Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: first impressions dpa 4060  (Read 2884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline weroflu

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
first impressions dpa 4060
« on: July 24, 2012, 01:24:33 AM »
new member of team 4060.

just fired them up last night into a littlebox.

-they sounded a lot leaner than i thought
-high end bump did not bother me at all, i thought it would
-sounds extremely similar to ca14, more of an elegant smoothness, but still really similar
-i thought with low volume source that i could get away with m10 pip, i was wrong
-don't laugh but i sort of like the m10 internal mics better, this could be mic placement which i have to experiment more with,
but i got a better sound with the m10 internals last night
-my piano sucks ass

going to get some pencil erasers today for mic clips and mess around with mic placement so hopefully they sound better than m10 internals. or maybe i like the m10 preamp better than littlebox? need to test this out and just run a battery box into the m10 preamp.



Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2012, 08:11:26 PM »
I could never get the erasers to work well and just gaff tape them to things- telescopic spacer bars, striff wires, walls, floors, people, other mics..

Don't overlook the super awesome magic power of boundary-mounting them! it's one of their most effective skills.  Just taping them to a hard surface works, but the DPA rubber boundary mount adapters help protect them. I'm totally serious about this..

Right now I'm listening to a 6 channel surround recording from last Thursday made with four boundary-mounted 4060s and an ORTF pair of Gefell cardioids. Jazz trio, no PA, seated crowd, 3 of the 4060s were gaff taped to the font face of the stage lip wall, spaced apart and facing out into the room as surround channels.  The 4th 4060 was in the DPA rubber boundary-mount adapter and taped to the stage surface forward of the L/R pair, slightly closer to the kick and snare.  If you could hear it now, you'd want to boundary mount 'em!
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline weroflu

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2012, 02:18:32 AM »
re the boundary mount...

so it's a little rubber tent  with the microphone residing on the inside?
there's a small hole on the top of the rubber where sound enters?

i just read a little about them,  dpa says they have a 'distinct' sound. what does that mean?

the erasers worked like a charm for me, i just cut  little notch in the top so the wire can easily fit in. i used a rectangular eraser about 2 inches long, not the tiny ones that slip over the pencil eraser.

the sound i got with the m10 was just one of those fluke mic placement things that worked out ridiculously better than you could ever anticipate. usually with mic placement it's endless hours of experimentation to get 90% there. when i got the m10 it was about 10 minutes and three different spots and i got an absurdly good sound that was way better than it should have been for the quality of the mics and the piano. i like the rolling off at 15k that the m10 does for piano. i messed around with neumanns, tube akg's and lots of boutique stuff for years and always had it in the back of my mind that i would like a really dumbed down mic for piano, and the m10 fit the bill very nicely. not as good as 77dx's (favorite sound ever) but still good.

i got some better sounds out of the dpa's, and really like them. with a good room and about $20k more for an instrument they will be great.  when i put them too close to the hammers it's clinky time. but if get them away from direct hammer transients then it works.

you convinced me to get some boundary mounts. i guess i had it in my mind that they would be somehow similar to those crown pzm mics but it looks like that's not the case.

Online aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2258
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2012, 09:06:36 AM »
I am also a big fan of the boundary mounts.  There is one venue where they let me tape them to the front wall of a balcony (which is closed for most shows) and those recordings have turned out really well.  Pretty expensive (~ $25 each for a little rubber disc), though, as with all things DPA.

I think one of the intended uses for them is mic'ing pianos...

Offline weroflu

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2012, 09:27:17 AM »
boundary mounts were ordered at 9:00:01 this morning.

a little rubber teepee for my  4060s? how could i pass that up.

Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5829
  • Gender: Male
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2012, 12:00:53 PM »
Gutbucket is the expert here, though I do also own these mounts.  It's worth noting, IIRC, that they affect both the directionality and frequency response of the mics - creating more HF bump, for one, and I believe also making them more directional toward the "front" of the mount (if lying on a floor, the "front" would be the opposite of the direction the cable enters in).  Is that right?
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061 w/ d:vice, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun, Nak300
Pres/Power: Aerco MP2, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Sound Devices MixPre 6, Zoom F8, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

Offline weroflu

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2012, 12:27:06 PM »
on the dpa site they mention that it does increase high frequency response but also if you look at the frequency plot  of the boundary mic it only goes to about 15k. it makes sense that it would accentuate some high fequencies because you're isolating reflections from the 'boundary' which is a hard surface, and those are known to reflect high frequency. but since people have favorable experiences here with them it's worth a try at least. it may also not actually boost high frequency but just change the response or timbre. me likey directionality without proximity effect. and i'm definitely going to stick those b3's in the rubber teepee too just to be rebellious.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2012, 12:50:43 PM »
The main difference in sound comes from the boundary mount technique itself more than the effect of the rubber mount.  Try it by taping them to a surface without the mounts and you'll get an idea of that.  Sensitivity is increased more for direct sound than for ambient diffuse sound, so it sort of sonically 'zooms in' on the direct sound and favors it more over the reverberant sound compared to mounting them in free space.  They become hemispherically directional and eleminate seperate arrival of reflections that would ordinarily have come from the surface they are mounted on.  All that makes them sound considerably different than free mounting.

