Topic: DPA 4023 vs beyerdynamic CK930 | an informal comparison

[lastubbe]

19v on the Tekkeon.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I once posted a comp here of an outdoor Umphreys show comparing my C4 > minime to 4022 > v3.  They sounded really close.  The 4022 brought a bit more bottom (though I've always felt the v3 has a bit of rolloff built in).  Are the 4022 and c4 close?  Not really... But I don't think you hear the difference so much at an outdoor show, where the great off-axis response of the 402x isn't as apparent.

That's funny (not ha ha funny, but "interesting" funny).  You say you did a comp, and that the results sounded very close to each other.  but based then, based on what I assume are biases not related to the comparison, you still thought/think the 4022 and the C4 aren't close in sound.

Let me be clear - I am not picking at methodology or anything like that.  Just asking questions about what makes recordings sound different.  We haven't had nearly enough comps lately, and this was a fun one.

No doubt - the C4 is an amazing value, and I made some excellent recordings with it.  But sometimes, it's limitations are glaringly apparent (pun sorta intended).  I've never owned or run the 402x, but consider them comparable to mics I do own - gefells and schoeps.   So, no, I don't consider the C4's to be close.  And I wouldn't say that opinion is due to bias, but rather experience.  The c4's limitations will pop up and produce unfavorable results with some regularity.  Unfortunately, you don't typically know if you're in that situation until after the fact.  So you often get very good results, but rarely great results.

Listener fatigue is one of those weird things that's really subjective.  But, boy, I hear it and it's real.  Is it distortion, off-axis issues, smearing of some frequencies.. Not sure.  Linn audio often talked about "toe tapping" quality to music  reproduction - does something sound "musical".   I find great subcards and omni sources are far more musical, and natural than most card sources.  It takes really great cards to compare.

With my C4's cards, I started liking my 4061's a lot more and ran the C4's less and less.

under a pavilion roof (like the comp posted in this thread).  Sure, there were no back walls to reflect sound, but off-axis response certainly comes into play with reflections off the roof.

That roof is a killer!  Plus weird reflections off the metal grandstands in back.  I only recorded there once and I was not happy with the result.  It was one of my worst recordings in a long while.

The sonosax I was running (beyerdynamic CK930) was being powered by two internal 9V batteries.  Lenny has a tekkeon to power his, but I'm not sure what voltage setting it was set to.

My impression from the factory comments is that anything less than 24volts (I think that was it) will reduce the headroom of the sax.  Whether that is true, and whether the reduction is significant, are questions to be answered.

Another thought.. How hot was each recording?  I don't think we've comp'd that question nearly enough.  I owned a 722 and never found out whether it sounded best at 0 db gain line in or -6.  Some people ran it -6, I ran it at 0. I think a lot of preamps will distort when their outputs are run *that* hot (assuming the 7xx is driven close to 0dbFS).  We tend to focus on peak db, but I think rms is also important when discussing level based issues.

[rastasean]

Another thought.. How hot was each recording?

You can download the unedited recordings directly from this comp.

In your experience, what is the best way to do a comparison of mics, pre-amps, recorders, cables?

[acidjack]

^^ I'd guess the answer to that is:

1. Keep everything as close together as possible other than mics - meaning pre and a/d.  Cables and bit bucket.. eh.
2. Keep the pattern and location of the mics as tight and comparable as possible.
3. Try and keep the basic level of the recording the same.

You obviously want to use an HQ pre or pres as well, or you encounter a situation where the pre significantly colors the sound of one mic.

IMO, if I were trying to run one as closely as possible, I'd try to do something like running the mics directly into a 744 - that way you'd have a nice HQ pre, and exactly the same everything else assuming you kept the levels close at the show. 

I think this comp is pretty great - but I'm not one of the people who is an absolute stickler about such things.  None of these are done in a controlled environment anyway - this is a recording of an outdoor PA system under a shed.  They can only tell you so much.  But still, they are really interesting, and informative to what most of us do.

[JasonSobel]

Interesting results so far.

Currently, of the 9 votes.  5 prefer source A, 4 prefer source B.

Of the 5 who preferred source A, 4 thought that A was the DPA 4023, and only 1 thought that A was the beyerdynamic CK930.
of the 4 who preferred source B, 2 thought that B was the DPA 4023, and 2 thought that B was the beyerdynamic CK930.

spoiler alert... answers below...

.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Source A = beyerdynamic CK930
Source B = DPA 4023

[acidjack]

Ha! Interesting. And I was wrong again nice comp. And vote of confidence in the beyers

[ziko]

I preferred B and did not read this thread until i did the test. I was right on my guess B=dpa. one thing i noticed on A is it picked up something in the 15K area. it has a line throughout all sections. i would also suspect it was recorded with lower levels. interesting comp-thanks

[it-goes-to-eleven]

This settles it - 402x's suck! 

