Is the DPA 4006 right for me?

[gfrees]

Hi,

I am looking for advice on purchasing a stereo pair of mics for a recording project that I am starting. I will primarily be recording acoustic guitar and mandolin. Recorded music will range from Bach solo pieces on mandolin, to blues and bluegrass.

This is a home-studio recording project, but I am trying to use good equipment in order to achieve a superior recording. For example, I am lucky enough to be using a Millennia Media HV-3B for my mic pre.

I have also been lucky enough to test several high-quality mic pairs to date via generous loans from John LaGrou (a wonderful friend of many years... yes, I'm dropping names here....):

Gefell M300's,
Gefell M930's
AEA R88
Josephson C617+MK221's
Neuman KM184's
Avenson STO-2's

It is hard to fault any of these excellent mics, but much to my surprise the Avenson STO-2's sounded by far the best to me in my mic shootout... both on the acoustic guitar and mandolin. They sound absolutely fantastic! (as I have also read elsewhere in this forum from other users).

My only problem now is that the STO-2's have too much self-noise for what I want to achieve. I have several quiet pieces that I will record on solo mandolin on this project... and the self-noise is too evident in those cases. I will also be multitracking several pieces, where the cumulative sum of the self-noise will become an even bigger issue. I was, quite frankly, heartbroken about the noise on the STO-2's because they were by far and away the winners on natural, clear, and airy sound for my instruments.

As I have researched (on this forum and the product websites) other very small diaphragm omnis from Earthworks (i.e. QTC series) and DPA (i.e. the 4060/61 4090/91) it has become clear that self-noise is a general issue with these types of mics. Physics plays a role here that is apparently insurmountable.

However, I did notice that both the Earthworks QTC series and the DPA 4090/91's advertise about 6 dBA less self-noise than the Avenson's. It makes me curious to know if the self-noise really "sounds" only half as loud as the STO-2's, as the 6dB difference in specs would suggest.

Anyway, here is my bottom line: I really liked the sound of the STO-2 omnis recording spaced-stereo on my mandolin and guitar. I am looking for mics that will give me equal or better natural, clear, and open/airy acoustic qualities without the self-noise issue. While I'd like to not overspend, I have come to the conclusion that I may need to fork over some big money to achieve what I want. I am now considering DPA based on comments on this forum and from John LaGrou... but I've not yet been able to test any.

Here are the questions:

1. Will I like the DPA 4006 (or the new 4006-TL's) on my mandolin and acoustic guitar?

2. Would I like the new DPA 4090 (i.e. does it sound good and does it have low enough self-noise to not be a problem... I know the latter is subjective and hard to answer)

3. Or, is there another pair of mics that I should try other than the DPA's? (NOTE: I really don't want to go over the cost of a pair of 4006's... i.e. about $4500)

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Teddy Ray]

Josephson C617s with Gefell Mk221 capsules, and Gefell M296.

The c617s with MK221s and m296 absolutely slayed everything in my personal mic locker for acoustic guitar. (and a lot of other things!)
(MK2S, m930, m300, AKG 426B, Beyer m130, M160, at 4050, and u87)

They are about 3G new. mercenary audio sells them.

the MK221 is a measurement capsule, and has a massive freq. response. It is the most open, detailed ,pure sounding omni I have ever heard....flat +0, –1 dB from 10 Hz to 100 kHz.....

B+K measurement caps, GRAS Measurement caps, and ACO caps all fit on those bodies... I think it might be the ticket you are looking for....I know they left my jaw on the floor...


http://www.mercenary.com/joc6ommiwimi.html

I will be adding another pair of these shortly.

[Folkie]

Eddie Ciletti did a review and discussed his findings in comparing the Josephson C617/MK221 vs the DPA 4006. He liked the C617. There are a couple of very short recordings made with each mic that you can download. Here is the link: http://www.tangible-technology.com/reviews/microphones/josephson/617/DJ_617_review.htm

PS I have not heard the 4006 but have a pair of the C617/Mk221's and love :) the way they sound (very natural/uncolored) on acoustic instruments.

Bill

[Ivo]

When I tried DPA 4006 on various sources, they sounded a bit "cold" to me. Schoeps were very accurate too, but adding nicer musical vibes somehow...
I use a pair of Schoeps MK4V on acoustic guitar an similar instruments with nice results ...

