Topic: Next step up in omnis from 4061's?

[yates7592]

Perfectly (very) happy with my 4061's. Just dreaming, what would be my options if and when I decide to move up a gear or three in omni mics? They would be  hat-mounted, so mic capsules say 2-3 inch max, XLR input expected, high SPL, low sens. I would be looking for a very noticeable further improvement in sound from my already excellent 4061's. Say up to $2K (new or used)??

[JD]

My vote would be for Nevaton MCE400's. In every comp I did against my DPA 4060's I preferred the Nevatons

http://bigpurpledog.com/category/shop/microphones/nevaton/mce-400

Looks like they are still not making/importing them at this point, They do pop up on the yard sale once in a while...

[yates7592]

^ Thanks but I ran the Nevs and they're not an option again. Also I'm not looking for any more miniatures (I think I tried nearly all of those). Looking at omni's with xlr's and larger caps (but still hattable) that would be a significant step up in sound from 4061's or any of the miniatures.

[Ultfris101]

So you're thinking Schoeps MK2's or something like that? Sounds like you're looking at Nbob actives and some caps type setup or you're set on XLRs? Maybe KCYs and PFA?

4061's are pretty nice. I'm anxiously awaiting responses on this query.

was it you who spurred a long discussion on  'ing with MK41's not long ago? This seems like a familiar topic.

[aaronji]

DPA 4006 caps, with either the compact bodies (4006C) or the MMP-E active cables...

[blg]

I like no longer worrying about the people behind me, so would never only run omnis, but if i wanted the option, i'd get mk5's. 

[Gutbucket]

My unsolicited advice for maximum return on investment, in regards to the sound quality of the resulting recordings?

Keep the 4061's and consider recording four channels.   The improvement in moving to larger, higher quality DC polarized omnis (Schoeps, DPA, whatever) is real but relatively subtle unless in optimal recording situations with optimal mic'ing setups.  In most somewhat compromised headworn situations, those differences will be more subtle.  The improvement you can get by going to 4 channels with the intent of mixing to 2 is not subtle and can directly address problems inherent to the headworn recording technique.
 
Do that either by:
1) Adding a pair of forward facing miniature directional mics, placed coincident with the omnis.  This allows you to either choose between either the forward facing directionals or the head baffled omnis outright, or to mix the two in various interesting ways.  Mix them full range at various ratios and you gain mic pattern control varying between omni (baffled, outward facing) and cardioid or supercardioid forward facing.  Not simply one pattern or the other but fine-tunable to any combination pattern in between, after the fact, by ear to whatever sounds best. You can gain even more control by EQing each differently before mixing them to gain control over pattern by frequency. 

That gives you not only the ability to reduce some of the annoyance of people behind without completely sacrificing the naturalness of omnis, but also the capability of improving on the omnis alone even in an otherwise perfect situation, and more so than switching to higher quality omnis. 

2) Adding a second pair of non-coincident baffled omnis facing forward and backwards PM me for details.

Which is more appropriate depends on the music and venues in which you record.  Either approach offers very real, practical, non-subtle potential quality improvements, but requires increased complication of both the recording setup and the resulting mixdown work.  IME, that is a larger barrier to going this route than cost (either to do this 4 channel thing or to move to a top-shelf omni pair), yet the potential reward is far greater as well, especially in a practical real-world sense.

[jbell]

You might want to check these out!!

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=143514.msg1865454#msg1865454

[yates7592]

was it you who spurred a long discussion on  'ing with MK41's not long ago? This seems like a familiar topic.

Not me.

[yates7592]

4037's (or 4033/4035/4036) look interesting. Not much info out there. Does anybody have any sound samples? Can't find any on Dime or Etree...and TS search function does not seem to be working as it used to, for me at least.

