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

[echo1434]

After listening to lots of different recordings, I arrived at the suspicion that these two kinds of mics must sound very similar to each other when put under the same circumstances. So this past summer I decided to run two rigs at a festival I attended. Well, I had no idea that the results would be quite as striking as they were. The rigs in question:

Danish Pro Audio 4061 (Core Sound High End Binaurals, matched pair) > Core Sound HEB battery box (no roll-off) > Edirol R-09 (48/24, line in - record level 20)

Audio-Technica ES943/O (Sound Professionals SP-CMC-8 omnis w/ low-sens mod, matched pair) > SP-SPSB-8 (no roll-off) > Edirol R-09 (48/24, line in - record level 14)


Both pairs of mics were head-mounted, with only a small piece of electrical tape separating them. I was perhaps 15 rows back from the stage, about somewhere between the center and the right stack.

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!

Please remember that the CMC-8s in question here are OMNIS, and not the ever-present cardioid version (which sound completely different).

I'm not even going to reveal which sample is which yet, as I know people will have preconceptions about how each mic "should" sound and which is better.

I will admit this was not the very best-sounding show I've ever attended, but it was far from the worst. I still think it suggests that these mics should always perform similarly at a typical rock show.


The samples:

http://www.imaginary-lemurs.com/samples/firehouse2008-07-25_e.flac
http://www.imaginary-lemurs.com/samples/firehouse2008-07-25_o.flac


The E and O designations are simply an arbitrary way to differentiate the two recordings.

Absolutely NO editing has been done to these samples, except trimming them to have the same beginning and end points, and then converting to FLAC.

I'd highly recommend either running a true ABX test with something like Foobar, or at least inserting both samples into a multitrack and toggling back and forth to get an idea of the real "difference" between the two.


Other thoughts:

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 was unaware that CMC-8 omnis even existed until long after I purchased my DPAs. In retrospect, I'm not sure if I'd even have bothered buying the DPAs if I could do it all over again. The only advantage I feel they have is that they're smaller, and perhaps that they're more water resistant than the ATs (although I'm not sure how they'd stand up in the rain or something like that). Other than that, I think the biggest "advantage" of DPAs is the snob appeal they carry, being roughtly $700 more than the CMC-8s.

On the other hand, I think the CMC-8s have a few advantages, such as the interchangeable elements. And as mentioned before, the sensitivity may be viewed as more optimal for rock shows after the low-sens mod is performed.

In the end, the sound difference between the two is so small that I absolutely could not recommend one over the other under normal circumstances.

Finally, I am not affiliated with Sound Professionals — I simply discovered these mics after trying to find a good pair of omnis for some friends who didn't want to shell out the dough for a pair of DPAs. I just thought think this knowledge could be helpful to tapers in general as the omni version of these mics seems virtually unknown at the present time.

At only a slightly higher price than regular Core Sound Binaurals, it's a shame that everyone doesn't know about them. Well, now I hope more people do!

[Belexes]

I don't think the 943 omni's are unknown? Just not widely used.  I have a set of omni caps, guns, and the cards. 

I am going to guess:

E: DPA
O: 943

Both sound damn fine to my ears.  Proves you don't have to spend so much to get quality results.

[echo1434]

I don't think the 943 omni's are unknown? Just not widely used.  I have a set of omni caps, guns, and the cards.

Well, not completely unknown... I just meant that CMC-8s are known as a cardioid microphone more than anything.

For example, if you look at all the CMC-8 recordings that people share/trade (there are quite a few of them), I bet that 90% of them are cards, maybe 5% of them hypers, and then just a handful of omnis.

By comparison, look at all the omnis people most commonly use (DPAs, OKMs, Sonics, Core Sound). It's rather disproportionate.

That's all I was trying to say.

[nameloc01]

That's probably because cards are better for stealthing usually, as more often than not you're in a less than ideal position.

