Topic: DPA Stereo Recording Comparisions - archived from old website

[voltronic]

There was a great resource available on the old DPA website where the same performance of a pro chamber choir was recorded with various mics and configs. It was taken down for some inexplicable reason when DPA redesigned their site several years ago, but I found that I had saved a PDF of the page and all of the FLAC files back in 2015. You can download the entire thing here:

https://mega.nz/folder/rzphXKaR#M-rtRGvsekWOsBP2TJtwtw

Note that I added a couple files of my own: 4a was my attempt to match the 4060 as close as I could to the 4006 with EQ, and 4b was the same thing but done with iZotope RX EQ Match. I did this a long time ago and could probably do better now, but you'll get the idea.

[EmRR]

I remember seeing this, good save!

[SMsound]

I found that I had saved a PDF of the page and all of the FLAC files back in 2015. You can download the entire thing here:

^^Great save! I found this and the Schoeps website sampler to be really helpful a number of times.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks, trying to recall exactly what was in there.  I'll try downloading via a different browser at home tonight at home, as its not working with Chrome on this computer.

Note that I added a couple files of my own: 4b was my attempt to match the 4060 as close as I could to the 4006 with EQ, and 4b was the same thing but done with iZotope RX EQ Match. I did this a long time ago and could probably do better now, but you'll get the idea.

Typo there? Is the first manually EQ matched version 4a?

[voltronic]

Thanks, trying to recall exactly what was in there.  I'll try downloading via a different browser at home tonight at home, as its not working with Chrome on this computer.

Note that I added a couple files of my own: 4b was my attempt to match the 4060 as close as I could to the 4006 with EQ, and 4b was the same thing but done with iZotope RX EQ Match. I did this a long time ago and could probably do better now, but you'll get the idea.

Typo there? Is the first manually EQ matched version 4a?

Whoops, yes.

[SMsound]

There was a great resource available on the old DPA website where the same performance of a pro chamber choir was recorded with various mics and configs. It was taken down for some inexplicable reason when DPA redesigned their site several years ago, but I found that I had saved a PDF of the page and all of the FLAC files back in 2015. You can download the entire thing here:

https://send.zcyph.cc/download/05e4c04ff052b93d/#LwW96bGM40wTuhTHAfkWtA

This link expires after 100 downloads or 365 days, but I will gladly share it again if it becomes unavailable.

Could I ask you to renew the link? Recording a small concert tonight and realized that I no longer have a local copy -- still kicking around ideas for which arrays I'll run with tonight...

[mterry]

Double bump

[voltronic]

Uploaded to a permanent share in OP and below. Fun fact: you can play FLAC files on MEGA without downloading.

https://mega.nz/folder/rzphXKaR#M-rtRGvsekWOsBP2TJtwtw

[Gutbucket]

Excellent. Thanks voltronic.

FYI for anyone curious about extending the above comparison to include a couple stereo microphone arrays consisting of more than two microphones-

I think it was this DPA web page (although could've been a similar set of samples once hosted at the Schoeps site) that previously allowed for streaming of more than one set of stereo pair samples simultaneously and in sync.  That made for an excellent way of additionally comparing two of the most commonly used four channel stereo microphone array configurations used by tapers: AB + X/Y in the center; and AB + ORTF in the center. 

Folks downloading this file set can do the same by loading all of these 2-channel stereo files into your multitrack editor of choice, each as a separate stereo track, making certain the start of all files are aligned, and soloing the pair (or combined pairs) of interest.  Switch between pairs by switching soloing between the various tracks.  Solo both an AB set and XY set at the same time to hear a four channel configuration of X/Y cardioids placed in the center between AB omnis.  Mute that X/Y pair and solo an ORTF pair along with an AB pair to hear the combination of ORTF in the middle between AB omnis.

As I recall, this provided a good example of the AB+XY sound, which is the primary four channel stereo arrangement I recommend to tapers wishing to try running more than two microphones with the intention of mixing them to 2-channel stereo.  It also made it easy to swap the XY pair in the center for an ORTF pair to compare those two different 4-channel arrays, as well as comparing these 4-channel configurations against the 2 and 3-channel configurations as provided (AB, ORTF, XY and Decca Tree). 

Listen, make up your own mind and decide for yourself.  When I originally did this years ago it confirmed my general preference for ORTF over XY when used by themselves, yet for XY in the center over ORTF in the center when used in combination with AB spaced omnis. Recognizing that I frequently recommend AB+XY here at TS as the first go-to 4-channel microphone configuration interested folks should try, this is an easy way to clearly hear the differences and get a general impression via a well made comp that eliminates most extraneous variables.

[Gutbucket]

I plan to download and do that listening test again to check my memory and biases!

