Topic: DPA 4023 vs beyerdynamic CK930 | an informal comparison

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I think the comp went really well too! I was wrong and my choice was D.

Question about comps....
Would it make any sense to run a left channel with mic a and the right channel with mic b. Sure you would need to make sure the levels are equal but that seems easy enough to take care of in post. That way the comp would be using the same cable, the same mic pattern, the same pre-amps (if any), the same recorder ADC, the same recorder, the same memory card, the same voltage, etc.
Or would this not work out as easily as it seems?

Sean, I brought up this same EXACT piont, as it seemed like the most FAIR way to comp two different mics.
To my knowledge, at least around TS, no one has done it like that.
I started a thread last year about it. Here's what people had to say. I still think it's the easiest/most thorough way to compare two mics/caps/pres/ad's
and END UP WITH TWO MONO FILES with no stereo shifting. Two mics, same level. DONE DEAL
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=139667.0

Tried it years ago, and will still sometimes do it for very specific situations.  But I find that it isn't very useful.  Do it, if you want to do it.

The thing is, I don't care about mono performance.  I care about having a great soundstage, with a musical result.  The off-axis performance is critical to creating a soundstage and an ambience.   Mono recordings quickly become boring.  Many PA recordngs lack much of a musical soundstage, but still have ambience.

Ultimately, what sort of decision can you make from a mono recording, since that isn't how you'll use the mics?  I wish it was that easy.  It's a fairly limited subset of what is important, and what is important is stereo performance.

[newplanet7]

What I'm saying is you can hear the differences in the mics. Coloration etc.
All playing fields would be level.

I hear what you guys are saying, in that it doesn't display the stereo/soundstage/off axis frequency response
but in most comps I find the imaging off from one set to the next even though the stereo pairs are in the same
configuration. That sways everything do with the comp IMO. You get different frequencies being better represented by one pair
because of configurations being off.

[Gutbucket]

All playing fields would be level.

Not really, they're pointing in very different directions.  The very nature of any good stereo microphone configuration is such that the playing field between channels is significantly and intentionally not level.

[snip] ..in most comps I find the imaging off from one set to the next even though the stereo pairs are in the same
configuration. That sways everything do with the comp IMO. You get different frequencies being better represented by one pair because of configurations being off.

To further pile on the above argument, why expect parody between the Left and Right channels of two different mics who's configuration is also off?

Even if the configurations and placements are as close as possible, you may well hear similar differences due to the different behavior (or misbehavior) of the microphones.  A photo helps

[page]

All playing fields would be level.

Not really, they're pointing in very different directions.  The very nature of any good stereo microphone configuration is such that the playing field between channels is significantly and intentionally not level.

I was assuming that he meant he would be pointing the mics in the same direction and just stacking them but running them in different signal chains further down (e.g. L1mic and L2mic run into the same gear as L/R pairs). If the original statement is intended that your left pointing mic is A, and your right pointing mic is B, I'm pressed to see how you'll get reasonably comparable results that way. For example, what if there is an object that causes a different reflection, or more open space with less crowd (e.g. the sbd is off center in your recording), that will alter your perception of pattern tightness.

There are no perfect ways to do this other then to isolate the differences to just the mics and then stack the mics. Testing gear behind mics is easier to control (through isolating splitters) but there is only so much one can glean when testing mics. The good side is that they should have the starkest differences when you control everything else.

[rastasean]

newplanet7, Thanks for linking me to the post where you originally wondered about this.

I suppose comparing microphones is the same as comparing two images taken with two different cameras--only the person who actually took the photograph would understand the real shades of all the colors captured, and only if the person was paying strict attention to the colors would be able to state which is closest to the real one. It is quite obvious people are very opinionated on the most scientific ways to do a mic comparison and unless done so by an actual scientist who specializes in sound recording, all other methods will be inferior.   Obviously things like a metal roof, objects blocking the line of path, microphone sensitivity, etc would interfere with the recording but as pointed out, not all recordings we do will be in ideal conditions. I would tend to think we buy mics based on the way they sound and not just the logo attached to them so there will always be unscientific tests done.