[headroom]

Thanks lot the sound amples an your effort, its a day and night difference between them. My Bias is going to DPA better defined top end, wider Stereo image. The AT jumps more in the face and is more hollow, with the DPA `s you can go deeper into the soundstructure, because its not sticking all thogether. 
Did you have wich cap on the DPA`s? Or just plain naked, its sounds different to.

About Tech Spes: when you know how to read/interpret the Polar Diagramm there is an symetry what you can expect to hear. Top Notch  Mics good mics have all something in common, wich you can see in  the Polar, if you know where to look at.

[echo1434]

Thanks lot the sound amples an your effort, its a day and night difference between them. My Bias is going to DPA less boomy and fat and better definedl top end, wider Stereo image. Phase Problem with the AT`s its weird. Bot Omnis can easely Equalized a bit. Did you have wich cap on the DPA`s? Or just plain naked, its sounds different to.

I had the basic soft boost grid on the DPAs.

You say the difference is night and day... So which is which? 

[Gutbucket]

6 out of 6 correct

My guess?
E: DPA
O: 943

I will admit this was not the very best-sounding show I've ever attended, but it was far from the worst. I still think it suggests that these mics should always perform similarly at a typical rock show.

I disagree and think that the better the source sounds, the more apparent the differences will become.

[Javier Cinakowski]

My playback: (can't use my monitors, wife is asleep):
wmp11 w/ xiph flac plugin -> USB2.0 -> SuperPro DAC707SE -> Headstage MiniAmp PRO -> Beyerdynamic DT880
(no crossfade, no eq, no bullshit)
I also imported these into CEP2.1 to look at the wavforms.....


e: low frequency deeper and warmer (people that don't like that sound might call it slightly muddy), highs seem fairly natural
o: more mid/high clarity, but at the expense of a natural sound....

My guess:
E:DPA
O:943

FWIW, there isn't a terrible amount of difference between the sources.  I agree with Gutbucket, in a more intimate and better sounding situation I think the difference would be much easier to distinquish....  Recording a loud rock band through a PA system standing in the middle of the room isn't going to give us much to wrok with.....  In this situation I think a good dynamic mic would pull a recording that would be satisfactory compared to these recordings....


EDIT: I didn't realize headstage's first laungage isnt english.....

[aaronji]

<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!

[blastroknow]

I think e = DPAs and o = ATs

Thanks for doing the comparison!

As an owner of both DPA and AT I can't say I love one more than the other - they each have applications where they shine the best.

[Javier Cinakowski]

I think e = DPAs and o = ATs

Thanks for doing the comparison!

As an owner of both DPA and AT I can't say I love one more than the other - they each have applications where they shine the best.

you're telling me there isn't one perfect tool for all jobs ?   

 

[headroom]

Thanks lot the sound amples an your effort, its a day and night difference between them. My Bias is going to DPA less boomy and fat and better definedl top end, wider Stereo image. Phase Problem with the AT`s its weird. Bot Omnis can easely Equalized a bit. Did you have wich cap on the DPA`s? Or just plain naked, its sounds different to.

I had the basic soft boost grid on the DPAs.

You say the difference is night and day... So which is which? 

As I said in the first Post  O=AT E = DPA

[Javier Cinakowski]

As I said in the first Post  O=AT E = DPA

your first post doesn't say anything like that............

[Sunday Driver]

Weird...somehow I think the AT sounds better anyway. I could tell the difference though too.
(Both are a little distorted too.)

[headroom]

As I said in the first Post  O=AT E = DPA

your first post doesn't say anything like that............

Ok here
My Bias is going to DPA better defined top end, wider Stereo image. The AT jumps more in the face and is more hollow, with the DPA `s you can go deeper into the soundstructure, because its not sticking all thogether. 
 O=AT first on the MP3  E = DPA second on the MP3 in the Tread above. Was not clear?

[echo1434]

As I said in the first Post  O=AT E = DPA

your first post doesn't say anything like that............