[jaredq]

Tried the schoeps MK4V for awhile and my conclusion was that they sounded dull and almost sort of a thick muffled sound. Sent um packing. Turned around and bought a pair of DPA 4003 120v omnis.
Suddenly transients were more clear on the piano and a tremendous amount of depth in the bass register.
I think that if you are going for a thick,weighing almost blurred sound ,the schoeps are much better for those wishes.

[Ivo]

Tried the schoeps MK4V for awhile and my conclusion was that they sounded dull and almost sort of a thick muffled sound. Sent um packing. Turned around and bought a pair of DPA 4003 120v omnis.
Suddenly transients were more clear on the piano and a tremendous amount od depth in the bass register.
I think that if you are going for a thick,weighing almost blurred sound ,the schoeps are much better for those wishes.

But you are comparing cardiods with omnis .... Even within the Schoeps line, the sound difference between these is big.

[Teddy Ray]

That makes no sense. Blurred, Weighed sound??hardly.
and like ivo said, you compare the Cardiod to omnis, which is useless.



Tried the schoeps MK4V for awhile and my conclusion was that they sounded dull and almost sort of a thick muffled sound. Sent um packing. Turned around and bought a pair of DPA 4003 120v omnis.
Suddenly transients were more clear on the piano and a tremendous amount od depth in the bass register.
I think that if you are going for a thick,weighing almost blurred sound ,the schoeps are much better for those wishes.

[Haigbabe]

That makes no sense. Blurred, Weighed sound??hardly.
and like ivo said, you compare the Cardiod to omnis, which is useless.

Actually, I agree with jaredq, the (Schoeps) cardioids are prone to that description.

They can of course be extremely useful, but if you're after clarity rather than flattery or a sort of numb version of clarity, well, they work fine.

Much better off with the 21 capsule imo.

But back on topic with suggestions, for the original poster, I'd have to say you should try the Sonodores. And SoundField.

If you want clarity but in cardioid flavour, the EW SR77 are very good on a budget.

Best regards,

Haigbabe

[3daudioinc]

Fred Forssell (Forssell Tech) or Greg Gualtieri (Pendulum) are both acoustic guitar experts. I know that Greg knows mics. I suspect that Fred probably has opinions as well. I'll see if they can contribute anything to this discussion.

I've never heard the Avensons so I can't comment.

[gfrees]

The first two repliers to my question liked the Josephson C617+MK221 mic. I still have that pair of mics in my possession, so decided to test them once again last night in an attempt to see how they stand up to the STO-2's if I were to spend more time on mic placement than in my first round of tests.

After spending about an hour positioning the mics (about 45 min for the guitar, and 15 for the mando), I once again recorded my mandolin and guitar. Try as I might, I could not get the C617+MK221's to sound as nice as the STO-2's.

(I have the sound clips and would be happy to post them for folks to listen to, but I don't have a website to place the clips. If anybody has a suggestion on how I can post the clips, please let me know.)

Also, I remain interested in hearing if anybody has experience recording the guitar and/or mandolin with the DPA 4006's.

[Teddy Ray]

Goes to show we all have different ears. I dont hear that at all.


Actually, I agree with jaredq, the (Schoeps) cardioids are prone to that description.

They can of course be extremely useful, but if you're after clarity rather than flattery or a sort of numb version of clarity, well, they work fine.

Much better off with the 21 capsule imo.

But back on topic with suggestions, for the original poster, I'd have to say you should try the Sonodores. And SoundField.

If you want clarity but in cardioid flavour, the EW SR77 are very good on a budget.

Best regards,

Haigbabe

[Teddy Ray]

when you say nice, what do you mean??more pleasing tone, more detail?

www.yousendit.com is an easy way to post clips.




The first two repliers to my question liked the Josephson C617+MK221 mic. I still have that pair of mics in my possession, so decided to test them once again last night in an attempt to see how they stand up to the STO-2's if I were to spend more time on mic placement than in my first round of tests.

After spending about an hour positioning the mics (about 45 min for the guitar, and 15 for the mando), I once again recorded my mandolin and guitar. Try as I might, I could not get the C617+MK221's to sound as nice as the STO-2's.

(I have the sound clips and would be happy to post them for folks to listen to, but I don't have a website to place the clips. If anybody has a suggestion on how I can post the clips, please let me know.)

Also, I remain interested in hearing if anybody has experience recording the guitar and/or mandolin with the DPA 4006's.

[sdelsolray]

+1 on the Gefell M296. Gefell's nickel capsules have some mojo all of their own.