[newplanet7]

All playing fields would be level.

Not really, they're pointing in very different directions.  The very nature of any good stereo microphone configuration is such that the playing field between channels is significantly and intentionally not level.

I was assuming that he meant he would be pointing the mics in the same direction and just stacking them but running them in different signal chains further down (e.g. L1mic and L2mic run into the same gear as L/R pairs).

Page has got it right. They would be pointing in the same direction. Not one being the left or right.
Just as if you were to do a shootout on a piano, drum kit etc. Pretty simple really.
People do single mic shootouts, right? I have heard a few in studio. Why can't it be done the same way in the Live atmosphere?
Mics will sound different regardless if you use a pair or not. It's just a more controlled way. Guess I just don't see it the same as some of you.

[page]

Page has got it right. They would be pointing in the same direction. Not one being the left or right.

Ok, then yes, that's one way to do it. Not sure if it's better or worse if you can control the downstream stuff (if you can't, then it would be one way to try and mitigate that), but if you can't, I can see some benefit. Interesting idea.

[Gutbucket]

All playing fields would be level.

Not really, they're pointing in very different directions.

Ooops, my bad.  Your way makes much more sense.

[Todd R]

I find it easier to tame the emphasis which some have described as making 'B' sound fatiguing while retaining it's open, detailed qualities, than to try and pull out those engaging qualities from 'A'.  In that way, the valuable difference for me in this case is that reducing the influenced of a negative thing is easier than attempting to emphasize something lacking (comparatively).

Could you describe briefly how this is done?  That has me intrigued. 

I spent some time after doing a fairly controlled comp of my (now sold) Gefell m210s and my Beyer mc950's to get the 950's to sound a bit more like the Gefells.  Then did the same type of processing to my 950 sources to see how the processed 950's compared to my Milabs.  All in all, just goofing around.

I need to learn more about post-processing techniques...



Oh, on the comps, I'm with Brian and the others and I want to do stereo comps so I can learn what I can both about off-axis response and thus soundstaging, and also on differences in tonality between mics.  Doing a mono comp just gets me the tonality info, but not the full picture. 

Overall, people will never agree on how to do a comp, because different people want different things.  You just need to take them for what they're worth.  I think it is great that people share comps, even if I ignore them.  I have a bad habit of keeping extremely lousy records and labeling of files, but I probably have tons of comps I've never shared.  I keep meaning to dig around and see what I have in the way of comps that people might want to hear.  I know first up is a comp I did with my friend Scott of Gefell m210's > EAA PSP2, utilizing the two outputs of the PSP2 (1/8" and XLR), sent to a non-mod DR680 and a Busman-mod DR680.  Not a perfect comp due to the different outs on the PSP2, but could be fun.

FWIW, I didn't listen to this comp.  I've tried before, but the merged-in, alternating sources method of a comp doesn't work at all for me.  I need to immerse myself in the source and spend a lot of time taking it in holistically, then do that with the other source.  20 second segments doesn't work for me.  (Again, no disrespect at all for Jason, great you got the comp done!  Just my own preferences on which comps to participate in and which ones not to.)

[JasonSobel]

FWIW, I didn't listen to this comp.  I've tried before, but the merged-in, alternating sources method of a comp doesn't work at all for me.  I need to immerse myself in the source and spend a lot of time taking it in holistically, then do that with the other source.  20 second segments doesn't work for me.  (Again, no disrespect at all for Jason, great you got the comp done!  Just my own preferences on which comps to participate in and which ones not to.)

Todd - I also posted the whole song from each source.  No excuse!

[Todd R]

FWIW, I didn't listen to this comp.  I've tried before, but the merged-in, alternating sources method of a comp doesn't work at all for me.  I need to immerse myself in the source and spend a lot of time taking it in holistically, then do that with the other source.  20 second segments doesn't work for me.  (Again, no disrespect at all for Jason, great you got the comp done!  Just my own preferences on which comps to participate in and which ones not to.)

