Topic: DPA 4023 vs beyerdynamic CK930 | an informal comparison

[JasonSobel]

Last night at Great Woods, Lenny and I were running on the same stand (both clamped to Greg B. - big thanks for letting us run dead center ).
Here's a crappy picture from my cell phone.

That's Greg's AKG 393's up top, my beyerdynamic CK930 in the middle, and Lenny's DPA 4023 on the bottom.

As you can see, we were basically running the same pattern, and just a few vertical inches apart.
Lenny's gear chain was:
DPA 4023 > Sonosax SX-M2 > Sound Devices 722 (24/96)

My gear chain was:
beyerdynamic CK930 > Sonosax SX-M2 > Marantz PMD-661 w/ "Oade Concert Mod" (@ 24 bit / 96 kHz)

The key here, is that this is an informal comparison, because I thought it would be fun to do so.
Yes, our mic patterns might not have been absolutely identical.  and yes, I was running an oade concert mod PMD-661, while Lenny was using his 722.

but I figured, hey, we're basically running from the same spot, with the same config, and with the same pre-amp.  So why not post this as a fun comparison.

I took one song (Halley's Comet) from each of our recordings.
Lenny's is available here - http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=545533
mine is available here - http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=545514

First, I used SoX to make adjust the levels of both recordings, such that the average RMS level of each recording was identical.
then I went into Samplitude, and I created a 2 minute segment where I alternated sources every 20 seconds.

See table below for details on file ABABAB.flac.  Download file ABABAB.flac here: http://iput.it/078d43

from.......	to...........	source.......
00:00	00:20	Source A
00:20	00:40	Source B
00:40	01:00	Source A
01:00	01:20	Source B
01:20	01:40	Source A
01:40	02:00	Source B

For reference, you can also download the full song from each source:
source A (after RMS-balancing) - http://iput.it/5dca82
source B (after RMS-balancing) - http://iput.it/e72830
source A (original file from torrent linked above) - http://iput.it/d862cd
source B (original file from torrent linked above) - http://iput.it/2c429b

of course, you could cheat this comp, and download both torrents from bt.etree.org, and figure out which one is source A and source B.  but where's the fun in that? (answer: no fun).

so, please, listen, vote, post your thoughts, etc, etc...

[page]

For reference, you can also download the full song from each source:
source A (after RMS-balancing) - http://iput.it/5dca82
source B (after RMS-balancing) - http://iput.it/e72830

yay!

I find it easier to pull them into audacity, line them up and flip back and forth via solo/mute.

[rastasean]

the iput.it is awesome!
The change is noticeable but I'm not totally sure which I prefer. Are you satisfied with the results it provided?

[OOK]

My ears really like source "B"...really nice open sound....again everyone hears different...."A" isn't bad but not as nice as "B"....

nice comp....  I am going to have to look at the pattern pickups to see if there is any difference..."B" seems to have a wider pattern pick up....almost sub card compared to the "A" source.

Was the angle at which the mic's placed the same....ie...90 degrees...?  nevermind re-read your post.  everything was basically the same...minus the mics and the recorders.

[page]

My ears really like source "B"...really nice open sound....again everyone hears different...."A" isn't bad but not as nice as "B"....

nice comp....  I am going to have to look at the pattern pickups to see if there is any difference..."B" seems to have a wider pattern pick up....almost sub card compared to the "A" source.

Was the angle at which the mic's placed the same....ie...90 degrees...?  nevermind re-read your post.  everything was basically the same...minus the mics and the recorders.

Fastest difference is in the bass response. A has more in the right channel (bad aim at the stack?) and more overall, while B is much more balanced. Comparatively, A has less spacial depth or detail then B which I get the sense that I'm listening to something in the distance where as A sounds less "distant speaker" like but just as distant colored (tonal balance of metallic reflection-type sound). In this instance, B gets the nod.

Now, I'd already heard the beyer/sax combo, and I had heard RnR>Mango from this beyer/sax source earlier today so I know which is which.

[lastubbe]

Tried to respond on the mobile device but was having problems...

Haven't had a chance to check this out yet but I will soon.  Thanks to Jason for doing this.  Wish we did this more often.  It's like a taste test and it's always interesting to hear everyone's impressions.

In terms of the bass in the right channel and the bad aim.... there was one point at one of the Ohio shows, can't remember which, where it got real loud, and everyone looked in their bag to make adjustments.  I remember around one of those points checking my levels when Gordon was sending some funky loud effects through his bass, and my right channel was shooting well over the left.  I'm no expert, but I took that as pretty good aim, as if Mike is coming out of the right half of the PA, I was picking up that spike of sound.

Comments welcome....

[Walstib62]

I would think that there would be more high freq. rejection off-axis to the mics than low freq. rejection. Low frequencies permeate a space much more than highs, right? Hence the use of 1 sub woofer in basic surround systems. I haven't listened to it yet, but I'm pretty sure the tapers in this instance did not aim the mics far enough off-axis from the stacks to cause the difference. The reason for any substantial difference, if any exists, would most likely lie elsewhere.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

My playback is limited right now - so I'm listening on headphones.

A is shifted to the left a bit.

B had additional clarity and presence over A.  And initially, I liked that. However, I found B fatiguing.  I wouldn't say bright, but it wasn't something I'd like to listen to a lot.  Just something about the mid high's that I found a bit grating.  So I preferred A.

Thanks for the comp!

[dactylus]

Thank you for the comp.  I'm not sure which I'd choose if I had to pick the one source that I'd be running personally.  But I'm pretty sure that I know which camp is which.   

