Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: beatkilla on August 13, 2012, 12:18:12 PM
-
Sure this has been discussed man y times but i can't find the thread?
Which of the low pro omni's are the flattest?
CSB
DPA
Sonics
etc.
-
The 4061's are known to have that significant presence hump. I've also used CSB's and DSM's... referring to the "regular" CSB's (not the low priced, or the high end) they seem pretty damn flat. Someday I ought to put my Earthworks omnis against the CSBs and DSM's... because I feel pretty sure the Earthworks are flat.
-
The 4061's are known to have that significant presence hump. I've also used CSB's and DSM's... referring to the "regular" CSB's (not the low priced, or the high end) they seem pretty damn flat. Someday I ought to put my Earthworks omnis against the CSBs and DSM's... because I feel pretty sure the Earthworks are flat.
+1. I tried the 4061's but didn't like the "flavour" added by the bump. I've since switched to Countryman Associates B3's but haven't had a chance to run mine yet due to some personal circumstances which suck.
I've listened to some samples by a few other tapers who use the B3 and they seem better to my ears; they are flatter and have a different "flavour" of sound (if you look at the specs on the sales sheet, these mics are pretty damn flat). There are several others on the board who run the B3's as well because they didn't like the 4061's. Size of the capsule is on par with the 4061's although the cable is a little thicker. I always found the 4061's a little "bright" to my ears (some people prefer this but not I).
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=143514
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=143514
Flatter than your 6th grade GF. Those are nice.
Modular mics?
-
If you want a sub-miniature microphone, my top three are the DPA 4060, Sennheiser MKE 1 and Sennheiser MKE 2. However, all these do have a high frequency presence boost (presumably to aid clarity when being body-worn as they were designed for). However, as the DPA 4060 response is only shown with the small and large caps attached, it may be the flattest with the cap completely removed (you will probably have to check this with DPA.
If you can go larger, the Sennheiser MKH 20 and Gefell M221 have very flat frequency responses.
MKH 20 (the dotted line shows the response with the diffuse field switch in the "on" position:-
(http://www.sennheiser.co.uk/sennheiser/products.nsf/resources/FCBC453CC460CB64C125743200802E74/$File/MKH20-P48_FrequencyResponse.jpg)
Attached below is the response curve of the Gefell M221 - as this is not on-line as a picture, this is a screenshot from a PDF.
-
If you want a sub-miniature microphone, my top three are the DPA 4060, Sennheiser MKE 1 and Sennheiser MKE 2. However, all these do have a high frequency presence boost (presumably to aid clarity when being body-worn as they were designed for). However, as the DPA 4060 response is only shown with the small and large caps attached, it may be the flattest with the cap completely removed (you will probably have to check this with DPA.
Here is the frequency response curve for the 4060 with no grid. Courtesy of Gutbucket (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=147921.msg1894491#msg1894491 (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=147921.msg1894491#msg1894491))...
-
Gefell have now put up the response curves of the M221 (http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/microphones/studio-a-recording/small-membrane-transistor-mics/429-m-221?lang=en) on the website.
So here is the high definition version:-
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/MK_221_Frequenzen_gr.jpg)
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/M221_Polar_gr.jpg)
This is the standard response - the M221 comes supplied complete with two frequency pressure balls for diffuse field use
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/M221_1_480.jpg) (http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/M221_3mm_kugel_480.jpg)
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/m221.gif)
-
The cheap panasonic caps are shown with a very flat line curve. Is it real? I don't know. I think that's what CSB's are made from, but I think they are modded to give them some presence, just not as much as the DPA's.
Depending on what you are doing, the flattest omnis available may not actually tickle your fancy. Earthworks omnis are generally regarded as being flat, and accurate. I have a set I have used a few times, not enough to claim expertise, but enough to get a real life lesson in the difference between "free field" and "diffuse field" omnis. I'm not going to explain those terms, I encourage you to google them, but that concept *IS* important to us tapers.
