Topic: Mic Comp: Schoeps Mk5 vs. DPA 4021 [results posted]

[acidjack]

Simple little mic comp here.  Rig was:

Schoeps Mk5 (cardiod)>CMC6U>
DPA 4021>

direct into a DR-680, 24/48.  Both had Schoeps windscreens on (B5Ds on the Mk5s, B5 on the DPAs)

Both files were imported into Audacity.  The Schoeps source was balanced a little as it favored one channel.  Otherwise, both were normalized to -0.1 and left alone.  I think one still sounds a bit louder, so please account for that when listening.

The mics were set up one above the other on a stand, pointed at the stacks.  The stand was somewhat LOC, clamped to the rightmost edge of the soundboard booth.  The venue - Maxwell's, in Hoboken, NJ - is a narrow room with an OK but nothing to write home about sound system. 

I'd have liked to be able to line up the mics more exactly, but looking at it from directly below, it was pretty close, though it looks less so from the pic.  The DINa pair at the bottom is hi and lo's mk41>CMRs.  FWIW they sounded better than either of these two cardiod pairs despite a pattern that I felt was too wide for this super-narrow room.

Also, it would have been nice to have a more fancy pre in the mix, but between the pres we both have, we don't have any 2 that are the same (USBpre2, PSP2, tinybox, M248, NBox) so I thought that would only hurt the accuracy of the comp.  Plus the 680's pres are perfectly fine, especially for recording a PA system. 

I suspect most will have little trouble identifying which mic is which, but I am curious which people prefer. 

Links:
16-bit FLAC mic 1: http://tinyurl.com/67jl596
16-bit FLAC mic 2: http://tinyurl.com/3ok6du9
MP3 mic 1:  http://tinyurl.com/5s9pueq
MP3 mic 2:  http://tinyurl.com/6cc85jb

ZIP file of all four files: http://tinyurl.com/3uszjv8

The band is The Sadies, FWIW.

[jbou]

Plus the 680's pres are perfectly fine, especially for recording a PA system. 

I'll remember this for the next debate about pres 

[acidjack]

Plus the 680's pres are perfectly fine, especially for recording a PA system. 

I'll remember this for the next debate about pres 

Oh, I said "perfectly fine," not "the greatest pre ever" 

[raymonda]

The PA sound compromises the sound too much to make a valid comp, sorry!

[acidjack]

The PA sound compromises the sound too much to make a valid comp, sorry!

Huh? Isn't one of the main applications of people on this board recording PA systems? Because I record many that are worse than this one.

[raymonda]

The PA sound compromises the sound too much to make a valid comp, sorry!

Huh? Isn't one of the main applications of people on this board recording PA systems? Because I record many that are worse than this one.

Yepper! But not all PA's sound the same and that one sounds bad.......I'll give it another try but it sounded as if the speakers were badly overdriven and breaking up or the amps were clipping hard or some of the speakers are damaged. whatever the case, it makes comp'ing the differences invalid. As the saying goes, " you can't polish a turd". What is coming from the PA is not very good sounding. However, it seems there is a good amount of stage sound, too, which sounds much better than what is being pushed through the PA. It just that everything the soundman is pushing through the PA is crapping up the sound.

BTW, I like the band! They sound fun.

[hi and lo]

The PA sounds like a typical taping environment. Feel free to be positive about the merits of this sound comp, which is most certainly not invalid, or not say anything at all.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The ability to make a recording that sounds decent, from a PA that sounds bad, is what it's often all about.

The ideal result is very subjective.  Listener fatigue, to me, is critical.  Can I listen to the recording of a bad PA over and over?  Does it sound musical despite the PA?

On a quick listen, I noticed that the highs in #2 are much better defined.  I haven't listened enough to check for fatigue, etc.

[acidjack]

The ability to make a recording that sounds decent, from a PA that sounds bad, is what it's often all about.The ideal result is very subjective.  Listener fatigue, to me, is critical.  Can I listen to the recording of a bad PA over and over?  Does it sound musical despite the PA?