Ok here
My Bias is going to DPA better defined top end, wider Stereo image. The AT jumps more in the face and is more hollow, with the DPA `s you can go deeper into the soundstructure, because its not sticking all thogether. 
 O=AT first on the MP3  E = DPA second on the MP3 in the Tread above. Was not clear?

To be honest, it could have been a lot clearer. 

[headroom]

Yes and sorry, but its good to have an exchange...
The DPA 40XX are the finest mics on the planet. But sometimes people loking for a special sound and not for somthing neutral. Thats why Sound Studios use different mics for different sources. Also the placement of the mic is ver very important, outside its much easier with omnis. Our brain/ear is subjective and can filter zoom and blend out a lot, wich mics dont do they are simply objective related on pure physic laws. Measuring you can done only the static parts of the Hologram (Sound) 25 parameters  but our ear/brain can do  over 100 at real time. This is  important to survive. Not be hitten by a falling rock, hit by a car, a huntig tiger .... Music is far from static, its very alive and complex. With Micro and Macrostructures, Texture, Dynamic Attack Rise and Fall. A picture you can edit nearly every part of a picture its very simpe with Photoshop.  With sound its different, we can only edit the whole package.
Decoding Listening has to do with awarness be awake and not sleepy. Training is needed to go deeper. We have done some listening test (4006+ 4060 )where we placed the ears exactly at the some spot whre the mics have been. also the mounting of the mic must b so thin as possible. Even the fat 4003 beside the 4060 is a thing in thye way. But for ther recordibng we do we use this rules wit as less plastic metal in the Signal way. Cotton sleeves over cryogenic silverwire, striped off electrolithics, and as big as possible fat Sonneschein akkus. For a player we use  255 AH Thunder. And for clean powersupply 2 phases out of 380 Volt with a transformator.
e

[headroom]

And here on this System Arbelos is my HIFI GURU on his setup we do the lisenting tests.
I dont give my 5 Cent to Audio engenieers, but to the Musicians when they heare themself on this setup . This is the Landmark for me.
But I do read and try to understand from people with ears and not fixed concepts like Barry Diament

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/recording1.htm

System of Arbelos
http://db.AudioAsylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=systems&n=3210&highlight=arbelos&r=

Her we do recordings+ and  a steinway wich was picked fro a bunch of 20 pianos

http://wartegg.ch/index.php?do=kultur&ws=9f96f83442ddef0233cc79fc49531475

AUDIO NIRVANA is here but cost a leg and and arm

http://www.audio-consulting.ch/

Recordings

http://www.boenicke-audio.ch/

My nearfiled Speakers

http://www.eclipse-td.com/e03_concept/mov.html

[headroom]

E or A ?  Wich is wich Microphone ?

[headroom]

Mrre resources...

DPA-4060 vs DPA-4006 The Battle, recording made by Onno and Gaston

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/185724-dpa-4060-vs-dpa-4006-battle-recording-made-onno-gaston.html

Audio In Close Up - Which Lavalier Should I Use? A Comparison of Sixteen Popular Wired Lavalier Microphones

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/lavs_brockett.html

DPA4060 for ensemble + live sound

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/88222-dpa4060-ensemble-live-sound.html

[echo1434]

e: low frequency deeper and warmer (people that don't like that sound might call it slightly muddy), highs seem fairly natural
o: more mid/high clarity, but at the expense of a natural sound....

My guess:
E:DPA
O:943

Well, this was everyone's guess (5 total).

And you may all be surprised to learn that this is wrong!

E = AT
O = DPA

So according to the above post, ATs sound more "natural" than DPAs. 

Anyway, it seems everyone was fairly convinced that "E" was the DPA version — and that DPAs were better with their obviously distinct sound. Well, how about that? 

Alright, I do realize there is *some* difference between the two recordings, but it's really not very significant. And no, I wasn't recording the best-sounding concert ever. But really, how many times is someone in an absolutely perfect situation like that?