[adrianf74]

You're gonna be hard-pressed, as Gutbucket mentioned, to find a better omni out there than what you have.  I know some people like the Nev MCE400's but, like you, they're not for me, either.   I know I've had this conversation behind closed doors with a bunch of people around these parts because I was looking at CK62's for a while to run with my active setup.  I've since picked up a pair of PFA Actives, as well, but didn't see the value in buying the CK62's over the 4061's (or pretty much all small DECENT omnis -- 853's, CA-11 Series II, CA-14, etc.).   Some of my best pulls with omnis were with the CA-14's, so I wouldn't really move from where you are -- but that's just me and a few other people. 

[Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)]

...what would be my options if and when I decide to move up a gear or three in omni mics?

It's hard to beat the 4060s in flat & extended frequency response and high SPL capacity. So the next step up would be a mic with all the same features plus lower self noise. In a compact (but not miniature) omni microphone I'd recommend the DPA 4006e (with active cable) or 4006C (without).

Either would be hard to beat.

(Disclaimer: We're full line DPA dealers, and big DPA fans too.)

[dogmusic]

I've read some good things about the DPA 2006c.

What about the Line Audio CM3 or OM1? I've been on the fence about buying a pair of those myself.

[aaronji]

I've read some good things about the DPA 2006c.

I have gotten really good results with them.  An excellent "poor" man's substitute for the 4006 (that is DPA poor, though, so still pretty pricey)...Not as good as the 4006, but not that far off either, and quite similar in terms of the "DPA house sound".

[yates7592]

Drooling over the compact/modular 4006's, anybody using these, and have some samples? Are they worth the money?

[adrianf74]

Stop looking already -- there's _always_ gonna be something better out there.  I just seriously doubt the difference in money you're gonna spend is gonna equal that much of an improvement. 

Heck, I thought about AKG CK62 caps (since I don't have them) and ended up with 4061's and CA-11's.  The CK62's didn't make sense financially considering what I spent on the 4061's AND CA-11's.

[acidjack]

Drooling over the compact/modular 4006's, anybody using these, and have some samples? Are they worth the money?

I have no doubt that the 4006 (and the Schoeps MK2) are better than the 4061, considerably so (for one, smoother frequency response). The question is what the intended use would be and how much the improvement would be worth. For the kind of money you're talking about, I'd put money in a better set of cardiods or hypers. Miniature omnis are a lot more comparable to larger omnis than miniature cards/hypers to their larger counterparts.

[yates7592]

Adrianf and acidjack; yes I hear what you're saying, all good advice as usual.  Trouble is for the kind of taping I do, ie always right up front at stage lip,  cards and hypers just don't give me that "being there" feeling when listening back, which is the main reason I tape for   So I'm really only interested in (possibly) adding to my omni arsenal.

[adrianf74]

I think AJ (and Gutbucket before him) said it best in that the gain/improvement is only going to be so much and that the money isn't worth spending.  I've had discussions with both of them in private about this exact situation.  I was never a huge fan of the 4061's (I later figured out that my pair had a 4.7k mod done to them which isn't necessary and is more of a detriment) but came across a deal that couldn't be passed up (as you personally know about).  That said, I'm back to the 4061's, and I'm staying there.  Unless I'm gonna spend $2k+ on omnis (which I'm NOT doing), there's no point in moving to anything else. 

For kicks, the next time my buddy runs his CK62's on-stage (or at the lip), I'm gonna run my 4061's next to them just to hear the difference.  I'm willing to bet I might prefer the 4061's.

[yates7592]

For kicks, the next time my buddy runs his CK62's on-stage (or at the lip), I'm gonna run my 4061's next to them just to hear the difference.  I'm willing to bet I might prefer the 4061's.

I think you're right, the 4061's would win! 
BTW even "if" I did make this mad move, the 4061's are staying.

[yates7592]

I have no doubt that the 4006 are better than the 4061, considerably so (for one, smoother frequency response).

Oh man, I did not need to read this....

