Topic: And the Answer is.........DPA4099s (new gear fluff)

[WiFiJeff]

This is a very preliminary report on the latest of the DPA micro-cardioid line, the DPA4099, based on five recording sessions.  There have been a lot of threads lately on finding small cardioids, so I thought it might be of interest, even if by no means definitive.

Let me start by saying that what is an acceptable microphone is going to depend on the kind of things you record, as well as how far-gone you have "progressed" on the upgrade treadmill.  I started out ten years ago with clip-on lapel stereo mics and DAT, and was very happy, for a few minutes.  It took me a year or two to get to DPA4060 omnis as my main mic squeeze, but I have never found a set of small cardioids that I could consider satisfactory.  I have tried:

Core Sound
Audio Technica
Sound Professionals
Microphone Madness Cardioids
Church Audio Cardioids
and, most recently, the DPA4080s with poor bass roll-off for distances.

I record classical music (redundantly called "acoustic" around here), and while I am sure these mics all have their devotees here, for my purposes they are not nearly as good as a decent set of omnis up real close.  But for certain things, I have heard recordings with a good serious set of cardioids (say Schoeps MK4 caps) that blow me away.  They really bring voices upfront in operas, and are a godsend for solo instrument recitals where the player has chosen to stay far from the stage lip in a reverberent hall.  But I can't carry that load.

The DPA4099s are the second in the dpa line of minicardioids, actually they are hypercardioids that look like shotgun mics for your Barbie Doll.  They come encased in a gooseneck instrument mount that DPA cut off for me; DPA then reconnected the mics via microdot to a cable length.  I had been waiting about a year for the follow-on to the 4080s that was supposed to have improved distance bass response, but the 4099s looked to be targeted at a completely different market.  So I called dpa US for an update, and Bruce Myers was nice enough to spend some time talking up these mics.  Reports from the field on using them as spots on choruses were coming back very positive, so I decided to give it a shot.

The response from the first run was very positive.  To me, they were a clear notch above any of the small cardioid mics I had tried before, though still lacking in bass compared to the Schoeps.  But my friend who runs Schoeps, and was next to me on this occasion, was way more positive, just loved the sound.  It happens that my Sonosax MiniR82s had just come back from the shop, so I had an idea: why not run omnis and cards together four track (actually using some of the MiniR82 functionality for once), then low-pass the omni tracks to mix with the main recording of the cardioid mics?  This is possible because the 4099s AND 4060s (or Sanken COS11s) actually make less of a bulge in a croakie than say MM cardioids or ATs.  I have run this setup now four times, once with DPA4060s as omnis (and two MMA6000 preamps, unfortunately), and three times with Sankens, which the Sonosax can power (3.3V, the MiniR82 can also do 48V phantom).  As to mixing, I have absolutely no idea what I am doing, just EQing in Wavelab to cut anything above 250 Hz by -20 dB for the omni tracks, and trusting the two approximately equal volume recordings to mix straight.  Presumably I will be able to get some incremental improvement when I learn to mix. 

Things to do: check into dpa4063s, which can also be powered by the MiniR82 with suitably wired Binder connectors.
                   learn how to vary mix parameters without having to render the EQed track in Wavelab.
                   try to get some comps for posting (will take a while).

Jeff

[dactylus]

Thanks for the report.  When you were speaking with Bruce did he mention the possibility of a mini-cardioid being released in the future that would NOT have the bass rolloff of the present mini-cards?  Bruce was quoted as saying that a mini-card that rivaled the 402X series in performance was in the pipeline...  This was rumoured a year or two ago and then the hypercards came out instead.     I'd love to see that mini-card materialize.

thanks,

David

[WiFiJeff]

My impression (nothing said for attribution by dpa) is that they are working on it, but don't have a definite decision to release anything yet.  All cardioids have a proximity effect and thus some sort of bass roll off, but the 4080s for me were not useable (well, since intended for close mic apps, could not help but be that way).  The 4099s are useable, and with bass from a sorta coincident pair of omnis quite nice indeed.

I will run four track with the 4099s three more times this week.