Once you get off at a distance the high frequencies tend to drop off faster than the lows, and flat "free field" mics sound "bland", not necessarily muddy, but without the crystal clarity you might expect. Here is a moe tape I recorded from the sweet spot at an outdoor show. In post I rolled off the bass at around 80hz, and did a high shelf of about +3db from 4k on up, and I like the results. http://archive.org/details/moe2012-06-21.tc25.flac16f Without that EQ, I considered the raw tape embarrassing to call my own. Here is a tape I made with the mics stage lip. It has no EQ and in that situation I didn't use any, http://archive.org/details/dubapoc2012-07-27.tc25.flac16f
I had AKG CK62 caps, which are probably fairly flat, and I thought the tapes sounded bland and lifeless... so I sold them and moved onto the Earthworks, which are pretty much the same... at which point I learned I couldn't ignore the whole "free field" versus "diffuse field" concept. You need to choose mics that are suitable for your situation, or be prepared to EQ. That's my 2 cents worth.
Once you have pondered all this a bit... consider the Schoeps line of omni caps, MK2 which is flat, and the MK2S and MK2H that have a moderate presence peak, and the MK3 that has perhaps too much. Schoeps engineers aren't dummies. They make the different ones available because they have a function.
-
As for the B3's...
-
As for the B3's...
X2 on the B3s, especially with the flat grid. To my ears, they sound as good or better than the Euro options mentioned, especially if you consider the cost. In other words, there is no way that those mics sound 5-10X better than the B3s.
-
Gefell have now put up the response curves of the M221 (http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/microphones/studio-a-recording/small-membrane-transistor-mics/429-m-221?lang=en) on the website.
So here is the high definition version:-
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/MK_221_Frequenzen_gr.jpg)
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/M221_Polar_gr.jpg)
This is the standard response - the M221 comes supplied complete with two frequency pressure balls for diffuse field use
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/M221_1_480.jpg) (http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/M221_3mm_kugel_480.jpg)
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/M221/m221.gif)
That's not flat! What's that .6db ripple above 10k? lol...
-
As for the B3's...
X2 on the B3s, especially with the flat grid. To my ears, they sound as good or better than the Euro options mentioned, especially if you consider the cost. In other words, there is no way that those mics sound 5-10X better than the B3s.
The cost was an added bonus for me. In Canada, the mics cost me around $350 after sales tax (13%) through an authorized reseller. Termination was a few dollars more plus tax (again) (plus shipping both ways) but well worth every dollar. Hoping to try them out this weekend but the B3 is very natural, flat, sounding mic.
I've run man mics over the years: Core Sound Binaurals in the mid '90s > Squidly Diddly omnis > AT-933/c (Sound Pros in the early 2000's) > CAFS-Omnis > CA-14 Omnis/Cards > DPA 4061 > Countryman B3. I think I have enough experience in "low-pro" gear to make a statement. I preferred the sound of the CA-14's to the DPA 4061's but preferred the size of the 4061's to the CAFS and the CA-14's. The B3, IMHO, is a worthy competitor to the CA-14 for "the sound" I like. I always used to comment that the DPA 4061's (at 7-8x the price of the CA-14's) are not 7-8x better sounding. It all comes down to form factor and the "flavour" of the sound.
-
I need to get some flat grids to try on my B3s.
I only have the +4dB bright grids for them and the recordings I've made using them are brighter and less smooth sounding to my ear than DPA 4060/4061 using the short grids. More importantly, I have far more difficulty EQing those +4 grid B3 recordings to get things to sound the way I want than I do with 4060/61 recordings. Perhaps the flat grids will allow me to do that. If so I'll be thrilled. However, at this point I'm content spending 2.5 to 3x more for the DPAs. Well worth it to get the results I want.
You need to choose mics that are suitable for your situation, or be prepared to EQ. That's my 2 cents worth.
Truth!
I'll go farther- it's not either/or but both!
[edit- I've also tried the B3s with no grids, hoping to eliminate grid-caused boost resonance issues, but had similar EQ difficulties and that moved getting flat grids for them to the back burner]
-
I need to get some flat grids to try on my B3s.
