Topic: Good set of hypers to 4-mic pair with DPA 4021?

[acidjack]

Because the work of spending money one doesn't have on mics is never done, I'm thinking about a far-off-in-the-future time when I might like to run some hypers in a 4-mic array to complement my DPA 4021s.

I've heard many of Dan L's recordings with KM150+DPA4021 and like how the combo adds some "direct" sound from the hypers.  Other than that, I haven't heard a lot of these combos and am curious what others have tried.  In particular, I'm curious if anyone has made any attempts pairing something like AKG 463 with HQ cardiod mics, or even the Busman hypers.  For that matter, I have ck93 hypers now, but I assume those mics are not "good" enough to pair with 4021s. 

Anyway, it's a far-off thought, but it's fun to dream..

[johnw]

schoeps ccm41.

[Əkoostikal]

schoeps ccm41.

or some 41V's!   

[acidjack]

Schoeps + DPA is probably the ultimate combo, but a tad rich for my blood... Are any of the slightly less outrageously expensive options worth considering (i.e., AKG?)

[jlykos]

Actually, I would think that the AKG 483 or Jim Williams modded 463 would mate well with the dpa because they have a similar sonic signature.  If all you are looking for is a different pattern without changing the fundamental sonic signature, I would look at the AKG.

[scb]

Because the work of spending money one doesn't have on mics is never done, I'm thinking about a far-off-in-the-future time when I might like to run some hypers in a 4-mic array to complement my DPA 4021s.

I've heard many of Dan L's recordings with KM150+DPA4021 and like how the combo adds some "direct" sound from the hypers.  Other than that, I haven't heard a lot of these combos and am curious what others have tried.  In particular, I'm curious if anyone has made any attempts pairing something like AKG 463 with HQ cardiod mics, or even the Busman hypers.  For that matter, I have ck93 hypers now, but I assume those mics are not "good" enough to pair with 4021s. 

Anyway, it's a far-off thought, but it's fun to dream..

As a dpa 402x owner for almost 8 years now, my take on it is this:  If I think I need hypers, I'm too far back

[stevetoney]

^^  That's kinda the same camp that I'd be in too. 

I've always considered hypers to be a specialty capsule that has specialty applications.  Conversely if I were in a situation where I was running a four mic matrix, I would only be considering doing so when I'm fairly close and have free reign to run any set-up I can...which means that I'd leave hypers out of the equation and would go for cards, subcards, or figure 8's (either M/S or Blumlien).

Frankly, I can't see any scenario where I'd include hypers in any 4 mic arrangement because the hypers, run alone, would be run especially to take advantage of the fact that the hyper is a specialty capsule that has specialty characteristics...minimize boominess, zoom into the sound source from a distance, etc.

OTOH, if the only reason I liked a particular hyper is the sound signature of the mic, I might reach a different set of conclusions than those I've provided above.

[acidjack]

^^  That's kinda the same camp that I'd be in too. 

I've always considered hypers to be a specialty capsule that has specialty applications.  Conversely if I were in a situation where I was running a four mic matrix, I would only be considering doing so when I'm fairly close and have free reign to run any set-up I can...which means that I'd leave hypers out of the equation and would go for cards, subcards, or figure 8's (either M/S or Blumlien).

Frankly, I can't see any scenario where I'd include hypers in any 4 mic arrangement because the hypers, run alone, would be run especially to take advantage of the fact that the hyper is a specialty capsule that has specialty characteristics...minimize boominess, zoom into the sound source from a distance, etc.

So just to play with the topic a little more... would it make any sense, in your view, to run, say, up-close with cards + omnis? 

[datbrad]

Because the work of spending money one doesn't have on mics is never done, I'm thinking about a far-off-in-the-future time when I might like to run some hypers in a 4-mic array to complement my DPA 4021s.

I've heard many of Dan L's recordings with KM150+DPA4021 and like how the combo adds some "direct" sound from the hypers.  Other than that, I haven't heard a lot of these combos and am curious what others have tried.  In particular, I'm curious if anyone has made any attempts pairing something like AKG 463 with HQ cardiod mics, or even the Busman hypers.  For that matter, I have ck93 hypers now, but I assume those mics are not "good" enough to pair with 4021s. 

Anyway, it's a far-off thought, but it's fun to dream..

As a dpa 402x owner for almost 8 years now, my take on it is this:  If I think I need hypers, I'm too far back

True, but in some situations you can be forced to be in a less than optimal situation, particularly in clubs, and hypers can save you big time. It's not only about distance, it's about direct to reflected sound ratios.