Jeff

[colargol]

My impression (nothing said for attribution by dpa) is that they are working on it, but don't have a definite decision to release anything yet.  All cardioids have a proximity effect and thus some sort of bass roll off, but the 4080s for me were not useable (well, since intended for close mic apps, could not help but be that way).  The 4099s are useable, and with bass from a sorta coincident pair of omnis quite nice indeed.

I will run four track with the 4099s three more times this week.

Jeff

Hi!
Would you be able to put out a sample?
Also, I tried to check out these mics, but I only found "dpa4099 guitar" and "dpa4099 sax". Is that just the packaging? Are they the same mic?
-c

[Dede2002]

My impression (nothing said for attribution by dpa) is that they are working on it, but don't have a definite decision to release anything yet.  All cardioids have a proximity effect and thus some sort of bass roll off, but the 4080s for me were not useable (well, since intended for close mic apps, could not help but be that way).  The 4099s are useable, and with bass from a sorta coincident pair of omnis quite nice indeed.

I will run four track with the 4099s three more times this week.

Jeff

Hi!
Would you be able to put out a sample?
Also, I tried to check out these mics, but I only found "dpa4099 guitar" and "dpa4099 sax". Is that just the packaging? Are they the same mic?
-c

I have the same questions.

[colargol]

My impression (nothing said for attribution by dpa) is that they are working on it, but don't have a definite decision to release anything yet.  All cardioids have a proximity effect and thus some sort of bass roll off, but the 4080s for me were not useable (well, since intended for close mic apps, could not help but be that way).  The 4099s are useable, and with bass from a sorta coincident pair of omnis quite nice indeed.

I will run four track with the 4099s three more times this week.

Jeff

Hi!
Would you be able to put out a sample?
Also, I tried to check out these mics, but I only found "dpa4099 guitar" and "dpa4099 sax". Is that just the packaging? Are they the same mic?
-c

Chris, if you read this, would these mics work with a microdot version of the 9100? and that would be enough to power them?
-Colargol

[Church-Audio]

My impression (nothing said for attribution by dpa) is that they are working on it, but don't have a definite decision to release anything yet.  All cardioids have a proximity effect and thus some sort of bass roll off, but the 4080s for me were not useable (well, since intended for close mic apps, could not help but be that way).  The 4099s are useable, and with bass from a sorta coincident pair of omnis quite nice indeed.

I will run four track with the 4099s three more times this week.

Jeff

Hi!
Would you be able to put out a sample?
Also, I tried to check out these mics, but I only found "dpa4099 guitar" and "dpa4099 sax". Is that just the packaging? Are they the same mic?
-c

Chris, if you read this, would these mics work with a microdot version of the 9100? and that would be enough to power them?
-Colargol

Yes the 9100 with microdots will power your 4099 microphone properly. The voltage spec is the same as the 4060 series.

Chris

[WiFiJeff]

I hope to be able to put a sample up next week of dpa4060 alone, dpa4099 alone, and the mix.  Anyplace here to host it?

What I have Is the guitar version, I think (I was told that the only differences are the type of built-on attaching hardware and a lower sensitivity for the trumpet, etc versions).  It was cut out of the gooseneck mount and terminated, on a very short cable, in a microdot, with a longer microdot-to-microdot extension cable; the join doesn't cause any significant bulge in a croakie.  DPA USA did this for me.  I am using it with the DPA MMA6000 preamp, which powers it correctly (so presumably will the Church Audio preamp if it can power 4060s).  It has lower sensitivity than the 4060, and takes about 10-12 dB more gain than my normal settings for the 4060.  The MMA6000 has about 10-12 dB gain beyond that even, so it works fine, I'm not sure what the specs on Chris' preamp are. 

Jeff

[colargol]

I hope to be able to put a sample up next week of dpa4060 alone, dpa4099 alone, and the mix.  Anyplace here to host it?