I preferred B and did not read this thread until i did the test. I was right on my guess B=dpa. one thing i noticed on A is it picked up something in the 15K area. it has a line throughout all sections. i would also suspect it was recorded with lower levels. interesting comp-thanks

Just took a look and I see what you mean.  Not only is there a distinct band of gunk at 15K on source B, there is a pattern on the fft over the high frequencies that is typical of power supply regulator induced pre-amp noise.  Could be something else, but that's my guess.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the comp. Voted last week but didn't post.

As I've stated previously in other treads, after listening initially for differences between the raw recordings, what I usually end up focusing on in the end is not necessarily which is the better sounding as is, but rather which is more easily 'correctable' to something that sounds the most musical, 'toe-tapping' and engaging.

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).

Listener fatigue is one of those weird things that's really subjective.  But, boy, I hear it and it's real.  Is it distortion, off-axis issues, smearing of some frequencies.. Not sure.  Linn audio often talked about "toe tapping" quality to music  reproduction - does something sound "musical".   I find great subcards and omni sources are far more musical, and natural than most card sources.  It takes really great cards to compare.

QFT.

[page]

Listener fatigue is one of those weird things that's really subjective.  But, boy, I hear it and it's real.  Is it distortion, off-axis issues, smearing of some frequencies.. Not sure.  Linn audio often talked about "toe tapping" quality to music  reproduction - does something sound "musical".   I find great subcards and omni sources are far more musical, and natural than most card sources.  It takes really great cards to compare.

QFT.

+1

That roof is a killer!  Plus weird reflections off the metal grandstands in back.  I only recorded there once and I was not happy with the result.  It was one of my worst recordings in a long while.

troof.

I hear the metal roof (or something really metalic) in the tape I did there and some of the others. It's not impossible to make a great tape from the OTS there, but it's really hard with anything less restrictive in pattern then a set of cards.

Another thought.. How hot was each recording?  I don't think we've comp'd that question nearly enough.  I owned a 722 and never found out whether it sounded best at 0 db gain line in or -6.

In this case it's moot, the sax officially clips at +20dbu which is 0db for line-in gain on the 7 series. Now, the voltage feeding the sax will influence that, but In my experience, 19v from a regulated power supply gets you +20dbu give or take 0.5dbu in either direction. 16v drops that by about 1, maybe 2db. Since Jason used 9v's one would think he would be penalized as the set wore on, but the 661 has a max line-in that is around +16dbu IIRC, so he had to run it lower anyway, thus not missing the headroom nearly as much as Lenny would have.

I preferred B and did not read this thread until i did the test. I was right on my guess B=dpa. one thing i noticed on A is it picked up something in the 15K area. it has a line throughout all sections. i would also suspect it was recorded with lower levels. interesting comp-thanks

Just took a look and I see what you mean.  Not only is there a distinct band of gunk at 15K on source B, there is a pattern on the fft over the high frequencies that is typical of power supply regulator induced pre-amp noise.  Could be something else, but that's my guess.

yes, I get that on my ck930 recordings as well, it's not the sax, I've tested it with my 722 a couple weekends ago while doing nature recording. I've also played with it and I don't hear it unless I isolate the frequency band and turn it up loud. It's low enough in the recording that I'm not real worried about it.

[lastubbe]

I gave Jason my impressions on email before he posted the results, and even I was surprised.  I was totally wrong in guessing my source was A!  When listening to the AB comparison quickly on the headphones, I preferred A (Jason's).

I gave myself very little credit in the brightness of the recording, instantly giving Jason credit for that as in most cases when I go against Schoeps, Neumanns, AKGs or whatever, I find I don't often have the nice highs that other recordings do, but I usually love how my recordings feel on the low and mid end of things, and how the mics capture that end of the sound spectrum.

Pretty cool revelation.

My final impressions are that I'm really happy with how both recordings came out, and not only is it nice, but very educational to run these little comps to really appreciate the different flavors each of our gear chains offer in these types of recording settings.

Nice job Jason!

[rastasean]

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?

[L Ron Hoover]

Well, I was the one person.

To me, these mics sound more like my MG300's than any other.

The DPA "clinical" sound stands out to me like a sore thumb for some reason.

I was somewhat confident that I nailed it.

BTW great comparison!

[newplanet7]

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

[Brian Skalinder]

Recording mono is a fine idea, but I wouldn't find it very useful.  To really evaluate a mic, I find I need to hear a stereo configuration.  Without a stereo configuration, I don't have a sense for how the mic's off-axis frequency response contributes to the overall stereo imaging, reverberant sound attenuation, etc.  I, for one, am not capable of listening to a mono source and envisioning in my mind's eye how it would perform in a stereo configuration.  And since I'm interested in how a mic performs in stereo, a mono comp wouldn't do me much good.