I have used my hypers about 3 times this year where they clearly were the right choice, and in hind sight I wish I had used them for a couple of other shows this year where I ran cards.

I am still not sure about the 4 mic blends using hypers. I know several tapers that mix hypers and subcards, and I just don't hear the advantage over a single pair of cards. Mixing a SD and LD pair of cards, or some shotguns with omnis, that would deliver something more distinct I think.

[stevetoney]

Perhaps there's a bit of an apples and oranges situation that's latent to this thread.  For example, since recently jumping into the world of Scheops, I've done alot of sampling of the different capsules.  While there are some differences in how each capsule sounds, there's a basic similarity of how they all sound compared to each other as opposed to, for example, how a schoeps sounds against a neumann. 

So, in one case, if the question is simply focusing on how mic patterns work together to provide a good recording, that may yield one answer.  That's kinda where I was coming from with my previous response.

Another point of view would be how do two different brands or models of mics, when put together compliment each other.  For example, I've always loved 'the Neumann sound'.  One might ask...how would a Neumann AK50 hyper sound in a 4 mic matrix with...say a Schoeps MK4.  In that case, you're mixing both different mic patterns and very different sonic signatures.

Anyway, my only point is that my previous response was looking at it only from the standpoint of mixing patterns, without consideration to differences/complimenting sonic characteristics.

[stevetoney]

^^  That's kinda the same camp that I'd be in too. 

I've always considered hypers to be a specialty capsule that has specialty applications.  Conversely if I were in a situation where I was running a four mic matrix, I would only be considering doing so when I'm fairly close and have free reign to run any set-up I can...which means that I'd leave hypers out of the equation and would go for cards, subcards, or figure 8's (either M/S or Blumlien).

Frankly, I can't see any scenario where I'd include hypers in any 4 mic arrangement because the hypers, run alone, would be run especially to take advantage of the fact that the hyper is a specialty capsule that has specialty characteristics...minimize boominess, zoom into the sound source from a distance, etc.

So just to play with the topic a little more... would it make any sense, in your view, to run, say, up-close with cards + omnis?

Well I think the textbook answer is that, given that the only difference in the mics is their patterns, that you wouldn't typically combine cards and omni's because since the omni's pick-up 360 sound, the cards would be redundant in terms of imaging. 

Thinking about this further, really for a multiple microphone array, the issue really isn't about patterns and imaging and more about the sonic signatures and how different types of microphones compliment each other.

[acidjack]

Well I think the textbook answer is that, given that the only difference in the mics is their patterns, that you wouldn't typically combine cards and omni's because since the omni's pick-up 360 sound, the cards would be redundant in terms of imaging. 

Thinking about this further, really for a multiple microphone array, the issue really isn't about patterns and imaging and more about the sonic signatures and how different types of microphones compliment each other.

Got it.  I guess my thinking - and my impression from listening to the recordings I've heard with hypers+cards - is that the hypers provided some more "upfront" sound - sharpness on the vox, etc. but mixing in cards with them gave the recording the nicer, rounder sound that I think some find lacking in hypers. 

I see your point also re adding different coloration from using different brands of mics - Neumann and DPA being a good and somewhat contrasting combo. 

It sounds like what you and others are really saying, though, is if you're just talking about throwing up stereo pairs of mics on a stand, to stick with a set of cards you like, or hypers you like, and go with it. If you are able to do a mix with various placements (like a combo that includes stage lip), then maybe the thinking would change.

So far I love my DPAs as they are, so like I said originally, it's mostly just a theoretical discussion at this point.

[page]

I am still not sure about the 4 mic blends using hypers. I know several tapers that mix hypers and subcards, and I just don't hear the advantage over a single pair of cards. Mixing a SD and LD pair of cards, or some shotguns with omnis, that would deliver something more distinct I think.

I'm going to side with Brad and earlier comments about hypers are for special circumstances and go one step further:

I'm still not sure about 4 mic blends when the mics are used in the same spot. Putting a set stage lip and another set further back makes sense in the same fashion that doing a mix of board and room mics works; you are getting two distinct visions of the band, one is up front, the other is relaxed and warm. Puting two different flavors of mics in one spot does yield a different signature, but it's not nearly as beneficial (IMHO) as running them in different spots. I don't see a return on investment (in positive benefits) for the time and effort put in (in general, some special circumstances apply), especially outside of the sweet spot of a venue, but my values may not reflect yours.

