Topic: DPA Questions

[rePat]

Hey tbone65, would you mind posting a photo of your 4021s in the rycote shock mount. Will they work with wind screens? I may just have to pick up a set.

By the way, my 4021s are labeled both DPA & Bruel and Kjaer and they certainly don't seem like they would come apart like tonedeaf's did.

Yes, I'm curious about the use with windscreens also.

Pat

[stevetoney]

Hey tbone65, would you mind posting a photo of your 4021s in the rycote shock mount. Will they work with wind screens? I may just have to pick up a set.

By the way, my 4021s are labeled both DPA & Bruel and Kjaer and they certainly don't seem like they would come apart like tonedeaf's did.

Yes, I'm curious about the use with windscreens also.

Pat

Thats the problem.  They look like they're great mounts in the studio, but when you take them outside, they're useless unless you can jury rig something that's sorta patchworked.  If the mounts supported the bodies more like the picture of the schoeps, it would be a different story.  I'm sure that's why none of the marketing pics of the small body mics are taken of mics with windscreens attached.

[Gutbucket]

A link to Bruce's post explaining the reason for non interchangable capsules on DPA mics in the    
Re:Big Praise For DPA / Bruce Myers thread

[stevetoney]

What I don't understand about Bruce's statement is that he implies that they are designed so the body cannot be removed from the capsule.  I mean, if damage to the microphone is possible, then why would it be designed so the capsule can unscrew?  In my case, the darn thing came loose with no force at all when I was taking the mics off the mount the very first time I ran them.

What is kinda bothering me then is, if there's a possibility that DPA mics could have been damaged, why would they be designed like that?  At a minimum, there should be a warning label or something on the mic body, especially when so many other mics are designed with interchangeable capsules.   

Oh well.  Thank God my mics are working fine!

EDIT:  Moke, looks like our messages crossed in cyberspace.  Interesting in that maybe the post that you made above this one may explain the very dilemma that I posed in this post!!! 

[grider]

What I don't understand about Bruce's statement is that he implies that they are designed so the body cannot be removed from the capsule.  I mean, if damage to the microphone is possible, then why would it be designed so the capsule can unscrew?  In my case, the darn thing came loose with no force at all when I was taking the mics off the mount the very first time I ran them.

What is kinda bothering me then is, if there's a possibility that DPA mics could have been damaged, why would they be designed like that?  At a minimum, there should be a warning label or something on the mic body, especially when so many other mics are designed with interchangeable capsules.   

Oh well.  Thank God my mics are working fine!

EDIT:  Moke, looks like our messages crossed in cyberspace.  Interesting in that maybe the post that you made above this one may explain the very dilemma that I posed in this post!!! 

well if the innards have to be repaired, they have to be accessible somehow

[stevetoney]

What I don't understand about Bruce's statement is that he implies that they are designed so the body cannot be removed from the capsule.  I mean, if damage to the microphone is possible, then why would it be designed so the capsule can unscrew?  In my case, the darn thing came loose with no force at all when I was taking the mics off the mount the very first time I ran them.

What is kinda bothering me then is, if there's a possibility that DPA mics could have been damaged, why would they be designed like that?  At a minimum, there should be a warning label or something on the mic body, especially when so many other mics are designed with interchangeable capsules.   

Oh well.  Thank God my mics are working fine!

EDIT:  Moke, looks like our messages crossed in cyberspace.  Interesting in that maybe the post that you made above this one may explain the very dilemma that I posed in this post!!! 

well if the innards have to be repaired, they have to be accessible somehow

...but not with an easy little twist from the capsult end when you're taking them off of a mount if, for example, there's a chance that it might damage a $3000 pair of mics!!! 

I'd understand if I had put pliers and a vice to them!

However, I think Moke's point is valid in that, this particular junction may not be the one in question.  I don't know.  All I know is a) my mics unscrewed with less than finger force after I got them, b) they still work 100% perfectly, and c) they're never coming apart again! 

[FLDEADHEAD]

Had the chance to use your Moke Din Bar for my 4022's at Jones Beach last week.
Thanks again Moke, love the Bars/Shockmount.No issues so far.!
Used the thick windscreens too , Perfect.!

Carry On.
Sorry to hear your 4021's are loose Tondeaf , I would send them in for repair to DPA

[stevetoney]

Sorry to hear your 4021's are loose Tondeaf , I would send them in for repair to DPA

My mics are not loose, they don't need repair, and they never needed repair.  I made some of the hottest recordings you could possibly hear for 4 days straight at All Good this year with this pair of 4021s.