[acidjack]

On one listen, on ATH-M50s, I thought A was maybe a touch smoother than B.  B did have a bit more "presence" and maybe a touch more in the HF, but I also found it somewhat harsher.  They were closer than I expected, though. 

I think A is the DPAs and I prefer A.  Not having the Sax myself, though, I wouldn't say I am super-confident in identifying my own gear in this case..

[JasonSobel]

thanks to everyone who has posted thoughts about this comp.

right now, 7 total voters, 3 prefer source A, and 4 prefer source B.  and a pretty even split among those you think which source is which.  I'm thinking I'll let this go through the day, and the post which source is which this evening...

the iput.it is awesome!
The change is noticeable but I'm not totally sure which I prefer. Are you satisfied with the results it provided?

Am I satisfied with the comparison?  with my recording?  with Lenny's recording?  The answer is yes, to all three.  While I think I would have been able to pick out which is which, I obviously knew which source was which going in.  I will say, however, that the differences are more subtle than I would have guessed.  Before I got to listen to Lenny's DPA's, I would have guessed that there would have been a greater difference between the two recordings.

[hi and lo]

B had additional clarity and presence over A.  And initially, I liked that. However, I found B fatiguing.  I wouldn't say bright, but it wasn't something I'd like to listen to a lot.  Just something about the mid high's that I found a bit grating.  So I preferred A.

Thanks for the comp!

My thoughts exactly. I vote for A.

[lastubbe]

I just emailed Jason my thoughts and will save them until he posts the results so everyone has a chance to get in.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

B had additional clarity and presence over A.  And initially, I liked that. However, I found B fatiguing.  I wouldn't say bright, but it wasn't something I'd like to listen to a lot.  Just something about the mid high's that I found a bit grating.  So I preferred A.

Thanks for the comp!

My thoughts exactly. I vote for A.

Fwiw, I tried hard not to identify the mics... I just listened.

This stuff is so subjective and dependent on playback.   If the playback is a bit muddy, or overly biased to the low end (a lot of playbacks I hear have sloppy bottoms), then B might sound better.

So how much of this difference is pre-amp vs. mics?  I wonder if a little more spacing between the mics on B might tame what I hear?  Maybe it isn't the mics.  It would have been great if you guys had mixed things up and swapped backends for the second set.   What kind of windscreens were in use?

I once posted a comp here of an outdoor Umphreys show comparing my C4 > minime to 4022 > v3.  They sounded really close.  The 4022 brought a bit more bottom (though I've always felt the v3 has a bit of rolloff built in).  Are the 4022 and c4 close?  Not really... But I don't think you hear the difference so much at an outdoor show, where the great off-axis response of the 402x isn't as apparent.

Oh... Another question.  How many volts were supplied to each sonosax?  It seems that the sax has specific voltage requirements and many external power sources come up short.  I also think some regulated power sources aren't very clean and inject noise.

[JasonSobel]

it-goes-to-eleven: some interesting thoughts, and I'll respond to some of them.

Fwiw, I tried hard not to identify the mics... I just listened.

This stuff is so subjective and dependent on playback.   If the playback is a bit muddy, or overly biased to the low end (a lot of playbacks I hear have sloppy bottoms), then B might sound better.

absolutely, this is all very subjective.  it depends on playback equipment, what each of us can or can not hear, and also what each of us prefers to hear or how we each want it to sound.  The subjectivity is what makes it fun.  If any mics were objectively better than all the rest in every recording scenario, we'd all be running the same gear.

So how much of this difference is pre-amp vs. mics?  I wonder if a little more spacing between the mics on B might tame what I hear?  Maybe it isn't the mics.  It would have been great if you guys had mixed things up and swapped backends for the second set.   What kind of windscreens were in use?

just to be clear, both sets of mics were running into the same type of pre-amp (Sonosax SX-M2).  different A/D in the two different decks, but I don't think we can attribute any differences to pre-amps.

Edit to add - on my beyerdynamic CK930 recording, I was using DPA UA0896 windscreens.  I'm not sure what type of windscreens Lenny was using.

I once posted a comp here of an outdoor Umphreys show comparing my C4 > minime to 4022 > v3.  They sounded really close.  The 4022 brought a bit more bottom (though I've always felt the v3 has a bit of rolloff built in).  Are the 4022 and c4 close?  Not really... But I don't think you hear the difference so much at an outdoor show, where the great off-axis response of the 402x isn't as apparent.

That's funny (not ha ha funny, but "interesting" funny).  You say you did a comp, and that the results sounded very close to each other.  but based then, based on what I assume are biases not related to the comparison, you still thought/think the 4022 and the C4 aren't close in sound.

It is very possible that an outdoor show is not the best recording scenario to highlight difference in the mics, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.  What if someone tapes the majority of their shows outside?  It seems like many people here tape a lot of outdoor shows.  that said, there is a difference between completely outside (like in a field), vs under a pavilion roof (like the comp posted in this thread).  Sure, there were no back walls to reflect sound, but off-axis response certainly comes into play with reflections off the roof.

Oh... Another question.  How many volts were supplied to each sonosax?  It seems that the sax has specific voltage requirements and many external power sources come up short.  I also think some regulated power sources aren't very clean and inject noise.

The sonosax I was running (beyerdynamic CK930) was being powered by two internal 9V batteries.  Lenny has a tekkeon to power his, but I'm not sure what voltage setting it was set to.

As before, I'll post results later this evening.