Thinking about this further, really for a multiple microphone array, the issue really isn't about patterns and imaging and more about the sonic signatures and how different types of microphones compliment each other.

For the win (beat me to it by like 10 minutes while I was writing the above):

My question to the original poster is: What don't you like with the 4021s that you are trying to change, and what specifically about do you not want to change? Mic blends (or blends in general really) bring some good, but equally bring some bad so one thing I'd look for is two sets of mics where there are few things I don't like about them, and then look at what positives each has, and then consider experimenting as such.

An example would be; "well, schoeps have this beautiful sound, and neumann's color and texture make guitars rock, so they must be really awesome together cause they are just awesome seperately", but what you also get is "schoeps mud with the strident (and IMHO misplaced) presence bump of neumanns" in the same mix.

[Todd R]

Well I think the textbook answer is that, given that the only difference in the mics is their patterns, that you wouldn't typically combine cards and omni's because since the omni's pick-up 360 sound, the cards would be redundant in terms of imaging. 

Thinking about this further, really for a multiple microphone array, the issue really isn't about patterns and imaging and more about the sonic signatures and how different types of microphones compliment each other.

I guess this is why taping is fun, since different people have different objectives and different ways of trying to get there.  That said -- I'm pretty much opposite of tonedeaf.

My usual selection when doing 4mic mixes is cards + omnis, though lately I've been thinking of hypers + omnis.  I wouldn't choose to run hypers + cards though, partly since I don't see the benefit, and partly since I think it is problematic.  From what I understand, running two sets of directional mics in close proximity to one another brings in the potential for phase cancellation.  Phase cancellation when one pair of mics are omnis isn't really a concern.  For instance, mixing cards + hypers might really make your bass suffer.

Also, I mix 4mics specifically for imaging and soundstaging, not for sonic signature.  If I didn't like the sonic signature of my mics, I'd look for different mics, not try to blend in other mics.  For me, I like the imaging of 2 cards, but 2 cards in DIN for PA music doesn't generally produce an expansive soundstage.  Conversely, spaced omnis can provide an expansive soundstage, but precise image location of instruments suffers.  By mixing DIN cards + spaced omnis, I can try to get a better balance of a large soundstage with good image location.  Also, the better bass response of omnis helps improve low end response.  This might be getting into the realm of sonic signature, but it really isn't the sonic signature of the specific mics, omnis just provide a better bass response at distance.  Overall, this is something that I mainly try with outdoor recordings since I think omnis shine better outdoors and since bass response can be worse outdoors without the reinforcing reflections of the walls in an indoor show.

All that said -- if you're looking for hypers, I'd think strongly about the AT4053's that are in the yardsale.  Very good mics at an excellent price, and their sonic signature should match/complement the DPAs nicely.

[danlynch]

Nice theoretical discussion.
Feel free to listen and any of my 150's+4021's recordings for actual concrete proof of the quality of the mix.

[OFOTD]

Nice theoretical discussion.
Feel free to listen and any of my 150's+4021's recordings for actual concrete proof of the quality of the mix.

With all due respect Dan when I listen to some of your 4021/150 recordings (several recently actually) I find myself more often than not wanting to hear just one set of mics instead of the mix.  The BTS show this past October (2009-10-15) is a good example for me.  To my ears the mix in of the 150's completely takes away the sound (or lack there of) of the DPA's.  So in turn the recording sound thick to me.  Almost muddy sounding which is obviously not the sonic quality you think of when thinking of DPA.   So for me I enjoy the shows you've taped 2 channel more often than than the 4 channel mixes.


I have done a good amount of four channel work of the last couple of years from using the same brand of mics (4x480's) to random pairings such as 4021xLSD2.   What i've come to ask myself each time is 'what is wrong with my 2 channel recording than makes me want or need to add a second pair?"  Certainly all taping situations are different so nothing can ever be set in stone, I get that but more often than not the 2 channel sounds just great on its own.   If I wanted that muddy sound I should sell my DPA's and buy some Schoeps ya know. 

The other thing i've learned (the hard way) is to use complementary capsule patterns and not overlapping patterns.    Combining a card and a hyper is just overlapping.  But typically combining an omni with say a M/S or a card is sonically more pleasing.  The omni is covering the ground that the card lacks or vice versa.   