[Teddy Ray]

+1 on the Gefell M296. Gefell's nickel capsules have some mojo all of their own.


Yes they do.

all gefells have mojo for days.

[gfrees]

Originally Posted by teddy
when you say nice, what do you mean??more pleasing tone, more detail?

By "nice" I mean a more natural sound and better clarity. The STO-2 produces a sound that "really" sounds like my instruments. Not heavy on the lows, not hyped on the highs or mids. The Avenson response curves are dead flat out to 20kHz, and the recorded sound sounds like it is flat.

I found the C617+MK221 to produce a deeper, darker, and somewhat "numb" sound... particularly on the guitar. It didn't have the clarity on pick clicks, etc. In essence, it sounded like it didn't have as much high frequency content as the STO-2's. However, the published frequency response plots for the two products would certainly indicate that they should not have any major differences in high-frequency response. I also ran an FFT on the recordings and could not see any significant frequency content differences between the STO-2 and C617+MK221. However, the listening test is abundantly clear that the two mics sound very different.

(P.S. thanks for the tip on YouSendIt... but I took a look and it appears that it requires that I know the email addresses of the people that I want to send the files to... which is not a great option for a forum like this).

[Haigbabe]

gfrees

Have you heard Jim Dugger's "Piano Mic Shootout" CD?

He has quite a few combinations of mics including the 4006, 4011, 4061, QTC-1, Gefells, Senny 800, Josephson/Gefell etc.

As you are familiar with the Josephson/Gefell combo, it will give you something of a reference point to judge the 4xxx mics (to some degree).

He's easily found on this board.

Good luck in your hunt and I'd love to hear what you settle on eventually.

Cheers,

Haigbabe

[gfrees]

gfrees

Have you heard Jim Dugger's "Piano Mic Shootout" CD?



Hi, yes... as I've read through many of the threads on this forum I've seen references to Jim's "Piano Mic Shootout" many times. I haven't heard the CD though. I'll take a look in the forum to see if I figure out how to acquire the CD.

Also, thank you for your previous reply with the comments about the Sonodores and Soundfield mics. I don't know if I have access to them for a test, but I will check and see.

Regards,
Greg

[Jim Dugger]

I haven't heard the CD though. I'll take a look in the forum to see if I figure out how to acquire the CD.

Basically you send me an email and $25, and I'll send you one.

It's not on the same level (in my opinion) as Lynn's work, but does give you some idea of the relative flavor of a lot of different mic pairs.

I'm a big fan of the 4006, though. I think you can't go wrong there. And, yes, they have the "open" sound I love about Omnis.

[3daudioinc]

Fred Forssell wrote me back. Here is his reply.

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for your email. I hope this reply finds you well.

I've used TLM-170s for some of the Mike Marshall/Chris Thile live stuff that
I've done, but when we went out on the road for the tours, I used DPA-4011
for them. These were used on their mandolins, mandola, and mando-cello. I
liked them a lot. The DPA-4011 was also used on Tom Rozum's mandolin for an
up coming album.

I have used DPA-4011 with REALLY good success on bluegrass/flatpicking
acoustic guitar (mostly D-18 guitars). I also really like the DPA 4041T/S
omni mics for acoustic guitar which I also really liked a lot. I've used
the 4041T on some stuff that I did with Mike Marshall and Darol Anger as
well.

I messed around with an R84 for mandolin and was pretty please with the
result as well so I'm guessing that an R88 would be cool. Plan on using
some EQ here.

All of these were used with Forssell Technologies preamps (FetCode and JMP-6
for Mike and Chris, JMP-6 for 4011 on guitar, and my new preamp/power
supply for the 4041T/S), so I can't vouch for how these mics would work with
other preamps.

Cheers,

Fred Forssell
Forssell Technologies Inc

[gfrees]

Thank you Lynn and Fred.

Fred, you really got my attention when you mentioned Chris Thile and Mike Marshall! Chris is the reason that I'm playing mandolin now after being a guitar player for nearly 30 yrs. He's my mandolin hero (if that doesn't sound too childish for a 42 yr-old-wanna-be to be saying). In fact, I was lucky enough to see the Thile/Marshall concert in Santa Cruz, CA in Jan. this year. My jaw spent so much time on the floor that my wife nearly had to re-attach it to my face when it was time to leave.