I only have the +4dB bright grids for them and the recordings I've made using them are brighter and less smooth sounding to my ear than DPA 4060/4061 using the short grids. More importantly, I have far more difficulty EQing those +4 grid B3 recordings to get things to sound the way I want than I do with 4060/61 recordings. Perhaps the flat grids will allow me to do that. If so I'll be thrilled. However, at this point I'm content spending 2.5 to 3x more for the DPAs. Well worth it to get the results I want.
You need to choose mics that are suitable for your situation, or be prepared to EQ. That's my 2 cents worth.
Truth!
I'll go farther- it's not either/or but both!
[edit- I've also tried the B3s with no grids, hoping to eliminate grid-caused boost resonance issues, but had similar EQ difficulties and that moved getting flat grids for them to the back burner]
This was not a >:D job obviously, but I knew there would be a bunch of tapers there so I thought I'd play with my new toys. Openly taped, on an omni bar. I was pleased.
http://archive.org/details/furthur2012-07-11.bryonsos
-
@Gutbucket: The +4dB bright grids are a little punchier/crunchier on paper than the 4061's so I'd tend to agree that they'll sound a little less smooth than the 4061's with soft-boost grids. I already find the 4061's with the soft-boost grids to be too punch for my ears. I'm not even going to talk about the +8dB very bright grids because they look awful on paper. I'd consider getting in contact with Countryman and see if you can buy a pair of flat grids -- I'm sure they'd sell you a pair for a very small price (or point you in the direction as to where you can get some). I'd definitely suggest against running the mics without the grids but they'll sound "wrong" either way. Check out Bryonsos' post above with the links to the archive.
And yes, you need to use good mics and EQ to get the results you want. Even with the CA-14's, which I liked the sound of the most, I needed to do some minor tweaking to a few bands here and there to get what I wanted.
@Bryonsos: Nice samples. 007 or not, the mics will still sound good either way. :)
-
Certainly keeping my mind open until I can try the B3 flat grids. Things just didn't work as well for me as I'd hoped either with or without the +4s.
Openly taped, on an omni bar.
Listening now, sounds good.
I want to remind everyone not to overlook the elephant in the room here- frequency response changes (and directional response changes) imposed by most any non-open mic mounting configuration will be far larger than the minor deviations from flat we've been discussing here and will usually manifest over a considerably larger frequency range.
My open setups which have miniature omnis suspended in more or less free space or placed in pressure spheres similar to those in the gefell photos above sound very different from my non-open setups. Almost like a different mic was used. There are similarities in response and EQ approach in many ways, but they are quite different in otherways. Miniature omnis act like very different mics depending on how you use them, which is part of their coolness if you ask me.
None of that is reflected in the manufacture's published response curves. I take all the published curves for miniature omnis with a grain of salt anyway. All of them are smoothed generic responses which hide any irregularities and are measured from something like 6" or 12" away- neither how we use them, nor how standard full sized mics are measured.
-
I'll go a step further, Gutbucket. I'd also caution everyone that any mic in any room (good or bad sounding) will always sound different based on the sound tech, method of mic placement and actual mic placement. I've heard awful rooms sound passable (with a good tech) and awesome rooms sound terrible (with a bad tech). Add a mic into the equation and it's a truly hit and miss thing. In fact, I've been to shows which sounded great in the room and like crap when I listened back.
That said, I can only generalize about what I like and don't like from what I've heard after many captures that I've done myself. I've only heard other people's B3 recordings (some open, some not-so-open and some very serious 007 action) and I can say that I do like what I hear overall. One size does not fit all. :)
-
I have not used many types of omni's, but from my experience the B3's are as flat as they come. Never used the boosts, always just the flat grids. They are almost too flat and neutral, I often boost 2-3 dB's around 1kHz to 4kHz to sweeten up a tad to taste.
-
That's not flat! What's that .6db ripple above 10k? lol...
An honest frequency response curve of a great omni with a nickel diaphragm. :P
-
@Gutbucket: The +4dB bright grids are a little punchier/crunchier on paper than the 4061's so I'd tend to agree that they'll sound a little less smooth than the 4061's with soft-boost grids.