As when four channel first started becoming popular around here a few years back I think alot of folks think that if two is good then four must be even better.  Usually its just the opposite.   

So to the OP (acidjack)  i'll ask "What are you missing from your two channel rig that you're hoping adding two more channels with help with/fix?"

[Soling]

Been lurking on this thread with great interest for awhile.  Many great concepts and sage advice presented

Here is my perspective and I acknowledge that I am preaching to the choir.  Most would agree that what we hear and the sound that we are trying to capture/reproduce is for the most part subjective.  Individual preferences differ.  I tape for myself, usually only listen to my own tapes, share everything and often download other folk’s tapes to check in to see how their sound captures the same artist.  Agreed, a different approach.  One man’s mud is another man’s silk.

In recent times I have more often associated a specific Taper with their sound (which obviously is a reflection of their gear) rather than with how each venue’s acoustics/FOH displayed the artist’s performance that night [i.e. CCM4>V2>AD2K vs. DPA4021>ACM vs. DPA4023/8>V3>Mytek vs. MG210>722 vs. enter your own established respected taper here].  The downloader must accept our offerings as exact reproductions of what happened that night.  Any multi-source night will tell you that is not necessarily true. Subtle differences that the average downloader and subsequent mp3 converter will clearly not appreciate.

Against that backdrop here is my take/observations having recently stumbled into the 4 channel arena: 
1.   Different mics capture a different sound which can be altered by different Pres, Caps, configurations and different A/Ds. 
2.   4 channels of cards by two different mic brands can be complementary, redundant or even antagonistic depending how different the mics are.
3.   2 channel is superior to 4 channel if on mix down you find yourself weighing the contribution > 60:40 [i.e. 70:30, 80:20, etc i.e. favoring one pair over the other]
4.   4 channel gives you the option of experimenting [mics, caps, config, pres] with one source while bringing home the heat with the other.
5.   The headache factor/cost goes up exponentially when you leap to 4 channel. 

So the skinny for me:  I love my DPA 4022 but at times I find them too exacting and not forgiving in the venues that I am forced to tape in.  Their low and mid range is spectacular but for me the high is lacking.  The converse is true for my MBHOs [high> lows] particularly in front of my V3. Together, on most occasions and by my ears, the sum is better than the parts.  Not for everyone, but right now I am pleased with the results.

As was stated above, if you are happy with your sound, why change?  If you aren’t, a 4 channel mix down may be one solution as long as you have identified what you are missing and have a plan for how to capture it.

[stevetoney]

This thread really has morphed from a simple question into a very interesting discussion...

I like what you've said Steve because basically I think that with 2 additional channels it does kinda add alot more variables to the equation...and for us microphone geeks, there is already quite a bit to consider when we walk into the venue with only a pair of mics and maybe a couple of different capsule options. 

The OP posed a fairly simple question...in a 4 channel config, what mics might match up well with my DPAs.  I think what probably can be concluded from this thread is that question really is a wide open question with so many different answers and perspectives that it's really difficult to provide a concise 'one size fits all' response.

Course, the other thing is that if there's any way to dissect a simple subject into a million different pieces, taper-geeks certainly can figure out how!  LOL.

[acidjack]

This thread really has morphed from a simple question into a very interesting discussion...

I like what you've said Steve because basically I think that with 2 additional channels it does kinda add alot more variables to the equation...and for us microphone geeks, there is already quite a bit to consider when we walk into the venue with only a pair of mics and maybe a couple of different capsule options. 

The OP posed a fairly simple question...in a 4 channel config, what mics might match up well with my DPAs.  I think what probably can be concluded from this thread is that question really is a wide open question with so many different answers and perspectives that it's really difficult to provide a concise 'one size fits all' response.

Course, the other thing is that if there's any way to dissect a simple subject into a million different pieces, taper-geeks certainly can figure out how!  LOL.

I agree-- this is actually a lot more interesting to me than my original question   As is the case with, I think, many choices folks make in this hobby, I think some people run 4ch rigs because they *can* and not really out of any clear thought process.

FWIW, as far as my original question goes, my perspective on Dan's recordings is that the 150s give his recordings some of the response in the higher frequencies that I associate with Neumann mics, making them less "flat" than DPAs can sound.  I like the sound of his recordings.  I haven't used my DPAs enough to form an opinion about whether I think they lack anything, but I like the sound of what I've got so far very much. 

