Topic: DPA 4061 vs. AT ES943/O (SP-CMC-8 omnis) - a real-world comparison

[nameloc01]

Any of you guys have any U853 omni caps you'd be willing to get off of?

[echo1434]

^^^ I don't like the source.  Too much bass.  Maybe that is how it sounded at the venue, but I would cut the bass to make it listenable.  I think we're going to hear the difference in a more balanced signal.

Well, this was just a random test I did for fun.

As for the bass, it is what it is. These samples were provided for comparison purposes, so I couldn't see any justification for altering them.

Please feel free to EQ it to your tastes, just as I do for my own listening.

[Sunday Driver]

I always wondered about something.  Is there a difference, say, between a 943 body/853 cap combination versus the 853 body/cap?  I have both.

I use the AT 943 (E/S ?) "body" with a U853-C cap and the "AT-ADAPT" adaptor. Technically speaking, I can't see how it could effect the sound quality, as the FET and all of the electronics are in the capsule. As far as I know there are no electronics in the "body" that effect the sound quality, which is why I always put "body" in quotes. It's simply a holder. You would think that perhaps the "AT-ADAPT" would cause some distortion due to excess vibrations, but in my experience with taping very loud shows this has never happened.

[illconditioned]

I always wondered about something.  Is there a difference, say, between a 943 body/853 cap combination versus the 853 body/cap?  I have both.

I use the AT 943 (E/S ?) "body" with a U853-C cap and the "AT-ADAPT" adaptor. Technically speaking, I can't see how it could effect the sound quality, as the FET and all of the electronics are in the capsule. As far as I know there are no electronics in the "body" that effect the sound quality, which is why I always put "body" in quotes. It's simply a holder. You would think that perhaps the "AT-ADAPT" would cause some distortion due to excess vibrations, but in my experience with taping very loud shows this has never happened.

False!  The FET is inside the 943 "body".  That said, there should be no difference in sound.  I have not consulted the part #s of the FETs, but I've tested the AT831 body, the AT853 body, and the AT943 body (with adapter).  They can all accept AT853 capsules, and all sound the same.

 Richard

[Sunday Driver]

I always wondered about something.  Is there a difference, say, between a 943 body/853 cap combination versus the 853 body/cap?  I have both.

I use the AT 943 (E/S ?) "body" with a U853-C cap and the "AT-ADAPT" adaptor. Technically speaking, I can't see how it could effect the sound quality, as the FET and all of the electronics are in the capsule. As far as I know there are no electronics in the "body" that effect the sound quality, which is why I always put "body" in quotes. It's simply a holder. You would think that perhaps the "AT-ADAPT" would cause some distortion due to excess vibrations, but in my experience with taping very loud shows this has never happened.

False!  The FET is inside the 943 "body".  That said, there should be no difference in sound.  I have not consulted the part #s of the FETs, but I've tested the AT831 body, the AT853 body, and the AT943 body (with adapter).  They can all accept AT853 capsules, and all sound the same.

 Richard

Thanks Richard, I stand corrected. For some reason, I thought these were electrets with an FET in the capsule. As you said though, they all sound the same.

[echo1434]

<clip>

I had previously determined that the ATs with low sensitivity mod had almost exactly 6 dB more gain than my DPAs, so I set the levels on my Edirols accordingly. And no surprise, both recordings have almost exactly the same levels, within a few tenths of a decibel!

<clip>

I've had the opportunity to test several sets of DPA 4061s and AT ES943s, and the ATs always have 6 dB more gain than the DPAs. Therefore, the ATs *without* the low-sens mod should be slightly more sensitive than DPA 4060s (by about 2 dB) Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable recording the loudest of loud rock shows without the low-sens mod. Really, I think the 943s with low-sens mod have an ideal sensitivity, being virtually halfway between DPA 4060s and 4061s.

<clip>

I think there is some sort of problem with these sensitivity figures.  The ES943/O is listed by AT as having a sensitivty of 10 mV/Pa, whereas DPA specs the 4060 and 4061 at 20 mV/Pa and 6 mV/Pa, respectively.  So the stock AT should be about 4.5 dB more sensitive than the 4061 (and about 6 dB less sensitive than the 4060).  If the tested AT's are actually 6 dB more sensitive than the 4061's, then they should have a sensitivity around 12 mV/Pa, which would make the low-sens mod'ed mics more sensitive than the stock mics!

While specs can certainly be helpful for reference and general comparison purposes, I don't think they're always perfect. I've tested several pairs DPA 4061s vs. AT943/Os with low-sens mod, using identical recorders with identical settings (which really do perform identically), and no matter what the sound source is, the ATs  are always roughly 6 dB louder than the DPA source. So if that doesn't mean that 943/Os with low-sens mod are 6 dB more sensitive than the 4061s, I don’t know what does.

Furthermore, I think the frequency chart that Audio-Technica made for the 943s omnis is misleading. According to that, the mics have a slightly exaggerated low frequency response as opposed to the ruler flat response of the DPAs, as well as more exaggerated high frequency response.

Find the charts here:


DPA 4061




AT ES943/O



Also, the ATs are rated only 30 – 20,000 Hz, while DPAs are rated 20 – 20,000 Hz. Yet in reality, both mics have a perfectly flat bass response, with the ATs actually producing more ultra low frequencies than the DPAs, including subsonic stuff. Now, how is this possible if they only start at 30Hz? 