Impressive how you can characterize how the mics will sound from just looking at their frequency response curves... ;)
I want to remind everyone not to overlook the elephant in the room here- frequency response changes (and directional response changes) imposed by most any non-open mic mounting configuration will be far larger than the minor deviations from flat we've been discussing here and will usually manifest over a considerably larger frequency range.
My open setups which have miniature omnis suspended in more or less free space or placed in pressure spheres similar to those in the gefell photos above sound very different from my non-open setups. Almost like a different mic was used. There are similarities in response and EQ approach in many ways, but they are quite different in otherways. Miniature omnis act like very different mics depending on how you use them, which is part of their coolness if you ask me.
None of that is reflected in the manufacture's published response curves. I take all the published curves for miniature omnis with a grain of salt anyway. All of them are smoothed generic responses which hide any irregularities and are measured from something like 6" or 12" away- neither how we use them, nor how standard full sized mics are measured.
Spot on.
And, to echo SmokinJoe and yates7592, I personally find the high-frequency boost is pretty necessary a lot of the time. With both the 4060s and the MKE2s, I have EQ'ed it away but, generally, ended up preferring the recordings with the bump intact. An acquaintance who uses the MK2S (which maybe has a bit more of a bump than the DPAs or Senns) feels the same. YMMV and all...
-
I find I usually prefer a slight emphasis from the presence range up with omnis. In many, though not all situations where that might sound over bright, I most often just need to reshape the curve slightly so as not exagerate a specific range. Sometimes a minor cut at 7 or 10kHz or something in an otherwise broad, low-Q response response bump does the trick. There are situations were I'd need no emphasis, like on-stage close to the drum kit with lots of high frequency energy from cymbals, but I can counter-act that transparently with a broad EQ de-emphasis without much problem. So overall, I'd rather have a slight emphasis most of the time rather than not. But again, I'm primarily interested in the general response smoothness and easy 'EQ-ability' more than the raw response itself.
My Gefell cardioids have a significant bump too, more than the 4060, but one which is also smooth and managable with EQ.
I know many around here purposefully choose not to or just don't want to deal with EQing things and that's cool. But If I had to choose mics to use based on their response alone, without any EQ, I'm sure I would feel frustrated more often.. and would probably want a lot more mics!
-
I have not used many types of omni's, but from my experience the B3's are as flat as they come. Never used the boosts, always just the flat grids. They are almost too flat and neutral, I often boost 2-3 dB's around 1kHz to 4kHz to sweeten up a tad to taste.
As an omni addict I'd like to make the distinction between flat (response) and natural (sounding). My go to mic is the Avenson STO-2 which is both. A rare thing indeed, and why they sound fantastic. A flat response means it picks up everything equally and will take some EQ without fuss. Some mics are hit or miss as to whether they will take EQ without sounding worse. While natural means it recreates the moment reliably. For concert taping, I strive to recreate the moment as much as possible. Turn up the volume, close your eyes and you're there again. The Gefells mentioned can get there with some EQ, and sound fantastic. I'd love to play with them some day. I'm not familiar with the Senns John mentioned, but the entire suite of Schoeps omnis sound like ass. They may be good for close miking etc., but for taping they're not. To my ears, they lack the low end definition, come across smeared and muddy, and somehow manage to sound like the mics were even further from the source than they really were. The Scherpies will argue with this, but that's just them trying to justify the money they spent. The DPAs are really good too, but they're not better than the B3s for low pro. YMMV
-
I am a big fan of omni's. My favorite for low-prow is the Nevaton MCe400's, they do have a boost in the high end though. I was also a big fan of my Avenson STO2's when I had them,
although I found the high end to be a little shrill when recording bluegrass. To me they just made the banjo hard to listen to. I have much love for my DPA 4060's, although they don't get out much these days.
I have been using my Nevaton MC51's in the omni pattern on stage lip recordings lately with good success. Not the flattest of charts, but no real large bumps either..... http://www.nevatonmics.us/uploads/nev_mc51e.pdf (http://www.nevatonmics.us/uploads/nev_mc51e.pdf)
But as far as the most realistic sounding omni in my arsenal, I would have to say it's my Gefell sms2000's with the m27 caps. Incredible caps, but again, they don't get used here all that much.