[acidjack]

Adrianf and acidjack; yes I hear what you're saying, all good advice as usual.  Trouble is for the kind of taping I do, ie always right up front at stage lip,  cards and hypers just don't give me that "being there" feeling when listening back, which is the main reason I tape for   So I'm really only interested in (possibly) adding to my omni arsenal.

I'm not sure I understand that.  I've run omnis and cardiods and Fig 8 patterns onstage; omnis were consistently my least favorite (especially assuming we're talking about omnis mounted to your person / not spread).

Schoeps MK4V onstage (it's a matrix, but mostly AUD) - http://www.nyctaper.com/2013/09/desert-heat-september-6-2013-three-lobed-recordings-day-show-kings-raleigh-nc-flacmp3streaming/

Same venue, same spot, omnis at 2ft split or so: http://www.nyctaper.com/2012/10/gunn-truscinski-duo-september-7-2012-three-lobedwxdu-day-show-hopscotch-festival-raleigh-nc-flacmp3streaming/

Pretty hard to say the MK4V source isn't "being there" feeling, at least for me. In fact, I'd say it's vastly better.

[Gutbucket]

Nice recordings, those.
(just to be clear, none of what follows really has much to do with those examples)

I find cardioids often provide a sort of upper midrange presence and clarity that omnis often don't.  It's something I like that 'brings the music closer and clearer', I get more direct detail and a shaper focus on the primary subjects of the recording.  It often works much better for compromised listening, yet can work well for uncompromised listening too of course.  I find omnis provide an openness and sense of front/back depth that cards often don't.  It's something I like that 'takes me into that space' and I get more details of the environment in which the music is performed, the distances to the elements in it, and the other stuff going on.  It doesn't work nearly as well with compromised listening, requiring uncompromised listening to be effective.

Of course what I really want is the best of both.

I can sometimes manipulate my omni recordings to get most of the detail and presence I hear in my cardioid recordings.  I don't have the same skills to get the omni aspects out of my cardioid recordings in the same way.  But that may just be my lack of skills.. and there are plenty of situations were omnis simply are not the right choice at all and cardioids are the easily appropriate choice.

Often the best bet for me is using both, not as two separate recordings (although that might at times be wiser and safer), but setup with the intent of combining them.. or an array of cardioids (or supercardioids and cardioids), which taken together 'sample all directions' something like an omni in an overall multiple channel sense.. or ways of using omnis which makes them directional individually, but something like omnidirectional in combination..  or say four omnis not set up to be directional individually, combined to produce something sort of hyper-omnidirectional in a surrealistic and pleasing sort of way.  All different routes to what seems something of a common underlying theme of what I'm looking for in my recordings.

I was an unabashed omni enthusiast before becoming a cardioid and supercardioid enthusiast, and had to invest more to find cardioids of sufficient quality which I was as happy with in comparison to what I could get out of 4060s.   I also think that once I cross a certain threshold of quality, I see more benefit from messing around with unusual setups and combinations of mics and channels than I do from going to ever-higher quality microphones, as long as I approach that complexity in a well-reasoned way.  But part of that is what I choose to record, what opportunities I have to record, and how I go about recording it, which I fully recognize is somewhat atypical.. and inevitably once I do upgrade mics I find it hard to go back, even though it doesn't change that basic quality/verses/increased-dimensional dynamic, and it ever progresses like a spiral down the rabbit hole.

I dig that we don't all listen the same way or value the same things in music and in our recordings of it, or the ways we use it and enjoy it.  Otherwise this place and taping in general wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

[yates7592]

When I said I don't get that "being there" feeling, what I should have said is I generally don't hear (or rather feel) that bottom end thump with cardioids. That's one of the main features I personally look for in a recording. Having said that, I appreciate there would be some advantages to mixing in a card/hyper source to taste in post.

[scb]

Adrianf and acidjack; yes I hear what you're saying, all good advice as usual.  Trouble is for the kind of taping I do, ie always right up front at stage lip,  cards and hypers just don't give me that "being there" feeling when listening back, which is the main reason I tape for   So I'm really only interested in (possibly) adding to my omni arsenal.

