Topic: Gear comp: DPA 4060 / Church-Audio CA-1 (& Edirol R-09 / Tascam Dr2d)

[Gutbucket]

Informal comparison between these mics and recorders.
Multiple files, all encoded as high rate MP3s.

Sendspace link

The information below is copied from the reame.txt file included in the zipped download with the mp3s.  It tells you pretty much all you need to know.  Let me know what you all hear.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of DPA 4060 and Church Audio CA-1
                           -and-
Comparison of Edirol R-09 and Tascam DR2d

July 2010


Details:

Gear configuration:
Both pairs of mics co-located, A-B spaced ~16", ~7' from musicians.
CA-1 bodies touching 4060s with capsules facing the same direction (angled outwards slightly).
4060's with short grid installed.  No windscreens. Mics were in the same location for all segments.

Identical Church Audio CA-UGLY preamps used for each mic pair.

Each mic pair was recorded using a different recorder, the recorders were switched between sets (parts 1 and 2).
Line input was used on both recorders, levels were adjusted to be similar.

Part 1 includes four music sections.
Part 2 incluedes three music sections.
Each section has two files, one for each mic/recorder pair.


 
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Proper comparison between microphones (and proper comparison between recorders) can only be made between parts 1 and 2, selecting segments recorded with the same signal chain. This means listening to the same mics into different recorders (or different mics into the same recorder) on different music segments. In this case the only variables that change are the mics and the music segment, or the recorders and the music segment.

Example:
If comparing the same mics into different recorders,
these files:
2010-07-11_01_tTG_01 (4060-CAugly-DR2d)
2010-07-11_01_tTG_02 (4060-CAugly-DR2d)
2010-07-11_01_tTG_03 (4060-CAugly-DR2d)
2010-07-11_01_tTG_04 (4060-CAugly-DR2d)

can be compared with these files:
2010-07-11_02_tTG_01 (4060-CAugly-R09)
2010-07-11_02_tTG_02 (4060-CAugly-R09)
2010-07-11_02_tTG_03 (4060-CAugly-R09)


Comparing identical music segments from the same set (within part 1 or within part 2) introduces the extra variable of different mics into different recorders.  This is interesting in listening for the interaction of each mic with each recorder- how well the gear works together and complements each other or not.  However it is not a good way to compare microphones or compare recorders because of the extra gear variable introduced.

Example:
Comparing the same music clips from part 1, both the mics and recoder used changes:
2010-07-11_01_tTG_01 (4060-CAugly-DR2d)
2010-07-11_01_tTG_01 (CA1-CAugly-R0901)



SECOND IMPORTANT NOTE:
The files were recorded with approximately the same signal level but the resulting files have NOT been acurately level matched.  Very small differences in playback level are proven to strongly influence a listener's subjective response. Be aware of this. This is was a quick and dirty comp (even though it's taken a bit of effort to explain it).  I suggest adjusting playback level subjectively for each section until the level sounds right, and taking the potential level difference into consideration.



LESS IMPORTANT NOTE:
This recording is nothing special in itself, it was an informal performance. The bass was weak at the venue and that is reflected on the recording (it does not reflect a response roll-off of the equipment). A small doumbek was used as kick drum and sounds a bit boxy, just like it did live.

Venue: outdoor patio, no PA (sounds of small birds, fire truck, chatter)

Jazz trio:
left- electric semi-holowbody Gibson > small fender amp
center back- acoustic upright bass > small Gallen Kruger amp (facing away into a corner)
right- drum kit & percussion (small doumbek substituted for kick)

[live2496]

I listened only to the first two.
4060 > CA Ugly > Dr2d
CA > Ca Ugly > R09

Normalized to 50% in Samplitude just to get a matched level.

Hardly any difference. Listening on speakers I thought that the low end seemed a little more evident on the 4060's. But it was so close that I wasn't sure.
I couldn't tell any difference on Super-Fi earbuds.

A frequency trace in Har-Bal revealed two differences. Since you might be looking for opinions I will reserve that observation for later.

Both mic capsules to me seemed quite comparable at this recorded level.

[acidjack]

As you point out, this was probably not the most challenging test of these mics music-wise (it's mostly electric guitar, which seems fairly easy to capture, and the bass was, as noted, somewhat muted).