Not that flat of a chart though, they have a 5db bump in the top end......
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/images/stories/mikrofone/SMS2000/freq_3.gif)
Edit to add---Never mind, I just saw that the OP was inquiring about low pro omni's, my bad.. ;D
-
Big fan of the B3's here as well, after using the 4061's in the past. I've pulled some really sweet sounding >:D and open taping recordings with the B3's. I wasn't taping as much when I owned the 4061's so they didn't get the same amount of use as the B3's so now (nearly a monthly visit to City Winery alone). The at853 sub-cards are my second favorite mikes. I've grabbed some impressive recordings with them. They sound ultra smooth and musical to my ears. Of course, ymmv ;)
-
I need to get some flat grids to try on my B3s.
I only have the +4dB bright grids for them and the recordings I've made using them are brighter and less smooth sounding to my ear than DPA 4060/4061 using the short grids. More importantly, I have far more difficulty EQing those +4 grid B3 recordings to get things to sound the way I want than I do with 4060/61 recordings. Perhaps the flat grids will allow me to do that. If so I'll be thrilled. However, at this point I'm content spending 2.5 to 3x more for the DPAs. Well worth it to get the results I want.
You need to choose mics that are suitable for your situation, or be prepared to EQ. That's my 2 cents worth.
Truth!
I'll go farther- it's not either/or but both!
[edit- I've also tried the B3s with no grids, hoping to eliminate grid-caused boost resonance issues, but had similar EQ difficulties and that moved getting flat grids for them to the back burner]
This was not a >:D job obviously, but I knew there would be a bunch of tapers there so I thought I'd play with my new toys. Openly taped, on an omni bar. I was pleased.
http://archive.org/details/furthur2012-07-11.bryonsos
What a great recording, very pleasing to my ears :coolguy:
-
I need to get some flat grids to try on my B3s.
I only have the +4dB bright grids for them and the recordings I've made using them are brighter and less smooth sounding to my ear than DPA 4060/4061 using the short grids. More importantly, I have far more difficulty EQing those +4 grid B3 recordings to get things to sound the way I want than I do with 4060/61 recordings. Perhaps the flat grids will allow me to do that. If so I'll be thrilled. However, at this point I'm content spending 2.5 to 3x more for the DPAs. Well worth it to get the results I want.
You need to choose mics that are suitable for your situation, or be prepared to EQ. That's my 2 cents worth.
Truth!
I'll go farther- it's not either/or but both!
[edit- I've also tried the B3s with no grids, hoping to eliminate grid-caused boost resonance issues, but had similar EQ difficulties and that moved getting flat grids for them to the back burner]
This was not a >:D job obviously, but I knew there would be a bunch of tapers there so I thought I'd play with my new toys. Openly taped, on an omni bar. I was pleased.
http://archive.org/details/furthur2012-07-11.bryonsos
What a great recording, very pleasing to my ears :coolguy:
Thanks Georgios! I was very pleasantly surprised and happy with their performance. I've upgraded this from my >:D rig to my >:D and travel rig. I'm making an omni bar out of some old TV rabbit ears that will collapse down to 8" or so, but will expand out to 3'. Should be great for traveling light.
-
bryonsos What, if any EQ did you apply to that Furthur recording? It does sound very good. :) :headphones:
-
I'm making an omni bar out of some old TV rabbit ears that will collapse down to 8" or so, but will expand out to 3'. Should be great for traveling light.
:coolguy:
-
bryonsos What, if any EQ did you apply to that Furthur recording? It does sound very good. :) :headphones:
Nada. I rarely EQ my recordings before releasing them into the wild. Everyone has a different playback system, I let them EQ to their taste.
IMHO, headphones are the best way to listen to an omni pull.
-
Yeah, I did some listening on a pair of Sennheiser HD 280 PRO's.
-
@Gutbucket: The +4dB bright grids are a little punchier/crunchier on paper than the 4061's so I'd tend to agree that they'll sound a little less smooth than the 4061's with soft-boost grids.