When I said I don't get that "being there" feeling, what I should have said is I generally don't hear (or rather feel) that bottom end thump with cardioids. That's one of the main features I personally look for in a recording. Having said that, I appreciate there would be some advantages to mixing in a card/hyper source to taste in post.

you want the dpa wide cards. you just don't know it yet

[Gutbucket]

Those are what I would lust after if I allowed myself the indulgence to do so.. and the likely direction I would go if I was to spend that kind of cash with the idea of moving the DPA ladder from the 406x omnis.

[yates7592]

@ scb and gutbucket:
Which model is the DPA wide card? Is that like some sort of subcard?

[scb]

@ scb and gutbucket:
Which model is the DPA wide card? Is that like some sort of subcard?

4015
http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/products.aspx?c=Item&category=233&item=24401

or the older compact 4026 (rear cable), 4027 (right angle cable), and 4028 (lemo cable)

[Gutbucket]

Yeah, it's somwhere between a cardioid and an omni- 'subcardioid, widecardioid'.. the names are not always precise across manufacturers, even less so than 'supercardioid, hypercardioid'.

The key I think to the 4015 (and other quality sub/widecardioids) is the very well behaved off-axis consistency of the pattern below something like 8-10kHz, providing a very natural and uncolored response for sounds arriving from any direction, yet favoring sound arriving on-axis over sounds arriving from directly behind by about 10dB. 

It's sort of a 'directional omni' in a very consistant way across most of the frequency range.  It has most but not all of the flat bottom octave response of an omni.  I think it's a very interesting compromise.

Here's DPA's published response graph for the 4015. Compare it's 180 degree off-axis response to that of a typical cardioid-


Contrast those graphs with the 4011 cardioid-



And the 4006 omni (shown here with the diffuse field grid)-



The 4015 is somewhere between the two, yet it's polar pattern strikes me as somewhat more similar to the 4006, except for that 10dB front back difference.

[Gutbucket]

Schoeps makes two capsules that are somewhere between a cardioid and an omni-

the MK21 Wide Cardioid-


and the MK22 Open Cardioid (which is more cardioid-ish)-

[Gutbucket]

An interesting thing to me is the nature of the directionality of the DPA 4015 verses the 4006 when the 4006 has an 'Acoustic Pressure Equalizer' installed.  That's a hard ball-like attachment which slips onto the 4006 omni to make it behave more directionally (this only works on a true 'pressure omni'; it wouldn't work on a dual diaphram or dual capsule omni and would block the openings of any side vented directional mic, screwing it all up).

With the ball attchment installed, the 4006 behaves more directionally, but not in the same way as the 4015.  As mentioned before, the 4015 maintains a quite consistant front back difference through most of the frequency range down to the lowest octaves, but I'm sure you noticed it's pattern progressively narrowing on-axis at high frequencies above about 10kHz, and the frequency where that starts to happen is related to the capsule diameter.  A ball attachment placed on a 4006 extends that phenomena somewhat lower down the frequency range.  It doesn't extend the directionality all the way down in an even way like the 4015, instead the pattern changes with frequency down to a few kHz.  It also creates an on-axis boost in the frequency range where it makes the microphone more directional.  DPA makes three different sized ball attachments for the 4006.  This is the response with the largest of the three, which changes the response the most-






In contrast, your 4061s are so small that when mounted in free-space, they are truly omnidirectional to a far higher frequency than omnis with larger diameter diaphrams like the 4006.  But if you mount them on something, or next to something which acts like a baffle, that will significantly change their polar pattern and response.  Here's the polar for the 406x-




I played around with a poor man's DIY version of those APE balls on 4060s about 5 or 6 years back, made from hard-foam balls with a hole through the middle so the microphone capsule is effectively flush with the surface of the sphere-

More on that in the Oddball Mic Techniques thread.  That worked to roughly approximate the polar pattern behaviour of a 2006+50mm APE, but doesn't make it a poor mans 4015.