On a quick listen, I noticed that the highs in #2 are much better defined.  I haven't listened enough to check for fatigue, etc.

My point exactly.  Also, just to stick up for the venue a bit, it normally sounds good in there. As I said, it's not a state-of-the-art system, but this is a venue owned by musicians for musicians and a place that has been well-loved by the music community in New York and New Jersey for a long time (hence why they get relatively big bands to play this small room.

This night was a total mess as there were three acts with lots of gear who also felt compelled to bring their own sound engineers.  As I find is all-too-typical (and please, to be clear, with no offense to the many excellent engineers out there including those on this board), these guys didn't bother to learn the quirks of the house system, and in at least one case, just weren't any good anyway.  My only point being, this venue usually sounds a lot better when the house sound guy is running things, or the band's people (Yo La Tengo's comes to mind as a positive example) try a little harder.

[raymonda]

The ability to make a recording that sounds decent, from a PA that sounds bad, is what it's often all about.The ideal result is very subjective.  Listener fatigue, to me, is critical.  Can I listen to the recording of a bad PA over and over?  Does it sound musical despite the PA?

On a quick listen, I noticed that the highs in #2 are much better defined.  I haven't listened enough to check for fatigue, etc.

My point exactly.  Also, just to stick up for the venue a bit, it normally sounds good in there. As I said, it's not a state-of-the-art system, but this is a venue owned by musicians for musicians and a place that has been well-loved by the music community in New York and New Jersey for a long time (hence why they get relatively big bands to play this small room.

This night was a total mess as there were three acts with lots of gear who also felt compelled to bring their own sound engineers.  As I find is all-too-typical (and please, to be clear, with no offense to the many excellent engineers out there including those on this board), these guys didn't bother to learn the quirks of the house system, and in at least one case, just weren't any good anyway.  My only point being, this venue usually sounds a lot better when the house sound guy is running things, or the band's people (Yo La Tengo's comes to mind as a positive example) try a little harder.

Well, I would disagree that the purpose is to make a bad PA sound good. There is just no way to do this. When there is pervasive distortion, there is pervasive distortion. A mic can add color but to eliminate cone breakup and excessively clipping amps, that is an overly generous impossibility. Rather, the creativity, under such circumstances, lies not in what mic you are using but rather how you implement what you have by positioning, e.g., how to best eliminate the PA from the recording. An example would be to set up on stage and pick up only the stage sound and position close to a vocal monitor to fill in vocals and keys, if they are used.

In cases where there are many DI being used and there is not much stage sound, there are less options and you may have to suffer by picking up the crappy sounding PA.

It is too bad the club allows unexperienced soundman to run their system. They should have a policy, when under such circumstances they have to work with the house soundman to ensure the PA sounds its best. Where I work, we do sound 99% of the time and when the band brings their own soundman he is mandated to work with us. We don't want any dissatisfied customers.  If they refuse the band can play some other venue; our reputation is at stake. We have season ticket holders, which helps our NFP push on and bring in national and international talent.

I understand we may be the exception and that bars and clubs have other priorities.

To answer your question about which one is preferred; I can't tell you because the PA is distorting big time. What I hear are two recordings made with nice equipment of a distorted PA.

[acidjack]

^^ Well, I'm especially interested in your take on this then, since this is your actual job, and the above is just my opinion - do you find that a lot of bands bring guys with them who don't do their jobs right?  Because just anecdotally, I can tell you nine times out of ten, when I'm at a venue I know well, where the house guys are people that I believe (as an end user, at least) to be very good at their jobs, and I hear something going totally wrong, or the mix is off, I inevitably see some guy that I've never seen before, who is clearly with the band, fiddling madly with the controls, followed by him either bitching at/frantically pleading with the house guy to fix it.  The house guy is usually there, but he always seems (as I assume is the rule) to have to defer to whoever the out-of-town person is with the band, until that person encounters something quirky or otherwise wrong with the system. 