When the concert occurred in Jan., I was in the beginning stages of researching and purchasing equipment for my project (you can see that I'm not a speedy buyer....). Because I liked the sound of the instruments so much, I walked down to the front of the stage at the intermission and tried to determine what mics they were using. Alas, I couldn't tell what they were other than pencil condensers... and I didn't have the guts to knock on the door of the control room to talk to the sound guy (i.e. you perhaps). Now through the miracle of the internet and this wonderful forum, it seems I've been able to find out! DPA 4011's.

I had started my search for mics with cardiods in mind because they seem to be the most-used type for close-micing of instruments, but then convinced myself that omnis sounded great too despite my fear of picking up too much of the acoustic personality of my family room (oops... I mean my "studio") and not enough stereo spread. But now it sounds like I really need to try to test both the 4006's and 4011's. I am anxious now to be making a trip to Placerville to visit a friend at Millennia Media where I think I will be able to test both types of the DPA's (and perhaps the TLM 170 as well... he has a large mic cabinet).

BTW... in terms of the pre-amp, I am using an HV-3B, so that part of my signal path is very good, and I anticipate good results from the pre for whatever mic I end up buying. Just need to find the right tranducers to plug into it now! Based on everything that I've read on this forum and elsewhere, it seems that it is hard to go wrong with DPA (though some fault them a bit for being a bit "cold").

Thank you very much for your note and advice.

Best Regards,
Greg

[Teddy Ray]

use your own email address, send it to yourself and copy the URL , and post it here...

Odd on the MGs. They are the most "real" mics I have ever owned. And lacking clarity is not a charactaristic I have heard anyone attribute to those mics.Always the opposite. Up against the DPAs, I preferred the MK221 much more..hyper real.

Interesting. Just goes to show that word of mouth reccomendations dont mean much! People hear things so differently!





By "nice" I mean a more natural sound and better clarity. The STO-2 produces a sound that "really" sounds like my instruments. Not heavy on the lows, not hyped on the highs or mids. The Avenson response curves are dead flat out to 20kHz, and the recorded sound sounds like it is flat.

I found the C617+MK221 to produce a deeper, darker, and somewhat "numb" sound... particularly on the guitar. It didn't have the clarity on pick clicks, etc. In essence, it sounded like it didn't have as much high frequency content as the STO-2's. However, the published frequency response plots for the two products would certainly indicate that they should not have any major differences in high-frequency response. I also ran an FFT on the recordings and could not see any significant frequency content differences between the STO-2 and C617+MK221. However, the listening test is abundantly clear that the two mics sound very different.

(P.S. thanks for the tip on YouSendIt... but I took a look and it appears that it requires that I know the email addresses of the people that I want to send the files to... which is not a great option for a forum like this).

[Don S]

Based on everything that I've read on this forum and elsewhere, it seems that it is hard to go wrong with DPA (though some fault them a bit for being a bit "cold").

Thank you very much for your note and advice.

Best Regards,
Greg
Hi Greg (and Teddy!)

We're splitting hairs here but, I used the DPA4006s in a large concert situation last week along side the Schoeps MK2H. This would have been a fantastic AB comparison but for the preamps. A mackie Onyx 800R. I really was hoping that I liked my schoeps more! However, in the diffused field of a large stage, the "coldness" that I've heard previously turned into clarity. The schoeps, while I loved them in a chamber setting, were just a little muddy and lacked some detail. Again - this might have been a direct result of using a cheap pre! I'm used to hearing schoeps with the HV-3 and have never been dissapointed before.
Bottom line - you must judge any mic with the equipment and in the specific situation in wich it will get most use.
Gearslutz had a fantastic post of examples of the Schoeps and DPA ina studio, recorded at a close proximity to the player. Schoeps was clearly the choice. That's why I was confused when I liked what I was getting from DPA. Now I own both!

[Fred Forssell]

Hi Greg,

Yeah Mike and Chris are amazing players. I've been lucky enough to do two tours with them and they still blow me away.

At the Santa Cruz show I was using the DPA4011 and my CS-1 channel strips for the front-end to the PA. The CS-1 has the same preamp as the JMP-6, but with the added features of a channel strip. As you may recall, Mike and Chris are very dynamic players and I used a bit of compression from the CS-1s to keep the really loud stuff from getting out of hand. There was a small amount of EQ used as well.

The main reason Mike and Chris sound so good is because they are Mike and Chris. They also play great instruments. The venue for the Santa Cruz show was a great sounding room too. Mike and Chris play without monitors which also helps a lot. For my part, I view my job as just staying out of the way sonically.

