Topic: Blind Listening Test of Two Popular Microphones

[jes1982]

In the tradition of the Downbeat blindfold test, and if y'all are interested, I invite your thoughts on these two mics.  Here, the tapers were sitting directly next to each other in a theater with microphones at a nearly identical height.  I've provided samples of Microphone A and Microphone B capturing the same performance of two different groups, and I tried to keep the levels approximately the same.

I'll confess that my ears aren't trained enough to pick up on the nuances I'm sure people here can identify (hence the idea to share this "test").  I'm in the market for new microphones, so call this research. I'd love to hear what you like and don't like about each mic.

Thank you!

(Below links are to the identical folder; just posting two links in case anyone has a problem with one of the sites.)

WeTransfer (expires on March 13):
https://we.tl/t-FdCAa1zIOy

DropBox:
https://bit.ly/3Tqcm6r

[voltronic]

Piano Trio:

Piano and bass are quite muffled in both captures so they don't give me much info for the comp. But focusing on the drums, Mic A is far superior. It's not close at all. The ride cymbal told me a lot right away, but the drum solo starting at 8:45 confirmed what I was hearing: HUGE difference in clarity of treble, and overall transparency through the full range. I find it interesting that both mic pairs were next to each other. Mic A sounds like it was fairly close to the stage, whereas B sounds like it was distant and underneath thick clothing, with an odd stereo image. I have to ask, were these stealth recordings, and if so, were there significant differences in clothing material covering the mics?

//

Vocals:

The vocals and piano don't tell me much, but the mandolin definitely does, so 4:00 onwards is what I focused on. I strongly suspect that Mic B here is the same as Mic A in the first example, and I'll be quite shocked if I'm wrong because I'm hearing the same things as before. Again, a huge difference to my ears.

//

I have a suspicion about what mics Piano Trio A / Vocal B mics are, but I'll sit on that for now until we get some more responses. Thanks for posting this comp!

[jes1982]

I have to ask, were these stealth recordings, and if so, were there significant differences in clothing material covering the mics?

Thanks for your feedback!  I'll say more later, but, yes, both recordings are stealth, and, no, I didn't think there was a significant difference in obstructions to the mics.

[jes1982]

I have a suspicion about what mics Piano Trio A / Vocal B mics are, but I'll sit on that for now until we get some more responses. Thanks for posting this comp!

I'll identify the microphones on Sunday, so feel free to post your suspicion.

[jes1982]

I strongly suspect that Mic B here is the same as Mic A in the first example, and I'll be quite shocked if I'm wrong because I'm hearing the same things as before. Again, a huge difference to my ears.

And the reveal: Microphone A is Microphone A in both samples.  For both the Piano Trio and the Vocals samples, here are the sources:

Microphone A = Schoeps MK5 (cardioid)
Microphone B = DPA 4061

Regarding stealth technique, the DPA mics were not under anything.  I won't comment on the exact location of the Schoeps mics, but the taper is well known and I never thought his recordings were hindered by any mic obstruction.

What I didn't account for before posting: I'm not certain what post-processing was done on the Schoeps recording.  I assumed just a gain boost, but I could be wrong.  So that's a variable that could affect the comparison.

If you want a visual, the tapers were seated next to each other in the dead center of the 8th row.

[jb63]

This is (sadly) why I demand both sets: Schoeps MK5 (cardioid) & DPA 4061 (omni) when taping. I rarely find a place where I can choose one over the other so I want both. But stealthing does not always allow for 2 complete rigs like that. Which would you choose has been a 5 year dilemma.

[voltronic]

DPA 4061 was what I was suspecting the "better" mics were, because of the treble boost of the stock grids his designed to compensate for being under clothing.

I am truly shocked that mic A is the same in both examples. They sound totally different to my ears.

[jes1982]

I am truly shocked that mic A is the same in both examples. They sound totally different to my ears.

After your initial comment on Wednesday, I double checked to make sure I hadn't mislabeled the files I uploaded.  Verified.

A bit of an aside: when I was viewing the files in an editor, the biggest difference I saw was the dynamics in the Schoeps recording for some of the piano's upper register notes in "Elvis Presley Blues."  In particular, there's a high note at ~7:52 that spikes a lot more in the Schoeps capture.  The screenshots attached don't fully show this because they're not the raw files, but you get some idea.  My ears aren't trained well enough to hear it as well as I can see it.