[Ultfris101]

gutbucket,

That just clicked for me seeing your 4060 in the green ball. So the ball blocks the waves from behind but given that it's spherical they don't get sharply rejected. About right (in a very simplistic way)?

So for curiosity sake, if you replaced the green ball with a disk the same diameter and had the mic in the center of it then it would be more directional? Rejecting more of the rear waves but with the disc being small it's not going to have the boundary mount effect? Maybe more like the mk22 plot above?

And more curiosity, if you shove an SDC omni like an Schoeps mk2 or the 4006 all the way through a nerf softball so it just comes out the other side are you going to start getting something approaching an mk21? and then using a disc get something akin to an mk22?

[Gutbucket]

It blocks the highest frequencies arriving from behind and boosts those arriving on-axis, as determined by the relationship between the wavelength of the sound and the size of the attachment. 

The on-axis boost is the boundary effect, only manifesting over a very small surface area so it only effects the high frequencies as determined by the surface area and shape of the attachment. 

But there is more going on than small baffling and boundary effects.  Sounds from sources off-axis diffract around the attachment and re-combine at the diaphragm.  When the differences in path-length around the attachment correlate closely enough to the wavelength of a frequency, it causes degrees of cancellation which is maximized when the difference in path length corresponds to a 180-degree phase difference (and I suppose reinforcement at 360-degree phase differences and varying combinations between). So those reinforcement/cancelation angles vary with frequency. 

Notice the lobes in the 4006 with APE polar plot above.  They are somewhat similar in appearance to the nulls and lobes in the polar plots of directional mics, but all the lobes are positive polarity, and they shift with frequency, and it’s all happening at upper-mid and higher frequencies. Long enough wavelengths don’t ‘see’ the small attachment so it has no effect below the frequency where the microphone reverts to normal omni behavior.  In the plot above that transition is complete by 1kHz so the 1kHz plot line is a perfectly round circle.  All frequencies below that will also be picked up omni-directionally.  With a smaller ball attachment all that stuff happens at correspondingly higher frequencies.

That’s very different than the way non-pressure omni microphone like a cardioids (or subcards, supercards, figure 8s, etc) derive their directionality.  The directionality of those microphones can be much more frequency independent down to the lowest frequencies.  How frequency independent the directional pattern of any particular microphone is and how little it’s response varies off-axis is all part of the art, science and cost of microphone making.  Take a look at the general trends in shape of the 4011 and 4015 polars (and mk21, mk22) posted above and notice how the pattern isn’t exactly the same across all frequencies, but maintains something of the same shape. Contrast that with the 2006 and the 2006 with APE polars which show directionality at the highest frequencies and a complete transition to omni response below that.  You won’t get anything like the response of a mk21, mk22, mk4, mk21, etc from putting attachments on an omni, instead you will get an omni that shows some directionality (and response differences) only in the upper mid and higher frequencies.

A sphere produces the smoothest response of all attachment shapes because it is the same shape from all angles and has no discontinuities or edges, but attachments can be found in other shapes such as disks and cylinders.  Niant makes (made?) an omni intended for instrument and maybe vocal mic’ing with a detachable wooden disk as do other manufacturers.  A disk produces a more pronounced on-axis boost but a more ragged off-axis response, and the diameter of the disk determines how low in frequency that boost occurs.

The idea of mounting an omni capsule flush in the surface in a spherical housing goes way back to the Neumann M-50, which was used for orchestra mic’ing and was the apparently the favored mic for use with the Decca Tree when that technique was first conceived.  Neumann currently produces a titanium skinned version of that in the M-150 (I think).