But back to the orginal topic. I really like the TLM-170 on mando for studio use, and I've used the DPA4011 in studio as well. But I think it is important to use a preamp that is very smooth and not "hyped" on the high end when recording mandolin. This is especially true when recording players who play hard/loud. You may want to try some other preamps in addition to the one that you have so you can hear the difference.

A friend of mine uses the MG UM92something through a JMP-6 on mandolin with good results. He is a great flatpicker as well and uses DPA4011/JMP-6 for his guitar. I've just done a stereo recording of him playing a 1939 D-18 wide-neck using AB pair of DPA4041 (one T and one S) through my new preamp/power supply for the 4041 series. It's really amazing. But I think the 4041 might not be my first choice for mandolin, especially if you are micing close to the instrument. I did a distant mic'ed recording of mandolin and fiddle using the DPA4041, but I felt it was too bright. That's when I set about to design my own preamp/power supply for these mics.

I do like the idea of using an omni in situations where you can get away with it. I really like the 4003 and the 4006 with the new transformerless upgrade. So before passing judgement on a 4006, I'd recommend making sure that you are testing a 4006 with the upgrade. Use a 4003 if you can't find a upgraded 4006. The 4003 sounds much more like the upgrade 4006.

One last thing... it's just a thought, but I recommend really paying attention to how hard you are playing your mandolin when you record. Playing softly allows alot more "wood" to come out of the instrument, and can make a huge difference in the overall tone and color of the recording.

I hope this helps all helps you a bit.

Cheers

Fred Forssell

[Sam Lord]

...I do like the idea of using an omni in situations where you can get away with it. I really like the 4003 and the 4006 with the new transformerless upgrade. So before passing judgement on a 4006, I'd recommend making sure that you are testing a 4006 with the upgrade. Use a 4003 if you can't find a upgraded 4006. The 4003 sounds much more like the upgrade 4006...Fred ForssellHello Fred, I'm looking hard at a first-rate matched pair for many location uses, mostly acoustic instruments and choirs. Now I'm focusing on 1) MG 930s; 2) Schoeps CMC6s with Mk 21s, later other capsules, and 3) a DPA 4006TL set (named the 3506 set). Some venues I will use are great and some aren't. Several folks here and at Klaus Heyne's mic forum on PSW have said that the 130-volt 4003 just creams all competitors. Of course the final outlay then jumps $2k over the already-pricey 4006TLs... I know all this is room-, position-, engineer-, and performer-dependent, but would you add any other comments? Thanks very much to you and all, a great thread. -Sam

[Don S]

Hello Fred, I'm looking hard at a first-rate matched pair for many location uses, mostly acoustic instruments and choirs. Now I'm focusing on 1) MG 930s; 2) Schoeps CMC6s with Mk 21s, later other capsules, and 3) a DPA 4006TL set (named the 3506 set). Some venues I will use are great and some aren't. Several folks here and at Klaus Heyne's mic forum on PSW have said that the 130-volt 4003 just creams all competitors. Of course the final outlay then jumps $2k over the already-pricey 4006TLs... I know all this is room-, position-, engineer-, and performer-dependent, but would you add any other comments? Thanks very much to you and all, a great thread. -Sam
I have a pair of the MK21s and so far love them. Very forgiving for those of us in the concert recording world. More low end and a bigger sound satge than ORTF.
In regards to the 4003. There are problems with RF. But the new TL 4006 is about 80% of the sound quality of the 4003 without the complications of running 130 volt.

[AB]

Fred - I find it interesting that you liked the R84 on the mando because I have been using a pair of them with the Fetcode. I have the DPA 4011s matched pair as well. But the R84s with the Fetcode are very sweet.

Also for mandola and octave mandolin. (I have to watch the bass build-up some on the octave mando!)

Glad to see you posting here!

AB

[Sam Lord]

I have a pair of the MK21s and so far love them. Very forgiving for those of us in the concert recording world. More low end and a bigger sound satge than ORTF.
In regards to the 4003. There are problems with RF. But the new TL 4006 is about 80% of the sound quality of the 4003 without the complications of running 130 volt.Thanks Don, very helpful. And I think I should be content with Fred's (and others') detailed comments, too. Best wishes, Sam

[AB]

Sam - one thing I like about the MG 930s (which I do not like about the R84s obviously) is that they are a cross between a large diaphram and small diaphram sound, and they are small enough for interesting placements.