What I have Is the guitar version, I think (I was told that the only differences are the type of built-on attaching hardware and a lower sensitivity for the trumpet, etc versions).  It was cut out of the gooseneck mount and terminated, on a very short cable, in a microdot, with a longer microdot-to-microdot extension cable; the join doesn't cause any significant bulge in a croakie.  DPA USA did this for me.  I am using it with the DPA MMA6000 preamp, which powers it correctly (so presumably will the Church Audio preamp if it can power 4060s).  It has lower sensitivity than the 4060, and takes about 10-12 dB more gain than my normal settings for the 4060.  The MMA6000 has about 10-12 dB gain beyond that even, so it works fine, I'm not sure what the specs on Chris' preamp are. 

Jeff

I suppose you could put the samples on http://www.2shared.com/, or a place like that...

-c

[Gutbucket]

I've been patiently waiting for news of those mini cards in the works too.  Please keep us updated on how this works out for you with the 4099s. I'd really love to hear samples if you can arrange it.  If you are interested, I have some ideas for alternate ways to mount these that are similar to some of the things I've been trying, PM me for details.

You might look into using small, simple battery boxes to power them, or if you need gain: For the past year, I've used two Church Audio CA-UGLYs to power two pairs of 4060s, each is barely larger than the 9v battery that powers it.  I bought them after considering the bulk of carrying two MMA6000's.  I can put a CA-UGLY + R-09 in a single pant pocket and fit the entire 4 channel rig- 4 x 4060, 2 x CA-UGLYs, 2 x R-09, cables, extra batteries and tape in a small shaving bag.  The CA-UGLY is a bit harder to set gains accurately in the field (no detents) and offers less gain than the MMA6000 (0 to +20db, plenty for 4060s and soft chamber type music), and no low-battery indicator or low-cut, but can't be beat for the size and I think they are actually a bit quieter.

..I had an idea: why not run omnis and cards together four track (actually using some of the MiniR82 functionality for once), then low-pass the omni tracks to mix with the main recording of the cardioid mics?  ..As to mixing, I have absolutely no idea what I am doing, just EQing in Wavelab to cut anything above 250 Hz by -20 dB for the omni tracks, and trusting the two approximately equal volume recordings to mix straight.

I don't know Wavelab, but is there a highpass/lowpass filter function?  That would be the better way to go about combining just the frequency regions you want from each mic.  You should be able to set the -3db frequency point where the filter takes effect and select from various cut-off slopes (6db, 12 db, 18db, 24db, etc. per octave). The higher the slope the sharper the transition will be.  By selecting the same cut-off frequency and slope for each pair of channels, with a highpass filter on one and a lowpass on the other, you can accurately combine them without interfering overlap, similar to the crossover in your speakers.  A low/high pass filter doesn't peak or shelf so it is more effective and more accurate.  Trying to do it with a graphic or parametric eq won't work nearly as well. Similarly, treble and bass tone controls don't work very well as crossovers for speakers.

Experiment with the slope of the filters, if you look at the response graph of the 4099 you'll see the low end response drop off on the plot.  That is effectively a high pass filter response built into the mic.  You may be able to use that natural built-in highpass without additional filtering for the 4099 tracks and match that frequency point and approximate slope in the lowpass filter applied to the 4060 tracks (probably a shallow 6db per octave slope).  Alternatively you might find a sharper slope applied to both pairs works better, and that a different frequency for the crossover is best.

[dactylus]

I've been patiently waiting for news of those mini cards in the works too.  Please keep us updated on how this works out for you with the 4099s. I'd really love to hear samples if you can arrange it.  If you are interested, I have some ideas for alternate ways to mount these that are similar to some of the things I've been trying, PM me for details.

You might look into using small, simple battery boxes to power them, or if you need gain: For the past year, I've used two Church Audio CA-UGLYs to power two pairs of 4060s, each is barely larger than the 9v battery that powers it.  I bought them after considering the bulk of carrying two MMA6000's.  I can put a CA-UGLY + R-09 in a single pant pocket and fit the entire 4 channel rig- 4 x 4060, 2 x CA-UGLYs, 2 x R-09, cables, extra batteries and tape in a small shaving bag.  The CA-UGLY is a bit harder to set gains accurately in the field (no detents) and offers less gain than the MMA6000 (0 to +20db, plenty for 4060s and soft chamber type music), and no low-battery indicator or low-cut, but can't be beat for the size and I think they are actually a bit quieter.

..I had an idea: why not run omnis and cards together four track (actually using some of the MiniR82 functionality for once), then low-pass the omni tracks to mix with the main recording of the cardioid mics?  ..As to mixing, I have absolutely no idea what I am doing, just EQing in Wavelab to cut anything above 250 Hz by -20 dB for the omni tracks, and trusting the two approximately equal volume recordings to mix straight.

I don't know Wavelab, but is there a highpass/lowpass filter function?  That would be the better way to go about combining just the frequency regions you want from each mic.  You should be able to set the -3db frequency point where the filter takes effect and select from various cut-off slopes (6db, 12 db, 18db, 24db, etc. per octave). The higher the slope the sharper the transition will be.  By selecting the same cut-off frequency and slope for each pair of channels, with a highpass filter on one and a lowpass on the other, you can accurately combine them without interfering overlap, similar to the crossover in your speakers.  A low/high pass filter doesn't peak or shelf so it is more effective and more accurate.  Trying to do it with a graphic or parametric eq won't work nearly as well. Similarly, treble and bass tone controls don't work very well as crossovers for speakers.

Experiment with the slope of the filters, if you look at the response graph of the 4099 you'll see the low end response drop off on the plot.  That is effectively a high pass filter response built into the mic.  You may be able to use that natural built-in highpass without additional filtering for the 4099 tracks and match that frequency point and approximate slope in the lowpass filter applied to the 4060 tracks (probably a shallow 6db per octave slope).  Alternatively you might find a sharper slope applied to both pairs works better, and that a different frequency for the crossover is best.

Thanks for the tips Lee!   

Hopefully the dpa mini-cards will become a reality in the near future...

[Gutbucket]

I hope so.

If you actually end up doing the card + omni with crossover thing, there is another thing you can play with that has intrigued me and which I've thought a good bit about but have not yet messed with: Spacing the capsules differently.

The simplest approach is placing the cardioid and omni together, coincidently located as mentioned above - the initial idea being to improve the low end response of the cardioid capsules.  But since you have separate capsules for different frequency ranges with different pickup patterns, the ability to space the omni and cardioid capsules differently might be an advantage over a single cardioid even if it had a perfect frequency response.

Consider two separate stereo mic arrays, one using cards, one using omnis.  If you wanted a similar stereo recording angle and similar playback stage on the finished recordings, you'd need to space the omnis wider than the cards, assuming the cards are typically angled away from each other and aren't pointing directly forward.  If you are familiar with the Stereo Zoom approach you can use those tables to pick configurations that match SRA's and angular distortion values closely between the two stereo pairs, but the basic trade off between angle and spacing is obvious enough from the typical configurations we all use.

So say you end up with a near-spaced cardioid pair contributing the upper half of the frequency range.  That cardioid pair uses intensity-based differences as a large part of its directionality, whereas the wider spaced omni pair uses phase or time-based differences for it's directionality.  That division matches well with the simplified model of directional human hearing which uses level differences primarily at higher frequencies and phase differences at lower frequencies.  The wider omni pair increases the stereo seperation of the lower frequencies and may improve the sense of space and envelopment.  Each pair hopefully contributes what it does best.

In looking for information on others doing this I found a Mike Williams paper (the Stereo Zoom guy) describing this very thing a while back.  A PDF of that AES paper is available for download on his website if you care to dig deeper, as is a PDF of the Stereo Zoom.

If you are going to the trouble to high/low pass and sum the two tracks it doesn't take any more work to try this other than rigging it up. I'll leave it to you to figure ways to do that for your application Jeff, but at least in my case my shoulders are wider than my head.  Even though I don't always act that way.

[boojum]

The coincident omni-card setup is a Strauss packet and was/is popular in Europe.  Followthis link for a good explanation:
http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=55328&sid=70c5f4a3ec2a9c869d8385d0e4ad5cba.

Or, read it here:
Phillips recording engineer Volker Strauss used a microphone array consisting of two spaced pairs of mics. Each pair was an omni and cardioid taped together. I used to work for a recordist who used this technique for recording small ensembles. It can give beautiful results.

You tape a cardioid and omni together to make each pair and mount them like you would a spaced pair of single mics. We used Neumann mics. Then you hang the array above and in front of the the stage.

By adjusting the balance between the omni and cardioid pair you can find a sweet spot where the imaging is dimensional and the tone is full and natural. We recorded Sharon Isben and her percussionist that way and I was impressed with the technique. If you've never tried it, it's worth experimenting with.

I think you can get info on "Strauss Packet" microphone array recording from AES."

I have not used this technique but may try it sometime. 

[Gutbucket]

Heard of the Strauss packet arrangement but i've ever done it, the big difference there is no filtering by frequency range of each microphone channel. The omni and cardioid are mixed together with their full frequency ranges and the level ratio varied after the recording is made, allowing adjustment of the virtual pickup pattern like the M/S technique. As with M/S the capsules need to be as coincident as possible.  The amount of bass reinforcement provided by the omni is linked to the ratio chosen.  If you choose a full cardioid response you get zero omni contribution.

Using an omni and a cardioid that way allows you to adjust the virtual mic pattern (as mentioned, the resulting capsule dependent frequency response gets varied along with it) anywhere between omni and cardioid patterns.  While that could be useful, especially if those are the capsules you have available, I don't really understand the reasoning behind doing that professionally.  It seems to me that using an omni + figure-8 instead would offer so much more flexibility.  That combines the two primary components of all first order patterns, matrixed like half of a M/S setup. If the capsules are mixed equally you get a cardioid response facing in the direction of the positive lobe of the fig-8. Reverse the polarity of one mic and the virtual cardioid faces the opposite direction.  Change the level ratio between the two and you can dial in any pattern from omni through hypocard, cardioid, supercard, to fig-8, facing either direction.

The Strauss packet approach aims primarily to allow choice of pattern, with a secondary effect on low end extension, whereas Jeff's setup primarily aims to allow choice of low end frequency response extension, with a secondary effect of changing the pattern somewhat.

The idea I mentioned about spacing the capsules differently takes Jeff's variable low end extension approach and adds frequency range specific ideas to potentially optimize imaging in each range.

[WiFiJeff]

Still hoping to get some time to put up some samples soon.

For me the reason to use these is that the omni and 4099 fit neatly into a croakie, with the shotgun-ish 4099 up top of the glasses frame insert point and the omni below, with less bulge than say a MM cardioid.  Glad to have a fancy name for the technique ("Strauss packet", love it: how about "anthropo-Jecklin-disc Strauss packet setup"?) now I feel like a real pro.  I have not been straight-mixing, but cutting the omni recording above 250 Hz with the VST Q plug-in, might need to try a straight low-pass plugin if I can find one.  I want the localization of the cardioids, which the high frequencies provide nicely.  If I mix in too much of the omni it tends to muddy up the bass, the optimal settings seem to be different for opera and piano recitals, even different for different operas.  Also can't decide between Sanken COS11s and DPA4063s for the omnis, either can be powered by my Sonosax recorder.  I hope to try the Nevaton omnis also, but the specs say 10 mA current draw which might be an issue for me for battery life.

Meanwhile, happy to send anyone interested the finished product, pm me with an address to mail cds.  I did one whole opera in three recensions: cardioid (4099), omni (dpa4060) and mix, but my best results so far are ones with 4099s and COS11s.

Jeff

[Gutbucket]

Very cool. Did the cos11 make a better match in the combo or was is more a matter of everything coming together right for a great recording?

[WiFiJeff]

No, I don't really know which (if any) omni makes a better pairing.  The two or three times I used 4063s had issues with seat location or unwanted tilt up of the 4099 aim (pushing them a bit forward on the frame to stay clear of the downward bend behind the ear is optimal, I think).  I'll know better in a few days, I hope.

Jeff