The other thing that I thought made logical sense, but maybe does not, is that if you mix hypers + cards, the hypers will by their nature pick up a lot of direct sound, but less room sound.  I find a lot of shows with straight hypers not-very-pleasing because of that fact.  My thought was that if you threw in a wider pattern mic, even if you made it only say, 30% of the mix, you would bring back some of what is lost from the hyper (rich bass partly due to room reflections) but keep the "cleaner" direct sound. 

[taperwheeler]

Very interesting topic! 

From the perspective of someone who pro'ly will never have the fortunate opportunity to run 4 channel, a few things in this discussion jump out.

Primarily, it seems that as tapers, we tend to want more, want better...in turn over criticize, over analyze.  (Can't tell ya' how many of my recordings I've been unhappy with right after transfer then after some time going back and giving another listen had a much better opinion).
Ideally if I was in your situation, I'd try to see about borrowing someone's mics to pair with yours.  Then play around in post to compare the differences between running 2ch vs. 4ch mix, and comparing various 4ch mic pairs.  As another person pointed out, what matters most is how you like the final product.  Experiment until you find what you like.  My .02....

[RobertNC]

Me and my partner Dave have run his DPA4021s and my Gefell MG210s multiple times.  At this point I do not see much potential for mixing the two.  The results are about what you would expect.  The DPAs have the characteristic DPA clarity.  The Gefells are a little thinner but more forgiving for environment and to a lesser degree chatter.   

Overall the sound is not that different, and mixing does not really add much.

We ran DPA4017/DPA4021 Saturday at Christmas Jam.  That turned out good - the venue is kind of boomy and the crowd is really loud.  The guns had a more focused sound, the cards have a more dynamic sound but picked up some reverb.  The mix was a little better than either source.

You can check it out here:

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=530793

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=530814

[edtyre]

Interesting tread. When i first got my 4 channel recorder, it was about running my main pair,
along with a secondary pair for experimentation. Sometimes i combined the two just to see
what it sounded like, but very rarely did 4 channels sound better than my main pair
I agree with most of what has been said here, less is more most of the time.

The only pairings that sounded marginally better than 2 channel.....
hyper's + omni's or hypers + m/s (mk-4/mk-8)

To answer the OP question. None. The 4021's are killer mics alone.

Here's one i made sat night with hyper's + omni's
http://www.archive.org/details/rmb2009-12-12.edtyre.4channel_schoeps.flac16

[airbladder]

I run Neumann u89's and km184's together.  Some times 2 channels sound better then all 4 mixed together.  They are all Neumanns so the signature is very similar, however, it's not the same because I am mixing LD and SD's.  I started out with the u89's and got the 184's to play around with.   My suggestion is don’t take yourself too seriously and try to have fun.    You are never going to know how the mics will mix together until you try it and that will change from room to room.  Another suggestion is to consider having at least one set of mics with interchangeable patterns.  This will give you more options to play around with.  It seems to me that the LD's are often overlooked as an option for concert recording.  I went from MBHO's to the U89's for many reasons.  By the time you buy all the MBHO caps the MBHO system will cost you more than the u89’s.  If you are into Schoeps then it’s big bucks to start collecting caps.   

I love running hypers and will take the smaller sound stage over boom and audience chatter any day.  Sometimes mixing cards and hypers works and sometimes it doesn’t.  Can’t say I know why it works some nights and not others.   A lot of this will depend on what kind of rooms you tape in.  Outdoors and good sounding rooms will always give you more options.  I tend to tape in smaller clubs.

My best results have been when I have the microphones in two different locations.  Running splits then a set in the middle or running a set on stage and foh.  Don’t’ be afraid to split cards, hypers, subs, omni’s play around.  If you are running another set there is always a back up.  Those split hypers or cards may not sound great on their own but when you stick another set of mics in the mix they can pull the image together.  Having a 4 track recorder has been great.  It gives you options to run 4 mics or 2 mics and a soundboard patch.  This is not something to get into if you don’t have some cash to spend and if you want a small rig.  I hate not being able to fit everything into one bag and my trunk is always full of extra cables and stands because you never know what you will need.  For me this works better in clubs when I can run back to my car and get another stand or some different cables rather than larger venues that don’t let you leave and come back in.

If you want to experiment get a taping buddy or borrow some gear.  Two sets of mics is more than twice as much work.       

[dactylus]

 Two sets of mics is more than twice as much work.       

^
I agree 100%.  Two sets of mics is definitely more than twice as much work.