[kuba e]

Thank you very much for the samples. I listened to it with cheap headphones. I think it depends a lot on the configuration of the microphones - angle, spacing. I would almost say that sometimes the configuration is more important than the polar pattern. I have an ambisonic mic and have been playing around with some onstage recording. The difference in angle of 30 degrees (120 to 150) made quite large difference in clarity in my particular case. Your recording is an audience, so it's a bit different case. But I believe that if the schoeps cardiods are better aimed in the second recording, it would be comparable to omni. And probably you had the omnis clipped on yourself, so they didn't have an omni pattern, but they were also directional. Probably the clarity of the dpa in the first recording could be improved by changing the placement of dpa.


Thanks a lot for this comparison, I'll listen to it at home on a good stereo.

[Chanher]

finally had a night off and listened to the piano trio pretty closely (they were ripping). I read this thread earlier in the week and don't remember what anyone posted, here are my observations:

I heard the piano, then bass, and even the drums mostly to left on both mics. Mic A is brighter to my ears, more upfront. At first I thought that made it better (or preferred), but after switching back and forth I found some appreciation for the darker Mic B, the drums particularly are less harsh and more natural. Kind of an evenness across the frequences on Mic B. Would be fine with either recording, would probably choose Mic B if listening to whole thing.

[Chanher]

What I didn't account for before posting: I'm not certain what post-processing was done on the Schoeps recording.  I assumed just a gain boost, but I could be wrong.  So that's a variable that could affect the comparison.

If you want a visual, the tapers were seated next to each other in the dead center of the 8th row.

Let us know if you are able to confirm any post-processing on the Schoeps source, I'm highly curious. I am surprised, like Voltronic, and I will openly admit I though that source B might be Schoeps mics.

Also did anyone else hear both sources a bit more strong on the left? I hope I don't have a monitor malfunctioning....

[Gutbucket]

I've been meaning to download an listen to this but have not yet had the chance, and unfortunately won't be able to until next week.

Question: Was PA reinforcement used for this performance, or was it just the instruments themselves energizing the room (possibly with a bass amp)?  If not PA reinforced, row 8 is quite far for piano, and acoustic bass too.  Just from looking at the photo, row 8 appears reasonable with PA, but well beyond the critical radius of reverberation without. Can still sound good back there during the performance, but I would expect is to sound better live than in a recording made from the same position.  A non PA amplified recording is likely to benefit from a significantly closer position, where the little bit of direct arriving sound from those highly indirect diffuse-projection instruments isn't swamped by the more significant indirect arriving hall sound.

[jes1982]

Let us know if you are able to confirm any post-processing on the Schoeps source, I'm highly curious. I am surprised, like Voltronic, and I will openly admit I though that source B might be Schoeps mics.

Sorry for the delayed reply; had been out of town and not logging in here.

Unfortunately, the taper with the Schoeps microphones passed away a few years ago and his info file doesn't include any post-processing notes.  My hunch is that a gain boost was the only thing he did with the raw files.

[jes1982]

Question: Was PA reinforcement used for this performance, or was it just the instruments themselves energizing the room (possibly with a bass amp)?  If not PA reinforced, row 8 is quite far for piano, and acoustic bass too.  Just from looking at the photo, row 8 appears reasonable with PA, but well beyond the critical radius of reverberation without. Can still sound good back there during the performance, but I would expect is to sound better live than in a recording made from the same position.  A non PA amplified recording is likely to benefit from a significantly closer position, where the little bit of direct arriving sound from those highly indirect diffuse-projection instruments isn't swamped by the more significant indirect arriving hall sound.

Definitely PA reinforcement for both nights.  I've seen the pianist many, many times, and he almost always has his own sound engineer with him.

[jb63]

Here's a great A/B for you.
Both tapes are unprocessed (outside of the Oade mods in the recorders) and are directly side by side.
Rock show rules apply.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKU8cqIxZyACNogt1eAUDgJvRHG0Ug07/view?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oh2t6a2-11YcEHzacvqJUzkUb2Myw8Nh/view?usp=share_link