The thing I hear listening to these samples as a group is a slight bump around 5k. I almost always tend to adjust eq of recordings of PA'd music slightly on playback a bit to sound right to me, so sample by sample its a harder to make a sure judgment than with samples of something purely acoustic for which I'm less likely to make any eq adjustment. Very generally, for these JZ samples I'll cut a db around 5k, perhaps widen the cut a 1/2 db a bit above & below that somewhat for some of it.
By contrast I tend to boost a db or so of broader top end shelf boost for the Beyer 930 & Nev lav recordings. Both mics seem generally smoother in high end response but often sound a tad dull to my ear without the boost. The DPA 4060 sound which I'm very familiar with (and which Richard has noted as sounding similarly bright or with an uncomfortable peak for him) sometimes needs a similar slight cut slightly higher in frequency, closer to the 10k region. I value transparent detail, but it should be neutral and smooth, sometimes a combination that can be at odds. I hear that combination in the Gefells. The Geffell subcards that Moke was testing before his DPA subcards (don't know the numbers of hand) had a significant diffuse field type emphasis that made a big prescence impact which sounded great for acoustic stuff from a distance, yet were also very smooth in response without a detectable resonant peakiness. To me the tradeoff is often one between detail and smoothness.
Since I make adjustments one way or the other for most PA's music anyway, the issue for me becomes one of two things- how well does the mic 'take eq' to sound like my mental image of 'right' and how balanced does it sound for unamplified (and hopefully less tweak needing) acoustic music or ambient sources. For someone who doesn't want to make any post adjustment, the question might instead be 'which weakness is less objectionable without correction?'
Thanks for all the samples, Dirk!
Topic: JZ Microphones BT-201 samples (Read 13347 times)