Impressive how you can characterize how the mics will sound from just looking at their frequency response curves... ;)
I did own the 4061's for about 9 months are recorded numerous shows with them so I can say this based on experience. :)
-
@Gutbucket: The +4dB bright grids are a little punchier/crunchier on paper than the 4061's so I'd tend to agree that they'll sound a little less smooth than the 4061's with soft-boost grids.
Impressive how you can characterize how the mics will sound from just looking at their frequency response curves... ;)
I did own the 4061's for about 9 months are recorded numerous shows with them so I can say this based on experience. :)
OK, but you were specifically comparing the characteristics of the B3s to the 4061s, and you have never used the B3s...That comparison, in your words, was "on paper"...
I've since switched to Countryman Associates B3's but haven't had a chance to run mine yet due to some personal circumstances which suck.
-
I've used DPA 4060, B3 and MCE400. The B3 and MCE400 just sound "more natural" to my ears, regardless of the exact frequency response, grids, etc. The DPA have great detail and sound realistic, but if you listen to music, they just don't sound pleasant for me.
Hey, if those DPA4060 sounded so good, we'd never use the (Nickel) 4006 or the Geffel MK221 would we? It might be something to do with the diaphragm (stainless steel in the B3 and Nevaton). Or it might be that the DPA4060 is distorting somehow (at higher frequencies).
Years ago I bought the DPA4060 thinking "my search is over". But I was wrong, there are better mics out there...
Richard
-
I've used DPA 4060, B3 and MCE400. The B3 and MCE400 just sound "more natural" to my ears, regardless of the exact frequency response, grids, etc. The DPA have great detail and sound realistic, but if you listen to music, they just don't sound pleasant for me.
Hey, if those DPA4060 sounded so good, we'd never use the (Nickel) 4006 or the Geffel MK221 would we? It might be something to do with the diaphragm (stainless steel in the B3 and Nevaton). Or it might be that the DPA4060 is distorting somehow (at higher frequencies).
Years ago I bought the DPA4060 thinking "my search is over". But I was wrong, there are better mics out there...
Richard
Ditto. Exact same story here, except only the 4060's and MCE400's for me.
Thinking about picking up the B3's too...just to see if I like them better.
-
@Gutbucket: The +4dB bright grids are a little punchier/crunchier on paper than the 4061's so I'd tend to agree that they'll sound a little less smooth than the 4061's with soft-boost grids.
Impressive how you can characterize how the mics will sound from just looking at their frequency response curves... ;)
I did own the 4061's for about 9 months are recorded numerous shows with them so I can say this based on experience. :)
OK, but you were specifically comparing the characteristics of the B3s to the 4061s, and you have never used the B3s...That comparison, in your words, was "on paper"...
I've since switched to Countryman Associates B3's but haven't had a chance to run mine yet due to some personal circumstances which suck.
Right, but he's listened to samples, including some that I sent him. Seems reasonable to me that Adrian compared the B3 samples to recordings he's made with his previously owned DPA's.
Here's some of the samples I shared with Adrian:
Tift Merritt opening for Joseph Arthur at City Winery NYC:
http://www.mediafire.com/?novybbua0a34kna
Joseph Arthur at City Winery NYC:
http://www.mediafire.com/?25c3o5q67d817z3
http://www.mediafire.com/?54i4vwx33v7dewr
http://www.mediafire.com/?kwy52j1xg5ijhjh
http://www.mediafire.com/?6gb6oy47ubwblv9
Keb Mo at BB King's, NYC:
http://www.mediafire.com/?o1iud0s1qkkf6j5
http://www.mediafire.com/?5e4qajl1dupao05
Ed Roland & Kevin Griffin at (yes, again!) City Winery:
http://www.mediafire.com/?5f7h85m8a7d5b6m
Alan Doyle (I know, it's like a broken record) at City Winery:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ji1akriervhsn78
http://www.mediafire.com/?chuqef99hhqv07u
Edit: Slightly off-topic, this is the reason why I like the at853 sub-cards so much (minus the little click):
Here's a sample mp3 of Dominic Farinacci performing at the Zinc Bar during this past Winter Jazz Festival: http://www.mediafire.com/?z5bd29r8lcn3s85
-
Right, but he's listened to samples, including some that I sent him. Seems reasonable to me that Adrian compared the B3 samples to recordings he's made with his previously owned DPA's.