Now I'm focusing on 1) MG 930s; . . . -Sam

[Fred Forssell]

While I have not had any RF problems with the 4003, I typically have not use them in really high RF situations. Also I now use the 4003 only with my new 4041 T/S preamp/power supply. This has both the 7 and 4 pin XLRs, so one can use either the 4041 series mics (which I LOVE), or the 4003/4012 type mics. I've not tested the 4006TL against the 4003 sonically since I do not run 4003 through any of my preamps with +48 VDC phantom power.

I've also used CMC6/MK2 combo (with and without the little acoustic ball thingys) for room mics and I liked them alot for that application. However I must say that this was for a 24 track multi-track recording of a bluegrass festival in a really good sounding space. I like the room sound enough that I did not use my Sony DRE-S777 reverb on the project, but used the actual room sound. The mics were set-up as spaced omnis all the way upstage against the back wall of the church alter (that way the didn't record the direct sound from the front of the PA cabinets, only what came back from the room).

IF you decide that you like the MG 930 mics and are going to purchase them, let me know. I have a stereo pair of them for sale (you know, the whole stereo kit with the stereo bar, two mics, and nice box. I've used them a couple of times, but lately they are just sitting in the locker. They're too good to just sit, so they are for sale... for a really good price.

AB, yeah I used the R84 to record a great mando player named Jeff Smith from the Portland Oregon. He plays a Sullivan F model that sounds really balanced and he pulls great tone of the instrument. I used a JMP-6 for that recording and really like the sound of it. I've also used the R84 on banjo and dobro, and pretty much liked what I heard.

Happy picking!

Fred Forssell

[Jim Dugger]

The M930 is a fantastic microphone, and I highly recommend it, but it's difficult to imagine how someone would be considering it against the 4006TL.

Totally different sounds and applications.

I own pairs of both, and I love them both.

[Mark Kramer]

Yes. You just won't regret it unless they will rob your family of food. Also, you can make an audiophile recording with the DPA miniatures on a stick! With careful with gain staging & you'll be happy - especially for the instruments you mentioned.

Much is made of the magic of finding mics and pres that naturally produce the perfect sound without EQ or compression/ other. It has always made more sense to me to identify mics and preamps that are not resistant to being tweaked over a wide range. In this way production values can be achieved on the fly, rather than seeking the perfect-pre-mic-instrument-space-player algorhtim.

Having said that, the 4006's can be adjusted timbrally (EQ/other) across a very broad spectrum, and do clearly reflect the personalities of preamps too.

Having said that, if you keep looking for the magic combination, you will find it.

Looking for musical inspiration in new gear, is a bona fide strategy, too. Sometimes they open us up to the "third ear." It is an expensive way to get inspired! Taking a hike or Tai Chi works just about as well, but isn't as much fun as unpacking new gear and then doing the 5 second test.

Regards,
Mark

[Mike Simmons]

I'd love to get a set of omni, large diaphragm DPA's... just not sure which. I heard a pair some years ago that set the benchmark on acoustic guitar for me (4011's???)

Are the miniatures quiet enough for this? I assumed that they'd be too noisy for solo recording. I see the 4061 and 4066 on ebay going fairly cheap and think maybe I'll go for it but always chicken out.

[Teddy Ray]

Miniatures are excellent for that.

Beware the ebay ones, often used on broadway, lemo connectors, and rag-tag..

Removing the grille makes for flatter freq. response.

teddy

[Sam Lord]

...The M930 is a fantastic microphone, and I highly recommend it, but it's difficult to imagine how someone would be considering it against the 4006TL...Thanks Jim, if this makes any sense it is only because in building my tiny location rig, I still have just a solitary decent LDC, a KSM44. I thought the 930s could fill many roles, like close vocals and instruments, until I can get a hotshot LDC or two next year. I thought that some folks had used them with good success as near-coincident pairs at some distance, similar to what one might do with the 4006TLs and a jecklin disk. Perhaps I'm overreaching. I do have a pair of Earthworks QTC-1s (which I might sell if I get CMC6s or 4006TLs) and a pair of Rode NT-5 SDC cards, but the mics I'm looking at will give me fine alternatives and great value--that's my rationale, FWIW. I need to buy your CD, too...