But I have to admit, between the two mics, I could hear very little difference.  Certainly not 10x the price difference, I have to admit.  And I'm a big fan of my 4061s.  I would love to see the comp done on some loud rock music or a jazz group with more instruments to see if I still felt the same way.

Thanks for the comp-- very interesting.

[adrianf74]

As you point out, this was probably not the most challenging test of these mics music-wise (it's mostly electric guitar, which seems fairly easy to capture, and the bass was, as noted, somewhat muted).

But I have to admit, between the two mics, I could hear very little difference.  Certainly not 10x the price difference, I have to admit.  And I'm a big fan of my 4061s.  I would love to see the comp done on some loud rock music or a jazz group with more instruments to see if I still felt the same way.

Thanks for the comp-- very interesting.

+1.

I just listened on my crap Altec Lansing speakers at work and they sound very similar.  Maybe the mids are a little more pronounced on the 4060 recording but I'd like to hear something louder/"rawk-ier" to hear what the similarities are.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the input guys.  I'll withhold my thoughts for a few days to let some others listen first. 

I listened only to the first two.
4060 > CA Ugly > Dr2d
CA > Ca Ugly > R09

I've noticed the two recorders sound somewhat different (as do the mics).  It's subtle, but one mic-recorder combinination sounds more similar to me than the opposite combination as two variables somewhat offset each other.  The filesets you mention above is the more similar sounding pairing to my ear.

[MJ]

I did the same kind of comparison between these mics; Audix micro, Church Audio Omni and DPA4061.

Recorded rock show from 11 rows in the center block at the music hall with very good acoustics and excellent sound system.  Three mics were placed side by side with capsules facing the same direction (angled at 60°)….in my hat.  Yes recorded in stXXlth situation with no windscreens nor t-bar.  It might not be the best comp but it might help our fellow tapers learn about these mics.

So here are the links for the sample recordings.

Audix Micro Card Caps with CA-11 bodies >Church Audio Pre（HBF OFF/Full Gain)＞M-10（Rec Level 6)/ Volume Normalized by Sound Forge
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YN8UM9YS

DPA 4061 >Sound Professionals Power Module(bass roll-off on by 69khz)＞Mr-1(Rec Level -6) / Volume Normalized by Sound Forge
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=G5PF6YNU

CA Omni >Church Audio Pre（HBF On/Full Gain)>MR-10 (Rec Level -6) / Volume Normalized by Sound Forge
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Q2QD6BRT

Each file has the same three songs performed by the rock band called Asia; acoustic guitar solo, slow song, regular rock tune.

[live2496]

With Har-Bal the frequency trace showed equal energy all across the response curve except for 2 places. The dpa mic was about 4 db louder at 29 hz and 6db louder at 14kHz.

I also listened with recorders switched. My conclusion was that the capsules sound very close to each other in this particular test.

[listener2]

Hi GutBucket, I listened to your samples and to me I like the DPA-4060's sound on either recorder.  They both sound good but to me the DPA's sounded like the highs were a bit more prominent and gave the recording some transparency and aire.  It also seemed to have a better redition of the lower bass frequencies to me.  The CA1's had a more pronounced midrange bump that sort of muddied the transparency, the highs are there but being more reticent.  I don't know which one however more accurately portrayed the real live sound.  They both sound good, but to me the DPA 4060's sound had less fatigue factor for long term listening.  I guess it all depends on what playback system and speakers frequency response one listens to it on also.  So take my observations with a grain of salt.  But one thing for sure, from anyone's playback gear, the DPA 4060's have more highs and bass emphasis than the CA1's in these recording samples.

[Gutbucket]

The samples sound more similar than I expected.  I hear differences though. 

Mostly more extention at both ends of the frequency spectrum with the 4060s.  That agrees with live2496's spectrum analysis and isn't overly suprising.  More transparencey in the 4060s but I can't say if that's not simply due to the response differences or something more.  Makes me think it might be interesting to use the averaged frequency curve matching capabilities of a spectum sampling EQ like Har-Bal to align the response curves and see how closely they compare at that point. I don't think that would necessarily make them sound identical however..