Perhaps, but that's not what he wrote...Besides, how well can you make a mic comparison based on a few samples? Too many variables involved to really draw any valid conclusions...In any event, I was just jerking his chain a bit (seriously, "crunchier on paper"?)...
Are your samples with the flat or 4 dB grids?
I've used DPA 4060, B3 and MCE400. The B3 and MCE400 just sound "more natural" to my ears, regardless of the exact frequency response, grids, etc. The DPA have great detail and sound realistic, but if you listen to music, they just don't sound pleasant for me.
Hey, if those DPA4060 sounded so good, we'd never use the (Nickel) 4006 or the Geffel MK221 would we? It might be something to do with the diaphragm (stainless steel in the B3 and Nevaton). Or it might be that the DPA4060 is distorting somehow (at higher frequencies).
Years ago I bought the DPA4060 thinking "my search is over". But I was wrong, there are better mics out there...
Richard
I am shocked to hear you say that, Richard. SHOCKED, I tell you! ;)
But the 4006/MK221 comparison isn't really fair. None of these small omnis have a chance against that level of competition...
-
Right, but he's listened to samples, including some that I sent him. Seems reasonable to me that Adrian compared the B3 samples to recordings he's made with his previously owned DPA's.
Perhaps, but that's not what he wrote...Besides, how well can you make a mic comparison based on a few samples? Too many variables involved to really draw any valid conclusions...In any event, I was just jerking his chain a bit (seriously, "crunchier on paper"?)...
Are your samples with the flat or 4 dB grids?
I often read experienced tapers instructing newbies to go check the archive to listen to samples to compare various microphones. Personally, I've never done it as I find it wouldn't help me one bit. Every microphone purchase I've made was a blind purchase without ever listening to samples. I think written reputation goes a long way. Not sure what crunchier means, lol. I prefer terms like thick, muddy, bright, punchy, transparent, etc.
Mine are with the flat grids, as far as I know...I've never changed them.
Feel free to provide any feedback if you get a chance 8)
-
I often read experienced tapers instructing newbies to go check the archive to listen to samples to compare various microphones. Personally, I've never done it as I find it wouldn't help me one bit. Every microphone purchase I've made was a blind purchase without ever listening to samples. I think written reputation goes a long way. Not sure what crunchier means, lol. I prefer terms like thick, muddy, bright, punchy, transparent, etc.
Personally, I think there is some value in listening to samples to get a general impression of how a given mic sounds (assuming they are even available for the mics you're interested in). Maybe you can infer, to some extent, how two mics differ. To really compare them, though, I think you need to set up a controlled comp in which all factors (other than the microphones) are the same...
Mine are with the flat grids, as far as I know...I've never changed them.
Feel free to provide any feedback if you get a chance 8)
Will do. I'd like to find some samples with that +4 dB grid too.
-
Finally got a chance to bust out the B3's with an Ugly Battery Box at a pretty high security club show (I felt more violated going in than I did going through a TSA check point).
I wouldn't say the show was the best place to try these as it was a hip hop band with live musicians (drums, bass, guitar) plus a DJ and the mix was a little bit of a "hot mess." A friend of mine who was at the show felt it sounded murky but the capture with the B3's was pretty nice and flat. Didn't sound muddy, didn't sound distorted and I think I like the sound better than the 4061's.
In order to get more of a fair comparison, I'll need to do a show similar to one already recorded with the 4061's recorded from roughly the same spot to be able to make more of fair comparison. However, the B3's were used from more or less the same spot I've always recorded from in the venue (with the 4061's and the CA-14's omnis, too).
Will update whenever I get to another show.
-
^ Is the 2.2k mod sufficient for loud-ish shows, or would 4.7 be safer?
-
^ Is the 2.2k mod sufficient for loud-ish shows, or would 4.7 be safer?
Hard to say as it depends on the mics; "one size does not fit all."