Todd - I also posted the whole song from each source.  No excuse!

Damn, need to pay more attention. Also need to spend more time on ts.com using my Mac that has a pretty good playback system I've integrated into it.  I'm always on my iPad these days, and what's the point of trying to listen to a comp on a 1/2" speaker on the back of a iPad? 

[Gutbucket]

Could you describe briefly how this is done?  That has me intrigued.

I find location is 80% of recording.. and EQ is 80% of post-processing.

It takes a good amount of experimentation, practice, listening skill, plus a lot of time to dial it in just so and a playback system that you 'know' and trust.  I also need to brush up those skills by putting more time into it, yet I know how powerful and effective it can be from the postitive results when I do.  Regardless of the initial timbral balance, some mics just seem to offer far more 'frequency manupulation headroom' (for lack of a better term) than others.  Not sure if that is because of a smoothness of frequency response, a phase thing or what.

I have a bad habit of keeping extremely lousy records and labeling of files, but I probably have tons of comps I've never shared.  I keep meaning to dig around and see what I have in the way of comps that people might want to hear. 

nods in solidarity..
I've several Countryman B3 / DPA 4060 comps I've been meaning to share, plus some Tetramic B-format so people can mess with the virtual mic stereo decodes.

I know first up is a comp I did with my friend Scott of Gefell m210's > EAA PSP2, utilizing the two outputs of the PSP2 (1/8" and XLR), sent to a non-mod DR680 and a Busman-mod DR680.  Not a perfect comp due to the different outs on the PSP2, but could be fun.

This DR-680 user wants to hear that one!

[page]

FWIW, I didn't listen to this comp.  I've tried before, but the merged-in, alternating sources method of a comp doesn't work at all for me.  I need to immerse myself in the source and spend a lot of time taking it in holistically, then do that with the other source.  20 second segments doesn't work for me.  (Again, no disrespect at all for Jason, great you got the comp done!  Just my own preferences on which comps to participate in and which ones not to.)

Todd - I also posted the whole song from each source.  No excuse!

Damn, need to pay more attention.

Yeah, I was going to bitch about that too, only to realize he'd posted the entire file as well. 

I find out of a four minute song, I generally pick one 30 second section, and two or three 5 second sections to check specific details/tonal balance/imaging. The bummer is I need the entire 4 minutes to pick from.

Could you describe briefly how this is done?  That has me intrigued.

I find location is 80% of recording.. and EQ is 80% of post-processing.

In the scope of what we typically do, I generally agree with this.

It takes a good amount of experimentation, practice, listening skill, plus a lot of time to dial it in just so and a playback system that you 'know' and trust.  I also need to brush up those skills by putting more time into it, yet I know how powerful and effective it can be from the postitive results when I do.  Regardless of the initial timbral balance, some mics just seem to offer far more 'frequency manupulation headroom' (for lack of a better term) than others.  Not sure if that is because of a smoothness of frequency response, a phase thing or what.

Well, for one thing, The DPAs are just in a different league in terms of what sort of detail I'd expect. Yes, it's the law of deminishing returns, but I'd sort of expect the DPAs to have more micro/lowlevel detail then the beyers (or any other similarly priced mic that isn't a "measurement mic").

I find the beyers take to EQ very well, but that won't do anything for soundstage/detail aspects.

[Gutbucket]

Could you describe briefly how this is done?  That has me intrigued.

I find location is 80% of recording.. and EQ is 80% of post-processing.

Found a very good guide to this type of EQing, which breaks it into two stages- 1st to find, isolate and diminish problem resonances, and 2nd to then enhance the sound to preference.  The article adresses EQ for mixing, but the advice applies just as well to our 'mastering' type work, especially the problem isolation part directly relavent to your question, but also in recommending broad, low Q adjustments for enhancements.

From Dave Mouton's website:
A Fresh Approach to Equalization: the Tom Bates Way
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/fresh_approach_to_eq/