...I have a pair of the MK21s and so far love them. Very forgiving for those of us in the concert recording world. More low end and a bigger sound stage than ORTF..."Hi Don, another newbie question I forgot to ask: I thought you could use NOS or ORTF with these in spite of the wide pattern. I'll keep digging around, there are countless posts about the Mk21s. Ted Nightshade wrote of many uses, and maybe even jecklin disk would be an option...that will be the first thing I get after 4006s if I go that route. Once again I appreciate the help and patience all you folks have shown, especially for a guy with such obvious inexperience :redface:

[AB]

Sam - I had a couple of Pearlmans made for me with EF-86 tubes. I am really happy with them for vocals and overheads. I use them in omni for overheads.

I still think the Gefells are awesome mics. Fred Forssell is a great guy and it looks like he is selling a pair. If I had the funds, I would be tempted to get them from him.

[gfrees]

Hi all,

Sorry for my absence from the thread for the last several days. I didn't lose interest... I got sidetracked by being a father of two young kids that have a lot of activities, and some technical difficulties as you'll read below.

I appreciate all of the responses to my original question. Fred F., I am particularly appreciative of your responses and recommendations (i.e. making sure not to play the mando too hard while recording, etc. etc.)

I would like to update you all on my microphone shootout. The bottom line is that I have stalled out in my tests. In one of my previous posts, I noted that one of the mic pairs I was testing sounded hyped in the lows and mids, and kind of "numb" on the highs (i.e. pick clicks and normal string "jangles" sounded kind of "smeared"). Though I had only mentioned one pair of mics having this sonic quality, it was generally true to one degree or another for all of the mic pairs that I have tested.

Since I was testing several high quality mics (Gefell M300's & M930's, Josephson C617+MK221's, Neumann KM184's, and Avenson STO-2's) and I was getting this common sonic "personality" in my recordings, I began to be suspicious of something else in my recording chain being the problem as opposed to the mics.

Alas, after making some more Mogami cables with Neutrik connectors to make sure every inch of copper in the chain was high quality, and knowing that my Millennia HV-3B is sonically clean... I realized that the problem must be with the ADC in my digital interface. (Now be gentle on me here... I have learned a painful lesson that is still smarting a bit) I am using a Digi002 Rack as my interface.

In my ignorance up till two days ago, I thought that A/D was a simple and straightforward process that wouldn't color the sonic quality of a signal. Obviously I had not previously read all the threads in this forum on the subject of ADC's. I have since learned from the information in the forum that the ADC is a key component in the chain and can significantly affect the sonic quality. I had previously understood the importance of the mic and preamp, but had totally dismissed (in my ignorance) the importance of the A/D.

To prove it to myself, I did an experiment with the only other ADC option I have at my disposal at the moment... a Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS. (You can laugh here... but remember I'm still smarting from the unpleasant realization that I probably wasted $1200 on my Digi002, so my sense of humor is muted at the moment). Anyway, I recorded my acoustic guitar to the Digi002 and the Audigy and A-B'd the results. The difference is huge. It is hard to believe that the same guitar, mic, and preamp were used for both recordings. I certainly won't say that I was impressed with the sound of the Audigy (though I think it sounded better than the Digi002)... but the key point of the experiment was to demonstrate an easily discernable difference in sonic quality depending on the ADC. And for that, the experiment was conclusive.

Soooo, before I can proceed with my "mic search" I am now going to need to buy an ADC so that I can give the mics a fair assessment and so that I can ultimately make recordings that I am proud of. I am going to be researching Lavry, Benchmark, Mytek, and Lynx. The clear favorites in Lynn's ADC CD (based on comments in the forum from other posters) are WAY out of my price range. I have seen very positive comments about all four of the ADC companies I list above, and they are in my price range.

I will be back to this thread to let you know what my ultimate mic choice is once I get my new ADC into the chain and can perform a good "shootout". Now, off to research ADC's.... (if you all have any comments/recommendations on ADC's in the under-$2000 range, please let me know).

Thanks,
Greg

[gfrees]

P.S. I should have noted in the previous post that since I'm working solo and overdubbing, I'm mostly focused on 2-channel ADC's... if that makes any difference.

-Greg

[3daudioinc]

Soooo, before I can proceed with my "mic search" I am now going to need to buy an ADC so that I can give the mics a fair assessment and so that I can ultimately make recordings that I am proud of.

Welcome to the club.

"Clawing and scratching our way to sonic excellence, one inch at a time."