And according to the AT chart, the 943s should also have a slightly stronger response from 5-15 kHz. In my tests, however, both mics performed nearly identically in terms of frequency response, with the ATs only having a bit more treble in the 13-14K range. Although it's clear that DPAs definitely retain more ultrasonic frequencies, with the ATs really starting to drop off at 16K. DPAs definitely maintain more response beyond this…

See the frequency response charts that I made from the samples offered in the first post of this thread:


DPA 4061




AT ES943/O




DPA 4061





AT ES943/O




So… It would follow that ATs might be preferable for whales, while DPAs are more suitable for dogs. 

Other than that, I still don't think the difference is very significant.

[Dede2002]

After downloading, I didn't read any other messages and went straight to post my message. At first, mic "o" sounded more bright and clear. But after 5 or 6 tests, mic "e" turns out to be my choice. No listening fatigue at all. Now I'll check which one is one.

[aaronji]

I've had the opportunity to test several sets of DPA 4061s and AT ES943s, and the ATs always have 6 dB more gain than the DPAs. Therefore, the ATs *without* the low-sens mod should be slightly more sensitive than DPA 4060s (by about 2 dB) Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable recording the loudest of loud rock shows without the low-sens mod. Really, I think the 943s with low-sens mod have an ideal sensitivity, being virtually halfway between DPA 4060s and 4061s.

I think there is some sort of problem with these sensitivity figures.  The ES943/O is listed by AT as having a sensitivty of 10 mV/Pa, whereas DPA specs the 4060 and 4061 at 20 mV/Pa and 6 mV/Pa, respectively.  So the stock AT should be about 4.5 dB more sensitive than the 4061 (and about 6 dB less sensitive than the 4060).  If the tested AT's are actually 6 dB more sensitive than the 4061's, then they should have a sensitivity around 12 mV/Pa, which would make the low-sens mod'ed mics more sensitive than the stock mics!

While specs can certainly be helpful for reference and general comparison purposes, I don't think they're always perfect. I've tested several pairs DPA 4061s vs. AT943/Os with low-sens mod, using identical recorders with identical settings (which really do perform identically), and no matter what the sound source is, the ATs  are always roughly 6 dB louder than the DPA source. So if that doesn't mean that 943/Os with low-sens mod are 6 dB more sensitive than the 4061s, I don’t know what does.

DPA says their measurement error on sensitivity for the 406x is +/- 3 dB; it is probably pretty safe to assume that the figure is similar for the ATs.  That means that if both pairs of mics deviate maximally, in opposite directions (4061 is 3 dB less sensitive than spec and AT is 3 dB more sensitive), it would lead to a difference of about 10.5 dB.  So the mod only reduced the sensitivity of the ATs by ~4.5 dB (resulting in the observed 6dB difference).  Since you have observed this pattern in a number of pairs, and it is unlikely that they were all off by the same (and maximum) amount, something is sort of strange here...Maybe it has something to do with how SP or CoreSound modify things?

And it is extremely unlikely that a stock pair of ATs would be 2 dB more sensitive than the 4060s, as you suggested.  That would require both pairs of mics to be a total of 8 dB off spec (4060 less sensitive and 943 more sensitive by a combined 8dB)...

Furthermore, I think the frequency chart that Audio-Technica made for the 943s omnis is misleading. According to that, the mics have a slightly exaggerated low frequency response as opposed to the ruler flat response of the DPAs, as well as more exaggerated high frequency response.

Also, the ATs are rated only 30 – 20,000 Hz, while DPAs are rated 20 – 20,000 Hz. Yet in reality, both mics have a perfectly flat bass response, with the ATs actually producing more ultra low frequencies than the DPAs, including subsonic stuff. Now, how is this possible if they only start at 30Hz? 

As I understand it, the frequency range is an indication of response within a certain tolerance.  There isn't a hard stop of some sort such that the mic doesn't pick up anything above or below it.  The ATs do pick up frequencies below 30 Hz, and, in accordance with the frequency response graph, you show that the ATs pick up more at low frequencies.

And according to the AT chart, the 943s should also have a slightly stronger response from 5-15 kHz. In my tests, however, both mics performed nearly identically in terms of frequency response, with the ATs only having a bit more treble in the 13-14K range. Although it's clear that DPAs definitely retain more ultrasonic frequencies, with the ATs really starting to drop off at 16K. DPAs definitely maintain more response beyond this…

I think this is also consistent with the frequency response and polar pattern graphs (as on the AT website).  The frequency response graph for the ATs shows on-axis response increasing from 5 - 15 kHz, while the polar pattern shows off-axis response decreases beginning at around 5 kHz.  Since the analysis of the sample shows the response from all directions, it is likely that the off-axis decreases are more-or-less offeset by the on-axis increases.  The 4061, by contrast, has a flatter frequency response throught that range but also has less roll off off-axis (and starting at higher frequencies).

Maybe I have missed something here (and I am sure someone will let me know if that's the case!), but I think the specs are consistent with the samples...Just that thing with the sensitivities that I can't make sense of!