An important measure of a mic for me is how much EQ correction the recording can gracefully withstand in correcting for a less than ideal response.  I'm not sure if that ability is due to the mic's signal to noise ratio, the particular shape or general smoothness in response or what.  I haven't had the opportunity to see how well the CA-1's hold up to the 4060s there, but the DPAs have been less problematic than many other mics for me in that respect.  Overall I prefer the 4060s, and will use them for most serious recordings. I'm glad I own them and feel the results I get from them are worth their price, yet the CA-1s sound very good in comparison while being incredibly inexpensive.  Their size, cost, sound, side address format and PIP all fit well with some surround recording ideas I want to explore, so it's an easy decision for me to order more CA-1s and have identical mics to play around with affordably. 

I didn't expect to hear much difference in the recorders.  I hear more energy in the highs of the Edirol, and more of a smoothness in the Tascam.  Neither objectionable, but the smoothness of the Tascam works well with the extension of the 4060s.  The Edirol comes off sounding a tad brighter, with something like a subtle saturation-like, enhaced top, which could be attractive for some recordings and complements the CA-1s but could spark disaproval in those who find the DPAs fatiguing.  In a couple other recongs I've made with the Tascam I've noticed what seems to be a smoother soundstage.  There are other things I like better about the Edirol, but the much newer Tascam wins for sound.

As I see it all these are subtle, only notice by comparison or long listening things on these mediocre recordings.

Thanks for listening and commenting.

[live2496]

One thing to consider is that the extension of the highs on the DPA could be attributed to the use of the grid.

Also since the differences in capsules are on the extreme ends of the spectrum (for we humans) it probably is easier to hear using a fairly loud level on speakers.

Har-bal can be used to visually get some idea of the amount of eq correction needed to match two signals. I agree with you that both capsules have their unique sound signature and eq correction can just make them sound more similar but not identical.

Thanks for posting the samples!

[Gutbucket]

One thing to consider is that the extension of the highs on the DPA could be attributed to the use of the grid.

Very true, I neglected to mention that influence.  However since that's how I always use them, that is my 'standard' 4060 configuration.

I did the same kind of comparison between these mics; Audix micro, Church Audio Omni and DPA4061.

Thanks for posting this.  FYI for anyone listening, the Audix sample is channel reversed compared to the other two.

[aaronji]

One thing to consider is that the extension of the highs on the DPA could be attributed to the use of the grid.

Very true, I neglected to mention that influence.  However since that's how I always use them, that is my 'standard' 4060 configuration.

DPA says the bump in the highs from the soft boost grid is 3 dB (and from the frequency response graph, it looks like it peaks at 14 kHz) and in live2496's previous post he measured 6 dB (also at 14 kHz).  Assuming that those are reasonably accurate, it seems like the grid might not explain the whole difference.

Thanks for posting this, Gutbucket...Personally, I preferred the DPAs; they seemed a little more detailed to me, in addition to the differences in the highs and lows.  I couldn't really hear the difference, though, until I finally got around to playing them through the home system at some volume.  If you get the chance, I would love to hear similar comparisons with some more challenging music...

[Gutbucket]

I hear you, yet the definition of challenging is relative. These samples obviously say nothing about how the mics perform at high SPL levels, from farther back in a big room, or with harmonically dense and complex material- all challenging.  But recording delicate acoustic details like the brushwork on the snare and un-amped cymbals is an entirely different and revealing challenge.  Similarly, the ambient off-axis respose is often better tested with less loud acoustic material, where you can listen for the natrualness of the background sounds (in this case the birds, the bakery door opening, people passing by, the fire-truck, etc).  Granted, this isn't the greatest recording for any of those aspects, but good enough to get an idea and probably better than most loud SPL stuff to compare how the mics handle those low level transparency issues.  This material is also closer to most of the stuff I record, so those things rank as more important challenges than performance at higher SPL levels for my purposes.

If I record some different material with both pairs I'll post it.  I'd like to see how the basic Panasonic caps compare as well, which are definitely more challenged by distortions at higher SPLs (and noise at lower ones) but sound pretty good at moderate levels.

DPA says the bump in the highs from the soft boost grid is 3 dB (and from the frequency response graph, it looks like it peaks at 14 kHz) and in live2496's previous post he measured 6 dB (also at 14 kHz).  Assuming that those are reasonably accurate, it seems like the grid might not explain the whole difference.

