 seconds with 49 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF