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.