[Gutbucket]

Here's a couple graphs showing amplitude reponse ripples corresponding to off-axis defraction around different shaped solids.  These are for speaker drivers mounted in various shaped baffles, but the phenomena is more or less the same for microphones in reverse-

Cylinder, cube, and sphere, from Stan Linkwitz's website-


This only appears to show on-axis response variations, but for various shapes.  It was a sidebar in a Sound on Sound article-

[MIQ]

Hi Gut,

The diffraction graphs are interesting.  Both the ones from Siegfried Linkwitz's site and those from the SOS article can be found, with more info, in Harry Olson's book "Elements of Acoustical Engineering" 1957.  There are PDF scans of it floating around, like here:  http://www.scribd.com/akaliabetsos/d/51369856-olson-1957-I
Check out pages 21-23 (pages 41-43 in the pdf).

As you pointed out, the freqs at which these effects happen are dependent on the size of the shapes.  You can see that the horizontal axis of the graph for spheres is labeled (D/lambda), where D is the diameter of the sphere and lambda is the wave length of sound. 

For spheres you can see that the onset of the on axis freq response boost starts to happen at about D/lambda = 0.1, gets up to +3dB at D/lambda = 0.3, and reaches nearly +6dB at D/lambda = 1.

I'm not very familiar with thinking in terms of wavelength so I made an Excel sheet to help figure out at what frequencies these on axis boosts would occur depending on the diameter of the sphere.  Here's some common sizes for the balls used on Omni mics and also the human head.

Sphere Diameter = 30mm,  Onset of Lift = 1150 Hz,  +3dB Boost @ 3450 Hz,  +6dB Boost @ 11500Hz
Sphere Diameter = 40mm,  Onset of Lift =   860 Hz,  +3dB Boost @ 2560 Hz,  +6dB Boost @   8600Hz
Sphere Diameter = 50mm,  Onset of Lift =   690 Hz,  +3dB Boost @ 2070 Hz,  +6dB Boost @   6900Hz

  Head Diameter =160mm,  Onset of Lift =   215 Hz,  +3dB Boost @   650 Hz,  +6dB Boost @   2150Hz

Looking at the response measurements of the 4006 with these different sized Acoustic Pressure Equalizers (balls) shows similar trends, but they don't achieve the theoretical amount of boost (+6dB).  Not sure why.     I get that reality doesn't always match theory but the responses DPA show fall back to 0dB at very high freqs.  Wonder why?

Miq

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the reference and numbers Miq, that helps a lot.  I can never remember the math describing this stuff so I tend to read what I can find, look for trends, attempt to distill the basic principles of what's going on, and if it's applicable to what I'm doing and easily achievable, try things out and listen to the results.  Thanks for backing up the empirical take with the mathematics describing these effects.

Not sure why the measured boost response isn't quite as much as the model predicts, maybe one of the more knowledgable experts here can comment.  Not sure either about the fall back to 0dB at the highest frequencies, perhaps that is part of the microphone's normal high-end response roll-off?

I'd assume the mathematical decription to fit more closely for the hard plastic balls with the microphone capsules flushmounted in them, and the human head sized approximation much more prone to variation for the way people use them around here, but it's very interesting to see the mathematical prediction for a head-sized sphere.  I think one could find measurement data for the Schoepes KFM spheres that are head-sized with two omnis flush mounted at the opposite poles.

Big water-filled hydrophone sphere attachments for underwater stereo and surround recording from Ambient-

[Gutbucket]

And that takes us pretty far from the original question.
Appologies for the off-tangent!

[Gutbucket]

As long as I've veered this far, how about lots of omnis arrayed over the surface of a very big sphere-

[yates7592]

As long as I've veered this far, how about lots of omnis arrayed over the surface of a very big sphere-

All 4006C's no doubt.

[Ultfris101]

thanks for taking the time. the graphs with the different shapes are really interesting. Now to find something like that with off axis.

And that sonar array....

I think a thread like this is really meant to meander anyway since it was stated up front this was basically a theoretical exercise barring a lottery windfall