The grid isn't the whole difference, but certainly contributes.  Live measured an ~6dB difference between the two.   Since the DPA has an approximate +3dB shelf response with the short grid, the inference is that the CA-1 sensitivity is ~3dB down from flat at 14kHz.  Chris mentioned that the CA-1's response rolls off at the frequency extremes, so this seems right.

[aaronji]

^^^ You're right: I should have described what I meant by "challenging".  What I had in mind was along the lines of your option three ("harmonically dense and complex material"), to which I might add "with wide dynamic range" and, perhaps, "a bit more going on in the low end"...Put the mics through their paces, so to speak.  I am not really interested in high SPL either, although I would be interested in hearing what happens when they are placed a little further back.  As for acoustic details, the percussion generally, and the cymbals specifically, are where I hear the difference in detail.  The decay on the cymbals is clearer on the DPAs, in my opinion, and the hi-hat and snare both have a bit more presence...
 

DPA says the bump in the highs from the soft boost grid is 3 dB (and from the frequency response graph, it looks like it peaks at 14 kHz) and in live2496's previous post he measured 6 dB (also at 14 kHz).  Assuming that those are reasonably accurate, it seems like the grid might not explain the whole difference.

The grid isn't the whole difference, but certainly contributes.  Live measured an ~6dB difference between the two.   Since the DPA has an approximate +3dB shelf response with the short grid, the inference is that the CA-1 sensitivity is ~3dB down from flat at 14kHz.  Chris mentioned that the CA-1's response rolls off at the frequency extremes, so this seems right.

Yes, that was what I was thinking.  Interesting that Chris mentioned it; I wonder how steep the roll-offs are...Any idea?

[Church-Audio]

I hear you, yet the definition of challenging is relative. These samples obviously say nothing about how the mics perform at high SPL levels, from farther back in a big room, or with harmonically dense and complex material- all challenging.  But recording delicate acoustic details like the brushwork on the snare and un-amped cymbals is an entirely different and revealing challenge.  Similarly, the ambient off-axis respose is often better tested with less loud acoustic material, where you can listen for the natrualness of the background sounds (in this case the birds, the bakery door opening, people passing by, the fire-truck, etc).  Granted, this isn't the greatest recording for any of those aspects, but good enough to get an idea and probably better than most loud SPL stuff to compare how the mics handle those low level transparency issues.  This material is also closer to most of the stuff I record, so those things rank as more important challenges than performance at higher SPL levels for my purposes.

If I record some different material with both pairs I'll post it.  I'd like to see how the basic Panasonic caps compare as well, which are definitely more challenged by distortions at higher SPLs (and noise at lower ones) but sound pretty good at moderate levels.

DPA says the bump in the highs from the soft boost grid is 3 dB (and from the frequency response graph, it looks like it peaks at 14 kHz) and in live2496's previous post he measured 6 dB (also at 14 kHz).  Assuming that those are reasonably accurate, it seems like the grid might not explain the whole difference.

The grid isn't the whole difference, but certainly contributes.  Live measured an ~6dB difference between the two.   Since the DPA has an approximate +3dB shelf response with the short grid, the inference is that the CA-1 sensitivity is ~3dB down from flat at 14kHz.  Chris mentioned that the CA-1's response rolls off at the frequency extremes, so this seems right.

The ca-1 is pretty flat at 20k. Remember when comparing mics and looking at raw recorded wavs of two different mics placement differences of 2 mm can make a huge difference in mic to mic response curves above 10k... The low end roll off is 100hz at 6 db per octave roughly.

Chris

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the response data, Chris.

I do notice some directionality in the highest frequency regions with both of these mics.  They were mounted with the bodies touching, pointed in the same direction and gaffer taped down.  Angles were very close but could be off enough to hear.  Orienting them identically is a slight challenge since the 4060 with grid is end addressed, the CA-1 side addressed.

Both pairs were pseudo boundary mounted on small curved baffles at an ~ +/-45 degree mic angle..


..that is to say gaffer taped to the hard toes of old-school leather hiking boots, cables run through the laces- the most effective format for this venue to get them close to the souce without interference from surrounding objects or passing bakery patrons.  For other more inspired and energetic dates with a better balance between instrument levels, this unorthodox front row technique has been a cream puff, or a chocolate croissant if you'd prefer.