As for the DPA rubber mount, the confined space of the opening acts like a slightly different sized grid and changes the high frequency response somewhat, sort of like the different lenght grids.  As mentioned there is a response chart on the DPA site for of them when using the boundary mounts.  I can hear a difference with and without the mount, but for me the choice to use it or not is usually based on practical mounting considerations not the audible differences.  The rectangular hole in the mount is symetrical, and I don't think the response changes in any direction along the surface plane of the boundary on which they are mounted.  Without using the rubber mounts, there might be an ever so slight highest frequency directionality favoring the front grid side of the mic (which can be seen in the standard non-boundary mounted polar plot), but they're so small that's really minimal.  If I'm boundary mounting them without the rubber mounts I do orient them with that in mind, but I doubt it really makes much difference.

I've never done it, but DPA suggests boundary mounting them to the underside of the open piano lid.  You might also try the same on the nearby wall, ceiling or floor.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline weroflu

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2012, 08:13:29 AM »
got the boundary mounts yesterday. did some test recording just now and i like them. i put them panned hard left on right on top of an open lid upright. the only downside is it seemed to amplify all sorts of clicking and scratching noises, maybe even cable rustle. i have to go back and debug all those no music sounds coming from the piano, which sometimes on crap pianos is impossible, but the sound is cool, sort of laid back but it does seem to isolate direct sound moreso than without.

question: i thought that these mounts were hollow but they aren't. the mics are supposed to be flush with the underside of the mount? or are they supposed to squeeze in there and sit below the bottom flat plane of the mount? mine seem to stick out about 2 RCH's from the bottom.

Online aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2258
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2012, 08:42:32 AM »
^^^ The mics can go flush with the underside, but it takes a little work.  Flex the mount so the upper surface is a bit concave and that helps a lot.  Also, DPA recommends that you orient the diaphragms properly.  I don't have it in front of me, but, if I recall correctly, they suggest that the narrow side of the diaphragm faces front...

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2012, 10:30:21 AM »
Yeah, they recommend orienting the mic so that the internal rectangular capusle is perpendicular to the opening in the boundary mount.  I prefer orienting them so that the holes on the internal rectangular capsule face outwards, but if you do that you must make sure you have the perferated side facing out, if insert it upside down the sound openings will face the back and will be obscured.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline weroflu

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2012, 07:16:45 AM »
does changing the surface of the boundary make a difference in sound?

i.e. if you mounted the boundary mics on a piece of foam vs. a hard reflective surface.

for mounting on walls and such is it normal to just use tape?


Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: first impressions dpa 4060
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2012, 10:19:16 AM »
does changing the surface of the boundary make a difference in sound?

i.e. if you mounted the boundary mics on a piece of foam vs. a hard reflective surface.

Yes

The boundary-layer effect is present when the mic is mounted very close to a surface that is both acoustically reflective and large in comparison to the wavelength of the frequency in question.  In that range, sensitivity to direct (coherent) sound is increased by 6dB and sensitivity to reververant (incoherent) sound is increased by 3dB.

That means:
A small surface will have the effect of eliminating that sensitivity increase at lower frequencies- the dimensions of the boundary determine at what frequency that transition takes place.
-and-
An absorbant surface will eliminate the increase in sensitivity for the frequencies in which it is absorbant.  A surface may not be equally absorbant at all frequencies, reflecting some frequencies more than others, so the degree of boundary-layer effect is effected by how reflective the surface is across the spectrum.

In addition to the boundary-effect a nearby surface will make the mic directional simply by blocking the sound which arrives from behind it, and the range of frequencies it blocks effectively is also determined by the size of the boundary as well as the distance of the mic from it.

So in real world situations you may well be getting a combination of the two influences, depending on what you mount the mics to.

Quote
for mounting on walls and such is it normal to just use tape?

There are special boundary mounts which offer some additional protection and change the response slightly like a longer grid, but I usually prefer the sound of just taping them to the surface and that works just as well in most cases unless you need the protection.  Using high-quality gaffer tape helps reduce sticky residue remaining on the mic and cables.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 10:21:09 AM by Gutbucket »
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.233 seconds with 40 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company