I have some other things to say in response to the above comments, but I'll save them for another time. I just thought some people might be hungry for the results.

For me, I really wouldn't care which mics I use for recording a typical rock show. At the moment I'm still using my DPAs as my omni rig, part of the reason simply being because they were my first mics and have more sentimental value to me. But if something went wrong with them, I wouldn't feel the least bit bad for using ATs instead.

[Javier Cinakowski]

Not really a shocker... 

As far as the natural comments go, perhaps the sound at the show really sucked...

[Belexes]

 

I'm glad I have the 943 omni caps.  Thanks for the results.

[audBall]

The 943 omnis were great when I had my set.......fav capsule in the bunch.  It was closely followed by 853 subcards w/ adapter.  I had every cap (except the shotgun) that fit the 943s and the omnis got used more than anything.

[MJ]

AT943 bodies + AT853 Omni caps with adaptors sounds pretty good as well.
I bought adaptors for $15 and AT853 omnis for $50 from other tapers at Yard Sale.  The cheapest but the most noticeable upgrade I’ve ever experienced

[echo1434]

AT943 bodies + AT853 Omni caps with adaptors sounds pretty good as well.
I bought adaptors for $15 and AT853 omnis for $50 from other tapers at Yard Sale.  The cheapest but the most noticeable upgrade I’ve ever experienced

Yep, I imagine that would be a nice setup too. I have the AT853 subcard caps, and they're awesome

The only thing about the 853s is they're kind of big. I really wouldn't want to go any bigger for stealth purposes. But they're manageable...

[Belexes]

The only thing about the 853s is they're kind of big. I really wouldn't want to go any bigger for stealth purposes. But they're manageable...

It's not too bad when you have 943 bodies with the adapters for the larger 853 caps.

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.

[headroom]

Its clear  for me to now.
Everthing exept non Amplified Acustic type the ATs are great great Miks!
Cheap and clever,  Modular good fat rich sound. But still I say its a big difference in the Sound between DPA and AT. Its not day and night, I was to sharp. But its no way nearly the same sound.

MT830R Omnidirectional Condenser Lavalier Microphone
But this have better specs for quieter sounds S/N 70 db and  19mV Output

[illconditioned]

^^^ 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.

Oh yeah, where's the banjo . Maybe I'm too burnt out for rock and roll.

  Richard

[MJ]

The only thing about the 853s is they're kind of big. I really wouldn't want to go any bigger for stealth purposes. But they're manageable...

It's not too bad when you have 943 bodies with the adapters for the larger 853 caps.

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.

If you have both of AT943s and AT853, you might have an idea how it sounds.
With AT943s you could get a very clean mid high but not much low end while you could get far more low but not much clear mid-high with AT853s.  So you get AT943 bodies & AT853 caps, you can get a very clean mid-high with a lot more low ( not as much as those of AT853 bodies & caps).

Here is samples for you.  I know these are not best recordings but it might give you an idea.

(1)   AT943s bodies + AT853 omni caps > Denecke PS2 > Sony DAT TCD-D100
https://www.yousendit.com/download/WnBRK3BLa0RRR2ZIRGc9PQ
(2)   DPA4061 > Church Audio Pre > Korg Mr-1
https://www.yousendit.com/download/WnBRK3BLa0RrYUNGa1E9PQ

(1)   AT943s bodies + AT853 card caps (XY)> Church Audio Pre > Korg Mr-1
https://www.yousendit.com/download/WnBRK3BLa0RwTVZMWEE9PQ

(2)   Audix M1280 card (XY) > Fostex FR-LE2 Oade HD Mod
https://www.yousendit.com/download/WnBRK3BLa0RWRDkzZUE9PQ

I turned up the volume but did not EQ nor normalize the sound volume of these recordings.  No compression nor no EQ.

[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!