Here are a few other combinations I did not try way back when, which may be informative:

ORTF + XY in the center (my take on this is that ideally a standard near-spaced pair such as ORTF, DIN, NOS, etc, should be spaced twice as wide when a single microphone or coincident pair is used in the center.  Without doubling that spacing this arrangement may or may not work as well as it could)

AB + ORTF + XY (this is somewhat similar to the primary 6-channel configuration I recommend, but likely not similar enough to work correctly for the same reasons as above but with even more potential complications.  Ideally the ORTF pair should be spaced twice as wide, and the AB pair two to three times as wide as it is here).

Decca tree + XY (except for the presence of the center omni of the decca tree, this would be closer to the four channel configuration I most recommend due to the omnis being spaced wider.  The presence of the center omni would probably not pose a problem except for it being positioned 30cm forward of the X/Y pair rather than being coincident with it, which may create some problems here.  If truly coincident with the XY pair, the presence of the omni would simply change the XY cardioids into something more like XY subcards).

For reference, the baseline 4 microphone array I most recommend is AB omnis spaced ~1-2 meters apart with a coincident center pair (MS preferred over XY) placed about 20cm forward of the omnis.  When omnis are not appropriate, substitute a directional pair for the omnis, spaced about 60cm and angled +/-45deg, or angle them PAS and adjust the spacing between them based on the resulting angle - increasing spacing for a PAS angle narrower than +/- 45 deg.

[voltronic]

I did exactly those sorts of comparisons with these tracks when I first grabbed these files a few years back. Very informative.

For my ears, I don't think ORTF needs much more localization where adding anything in the middle would help. As you say, the outer mics should be wider to use a central x/y. Mixing x/y even at low level with ORTF just makes the sound more mono to my ears - the image starts to collapse.

Also, FWIW- the venerable Tony Faulkner in his 4-mic array of 37 or 47 cm wide subcards with flanking 62 cm omnis always advised that the level of the two pairs is almost never equal; one pair or the other will dominate depending on multiple other variables of the room / ensemble / genre / distance / height / etc. Just throwing that out there so people don't hear a weird sound with everything mixed at the same level and thinking a given combination is not going to work. You need to experiment with varying levels of different pairs.

[SMsound]

.

Thanks for the new link!

Also, am I remembering wrong, or did you also post a link a while back to an interactive website where it was possible to click on various stereo arrays recording (maybe) piano in a nice hall recorded with (maybe) DPA's, and it would play the sample? Possibly made in Japan? I was sure I had a link to something like this saved and can no longer find it.

I could swear I had seen something like this in the last year or two.

[voltronic]

This is what you're talking about. It's one of the best comparative recording websites I know of. Mostly done with DPA mics, some Schoeps also. The Experiment of Recording category is what you're looking for.

http://kazuyanagae.com/

[SMsound]

This is what you're talking about. It's one of the best comparative recording websites I know of. Mostly done with DPA mics, some Schoeps also. The Experiment of Recording category is what you're looking for.

http://kazuyanagae.com/

^^Awesome -- that's the one -- thanks!

[Gutbucket]

I did exactly those sorts of comparisons with these tracks when I first grabbed these files a few years back. Very informative.

For my ears, I don't think ORTF needs much more localization where adding anything in the middle would help. As you say, the outer mics should be wider to use a central x/y. Mixing x/y even at low level with ORTF just makes the sound more mono to my ears - the image starts to collapse.

Also, FWIW- the venerable Tony Faulkner in his 4-mic array of 37 or 47 cm wide subcards with flanking 62 cm omnis always advised that the level of the two pairs is almost never equal; one pair or the other will dominate depending on multiple other variables of the room / ensemble / genre / distance / height / etc. Just throwing that out there so people don't hear a weird sound with everything mixed at the same level and thinking a given combination is not going to work. You need to experiment with varying levels of different pairs.

I fully agree on both counts.  I got some strong push back here at TS a few months ago when I posted that ORTF (and other common 2-ch near-spaced stereo configs such as DIN, NOS, etc) is optimized for use as a two microphone stereo configuration and the addition of a third microphone in the center without increasing the spacing and/or angle of the original pair will tend to produce a result that is more center heavy with reduced stereo width at best, and at worst may have constructive/destructive interference effects from the overly correlated microphone channels being summed together.  I'm thinking this might serve as an example of this.  Will need to give a listen.

And yes, adjustment of the relative level of each pair in the mix represents the minimal amount of mixing work needed and is critical to a good outcome.  Loading the files into an multitrack editor makes that easy in this comparison.  More advanced mixing approaches for things recorded this way might include corrective EQ of each individual pair, overall EQ of the resulting sum of the two sources, and beyond that, EQing the two slightly differently in a differential way such that one contributes more in a particular range than the other. 

Also, am I remembering wrong, or did you also post a link a while back to an interactive website where it was possible to click on various stereo arrays recording (maybe) piano in a nice hall recorded with (maybe) DPA's, and it would play the sample? Possibly made in Japan? I was sure I had a link to something like this saved and can no longer find it.

This one?
http://kazuyanagae.com/

[Edit- oops, ignore that last part, I was in mid post and walked away for a bit as the last two posts above were made]