Again, just as an observer, it often seems to me that in these situations the traveling person believes that somehow they are more expert at their job (or at least, better at making this band and room sound good) than the person whose whole job it is to make the room perfect night after night.  Then they screw up and the house guy has to fix it.  Obviously there are traveling guys who do a totally incredible job, especially with bands with unusual setups, and there are house guys that are lazy and/or don't have the skill to make the mix perfect.  But I guess my point is, being a taper, and standing there watching these guys work, I've developed a lot of respect for what house engineers, in particular, do, including managing the politics of the whole thing.

I guess I still don't really agree with you regarding this particular recording - the PA mix is certainly not great-sounding, but I don't think it's so horribly distorted that it doesn't show something about how these two mics responded in this particular situation.  For one, I'm of the opinion that one is clearly superior to the other, and more pleasant to listen to, house mix aside.

[raymonda]

If the house soundman has been working the venue he usually knows what to do to keep the system operating within its limitations and the limitations of the acoustical environment. The band soundman are usually also very experienced and usually can operate systems without much orientation. However they often don't understand the limitations of the acoustic environment. This is usually where I come in when we have the band's soundman running the board. Usually we get everything taken care of during the sound check and it is smooth operating during the show.

Sometimes the band's soundman does not run the board but rather gives suggestion about the overall mix and most importantly how the band likes to have their monitors mixed, which believe it or not is more work than the FOH sound.

On rare occassions the band's soundman sucks. Soundman that I have worked with recently that I like alot would include Arlo Guthries'/Asleep at the Wheel and Karla Bonoff's. I won't mention the one or two that are difficult and don't do a very good job.

In general, soundman are over worked, underpaid and under appreciated. They come from a number of places with a varying amount of training and experience. Some are just cutting their teeth and some have been around for a long time. The most dangerous type are the one's that refuse to accept that they don't know what they don't know. They are the one's that usually screw things up and who you can hear taking solo's during the show.

Maybe I'm being too sensative to the PA problems on your recordings. However, I would look forward to another comp from your sources off of a better PA system or at least this one being run within its limitations and not beyond.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The ability to make a recording that sounds decent, from a PA that sounds bad, is what it's often all about.

Well, I would disagree that the purpose is to make a bad PA sound good. There is just no way to do this.

Right - because all recordings sound the same‏.

[bhadella]

Sample 2 has much better balance between lows and highs and does a better job of dealing with the bass when compared to Sample 1.    I'd prefer to listen to the 2nd source.   I have no idea which one better represents the actual recording environment. 

[raymonda]

The ability to make a recording that sounds decent, from a PA that sounds bad, is what it's often all about.

Well, I would disagree that the purpose is to make a bad PA sound good. There is just no way to do this.

Right - because all recordings sound the same‏.

I'm not sure how I might have offended you but there is no need to be snarky. I was asked my opinion and gave it. If yours differs so be it.

Peace!

[SmokinJoe]

I think Mic 1 is the Schoeps.  Fatter and smoother.   I think Mic 2 is the DPA... clean, crisp and the guitar is kinda in your face... nothing wrong with that, it's just not my flavor of choice.

That said, I'm more familiar the MK4's.  Never paid much attention to how MK4's and MK5's compare, but I'm assuming they are kind of similar.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The ability to make a recording that sounds decent, from a PA that sounds bad, is what it's often all about.

Well, I would disagree that the purpose is to make a bad PA sound good. There is just no way to do this.

Right - because all recordings sound the same‏.

I'm not sure how I might have offended you but there is no need to be snarky. I was asked my opinion and gave it. If yours differs so be it.

I wasn't offended and it wasn't snarky.  I just think your proposition was absurd.  Because, again, it is what we do.  It's a comp of two mics - one which we haven't heard here before.

As for the PA being "bad", I'm sure we've all had to deal with far worse (shudder).

[acidjack]

c'mon folks... let's get some more votes. I'm getting PMs about the results.. let's see some more votes!  It's free...

[bhadella]

I want some results!

If anyone is interested, I have a MMW show where I ran a comp of  4023 > Sonosax > R44 vs MK4 > Lemosax > R44 that I could make a comp of.