[Sam Lord]

Sam - I had a couple of Pearlmans made for me with EF-86 tubes. I am really happy with them for vocals and overheads. I use them in omni for overheads. I still think the Gefells are awesome mics. Fred Forssell is a great guy and it looks like he is selling a pair. If I had the funds, I would be tempted to get them from him.Thanks AB, sorry for the slow reply. Re the Pearlmans, that's good to know. I'll probably remain biased towards more recognized mics for these early buys, simply for peace of mind about resale. Everybody echoes the warm sentiment about Fred, I like that. My mics buy is 2-3 months out, so his will likely be sold, I hope and expect for a good return. Best wishes, Sam

[Ivo]

knowing that my Millennia HV-3B is sonically clean...

Well, that´s something worth to try in a real life ... Personally: apart from impressions from a real use, I did detailed straightforward tests and comparisons letting various ready made music samples to pass various preamps (HV-3, Pendulum, DAV BG-1) - just to hear what each preamp does with a known source (I even posted the samples somewhere on Gearslutz). In case of HV-3 there was always an audible extra brittle added and the bottom becoming a bit flatter ... and it somehow confirmed what I was all the time hearing when using it ... "Sonically clean" - I am really not sure ...
(sorry for a slight OT, but once you mentioned it :)

[Mark Kramer]

"Sonically clean" -

This post made me think. What people refer to as sonically clean is I believe compared to the realm of all possibilities this preamp "a little brittle and flatter on the bottom."

Because the MM seemes to emit these characteristics does not mean that it is not clean. When one says "a little brittle" and "flatter", these are nothing more than relative terms on a subjective scale without degrees Kelvin. One can say, compared to X, Y is + or - Z.

So I would ask, most people tend to agree that the MM is "clean." What then would would the MM sound like if it were "brittle neutral" and "less flat" at the bottom?

Somehow I think the Fletcher Munson loudness contour is varying here amongst preamps, and that comparisons among preamps must be carried out at a variety of intensities for comparisons amomg them to make psychoacoustic sense.

The MM is a great preamp, because you can tweak it effectively to your heart's content, depending on your skill and patience. For instance I think with a little work Ivo can make his MM sound like the Pendulum. If he say's "no way, Jose" I might be persuaded to rent one to make the point.

Regards,
Mark

[Jim Dugger]

If he say's "no way, Jose" I might be persuaded to rent one to make the point.

No way.

The Pendulum is a Tube/Transformer unit. It is "Euphonic" -- sounds come out sounding better than they went in. Larger than life. Clean, yes, but not squeaky clean like the Gordon, GML, CraneSong, etc. camp.

The key with the Millennia is to run it at upper gains -- it really opens up. I set my converters to 0dbv=-24dbfs...

Or, get the Gordon Model 5. It sounds good at all gain settings.

You can borrow my Pendulum if you really wanna play with one. It's awesome on piano.

[Mark Kramer]

Well, thanks Jim! I've been thinking about the Pendulum.

Have you tried to use EQ, multiband compression, order harmionic distortion. etc on the MM i attempts to emulate another preamp adn sound in mind?

I suppose you are saying you can't come close?

Perhaps this is the wrong forum to be proposing that outboard gear applied to an uncolored preamp can in some small measure replicate the sound in your head, the sound perhaps produced by another preamp?

I personally think that experienced old school engineers - the kind who actually enjoy micro-riding EQ, compression and other outboard - are the huiman equivalent of convolution emulators!

Because the proof is in the pudding, and because I'm currently into making bread rather than bread pudding, I think I'll put my mouth where the money is - and allow others to make my point empirically.

Regards,
Mark

[3daudioinc]

I personally think that experienced old school engineers - the kind who actually enjoy micro-riding EQ, compression and other outboard - are the huiman equivalent of convolution emulators!

I resemble that remark.

I've been a fader-sliding compressor with a single-band midrange expander/limiter in my day. No automation. Just two hands and two ears.

[gfrees]

Welcome to the club.

"Clawing and scratching our way to sonic excellence, one inch at a time."


Yes. And I'm glad to be joining the "club". The difficulty for me is that I'm starting this project at ground-zero... so I have a lot of "inches" to climb!

Lynn et. al., thank you so much for this forum and for all the expertise that you all freely share. I can't begin to tell you how many hours I have spent reading threads here (though my wife has been keeping track I think)... I'm getting more educated by the minute....

Best regards,
Greg

[Mark Kramer]

I resemble that remark.

I've been a fader-sliding compressor with a single-band midrange expander/limiter in my day. No automation. Just two hands and two ears.


;)

Regards,
Mark