[tedyun]

I'd like to hear this (even if you just recorded the PA  )

I want some results!

If anyone is interested, I have a MMW show where I ran a comp of  4023 > Sonosax > R44 vs MK4 > Lemosax > R44 that I could make a comp of.

[acidjack]

Brian, I'd definitely like to hear your MMW comp.  Certainly it'll likely be a better-sounding show. 

So.. results..

Mic 1 was my DPA 4021s

Mic 2 is hi and lo's Mk5s into my CMC6 bodies

To me this result isn't all that surprising, and I'm not surprised that folks preferred Mic 2.  If you look at the frequency response plots of the mics, the mk5 is less flat and has that much more pronounced HF emphasis that the 4021 does not have.  I also feel like the mk5 has a slight bit of bass rolloff, but that may just be my ears being tricked by the HF emphasis.

As has been amply debated in the thread, this is not a great recording because it is not a very good PA mix, very strong PA, or ideal spot in the room.  But I do think this comp says a lot about the choice of mic one might have for recording PA systems.  A lot of us spend a lot of our time recording PA systems that are less than ideal, so if you do, you might consider a mic that is more suited to less ideal conditions (of course, I'd also call that mic "hypers" in a lot of cases).   While I won't claim this recording is excellent, I do think it is a very accurate representation of the difference in results that you get in these types of conditions with these types of mics.  If this were a comp of say, an orchestra, or an onstage recording, or a studio recording, I suspect the results would be different.

It's true that the 402x mics are notoriously accurate mics - to their detriment when they're recording a bad room.  With 402x mics especially, I think you cannot be afraid of the EQ.  After applying an EQ curve to the 4021 source that looked more like the Schoeps, the source sounds quite good with them.  But again, if you record a lot of PA systems and don't like the idea of doing a bunch of EQ, you might consider a mic that didn't require as much of it. 

Now let's hear that MMW comp!   

[SmokinJoe]

I just spent big bucks to buy Schoeps and I preferred the sound of the DPA's in this comp.      Then again I have MK4's, and apparently there is more difference between the flavor of MK4's and MK5's than I expected.

What it really means that I can't trust my own opinions.  A few years ago I was hanging with a guy who was fluffing his DPA's.  I listened to a few of his tapes, and to be honest I didn't really care for them, although it was probably more of a case of "I didn't like these mics paired with that pre", and maybe he didn't either because he changed preamp soon thereafter.  Based on those handful of samples I formed an opinion which I've held onto for a few years, kind of like "I tried chocolate ice cream once, and I didn't like it, therefore I still don't like it".  I guess I need to re-evaluate those opinions from time to time.

[acidjack]

^^ I believe the Mk4 has a flatter response than the Mk5.  My understanding is that the Mk5 has a response more similar to the Mk4v.

For me, as the owner of the losing mics in this comp, I dramatically preferred the Schoeps source in this case.  It doesn't (to me) mean that one is necessarily better than the other, but to me one was infinitely better for this particular situation. 

I'm curious to see what your views of the Schoeps are after a few months, compared to the AKGs you already have.  The Schoeps certainly have a "fatter" and less dry sound than AKG products do.  Same as with the DPAs, lots of great recordings made with both.

[newplanet7]

I want some results!

If anyone is interested, I have a MMW show where I ran a comp of  4023 > Sonosax > R44 vs MK4 > Lemosax > R44 that I could make a comp of.

Have you seeded either ever ?
If you need help with any mmw i am here brah.

[bhadella]

I want some results!

If anyone is interested, I have a MMW show where I ran a comp of  4023 > Sonosax > R44 vs MK4 > Lemosax > R44 that I could make a comp of.

Have you seeded either ever ?
If you need help with any mmw i am here brah.

I seeded both on etree back in '09.  Looks like I let both torrents die.   Here's some info on the DPA source:

-------------------------------------------------------
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=528357
-------------------------------------------------------
Medeski Martin & Wood
09/19/09
Neighborhood Theatre, Charlotte, NC

Source: DPA 4022 (5' LOC at SBD, 8' up, DIN) > Lunatec V3 (digital out) > Edirol R44 (24/48)

Transfer: SDHC Card > PC > Wavelab 5 (Fades, Resampled via resampler 192, MBIT+ Dither) > CD Wave > Trader's Little Helper
Taped and Transfered by: Brian Hadella <bhadella@taperssection.com>


Disc 1:
Set 1:

01. Walk Back
02. Dollar Pants
03. Sweet Pea Dreams
04. Reliquary
05. Broken Mirror
06. Wonton
07. Amber Gris


Disc 2:
Set 2:
01. Amish Pinxtos
02. Junkyard
03. Jean's Scene
04. Free Go Lily
05. Where's Sly?
06. Gwyra Mi
07. Newplanet
08. Undone

Encore:

09. Crosstown Traffic

[it-goes-to-eleven]

It's true that the 402x mics are notoriously accurate mics - to their detriment when they're recording a bad room.  With 402x mics especially, I think you cannot be afraid of the EQ.  After applying an EQ curve to the 4021 source that looked more like the Schoeps, the source sounds quite good with them.

Thanks for the comp.

I've never run 402x's, but your comments reflect my impressions.  The 402x have a Big frequency response that goes very low - lower than most any other card.  That can be an asset or a liability.  I suppose you need to be willing to run an hpf, or do post.  Maybe tighten up the pattern more than for some other mics..

I suppose it's a little bit like mk21's.  Many times that cap isn't appropriate, or requires a different approach.  But when it is appropriate, holy cow, it can be really great.

On the subject of EQ..  I've thought it might be interesting to re-do some of these comps after folks EQ the results.   Ideally, we'd get a few different interpretations and then could do a blind comp of them.  I also thought that might be interesting with the last comp we had - the dpa vs. mc930's.  Of course Summer is upon us - it isn't really the time to be indoors, doing EQ...

[newplanet7]

I want some results!

If anyone is interested, I have a MMW show where I ran a comp of  4023 > Sonosax > R44 vs MK4 > Lemosax > R44 that I could make a comp of.

Have you seeded either ever ?
If you need help with any mmw i am here brah.

I seeded both on etree back in '09.  Looks like I let both torrents die.   Here's some info on the DPA source:
-------------------------------------------------------
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=528357
-------------------------------------------------------
Medeski Martin & Wood
09/19/09
Neighborhood Theatre, Charlotte, NC

Source: DPA 4022 (5' LOC at SBD, 8' up, DIN) > Lunatec V3 (digital out) > Edirol R44 (24/48)

Ha ha! I was reading the comments and apparently I indeed help with that show! I'm a whore for some MMdubz.

[F.O.Bean]

I did this comp. I liked the  DPA source better, but I dont really care for the 4v/mk5 HF bump. Just doesnt sound like Schoeps IMHO Theyre supposed to be dark, not bright!

[acidjack]

I just like yr new handle, Bean. (or should I say F.O. Bean?) 

[aaronji]

I prefer the DPA source too.  Fuller bass and not so bright in the high-end.  But I was sure that Mic 1 was the Schoeps...

As for MMW, I got a pretty good recording of them with Randy Brecker and Bill Evans at North Sea a couple of weeks ago.  I've been so swamped lately, though, that I haven't even pulled it off of the SD card yet... 

[newplanet7]

As for MMW, I got a pretty good recording of them with Randy Brecker and Bill Evans at North Sea a couple of weeks ago.  I've been so swamped lately, though, that I haven't even pulled it off of the SD card yet...

All this MMW talk is getting me randy......
Seems like less and less tapers for them these days.

[acidjack]

I've been dying to tape them in NYC for a few years now but feel like I've either missed their shows or they haven't been through the city...

[newplanet7]

I've hit them a few times IN NY.
Once in the City in 2009 at 92y Tribeca, and the other times in tarrytown.
Good times. The individual members often to one off collaborations around the city though.