Bruel & Kjaer vs. DPA

[blueman]

Hi all

I wander if there is any diference in build quality and sound between old Bruel & Kjaers and new DPAs.

I'm thinking on buying a 4011 and don't know if going for a second hand B&K or a new DPA.

Thank you

[klaukholm]

There mics are the same, the only difference is the name.
If you look closely you will see the caps are still named B&K.

[Jim vanBergen]

It's my understanding that it was a marketing approach...not many users can spell Bruel & Kjaer correctly (like me...I just did it wrong ).

[klaukholm]

The B&K division still exists, but they are now only involved with scientific instruments.
http://www.bksv.com/

[fifthcircle]

The mics are the same (I use some 20 year old B&K 4006 mics here). I am going to send them into DPA, though for the TL mods. I will say that the TL models sound pretty incredible and are worth the upgrade or purchase from the beginning.

--Ben

[squeegybug]

Bruel and Kjaer is a huge company with thousands of products, services, and employees -- www.bksv.com. Their microphone business has always been specialized measurement devices, we've used them for years in our test labs.

DPA was split off as a separate company a few years ago to serve audio markets. It is my understanding that DPA now makes their own cardioid microphones, everything else is still made at the parent B&K factories.

Steve

[blueman]

Ok, guys. Good information. Thank you very much

One more question. Let's put it this way:

I can get an 8-12 years old B&K 4011 for 1175€ or a brand new DPA 4011 TL for 1700€ . What would you do?

[The Byre]

Originally Posted by blueman

Ok, guys. Good information. Thank you very much

One more question. Let's put it this way:

I can get an 8-12 years old B&K 4011 for 1175€ or a brand new DPA 4011 TL for 1700€ . What would you do?

Quite honestly, I would (and did!) buy a stereo pair of the new 4061 miniature mics that also double as PZM (boundary) mics. They are better (oops, my opinion again!) than the 'classical' DPA / B&K mics with a better bottom end and more presence - especially for recording OH and piano as a PZM.

The stereo set should cost about 1000€ or less and you can use them for all kinds of other things like binaural work and body mics.

They also kill as stick-on mics for violin, guitar, double bass etc.

They are however so very small that some (foolish) people cannot take them seriously. They prefer to judge microphones by weight and size.

But like all things, it all depends on what you want and need them for.

[fifthcircle]

The 4061 has nowhere near the depth as the other DPA omnis. Not to say that they are bad mics- that is not the case at all, they are great. If you want an omni for "serious" recording, I'd stick with the 4006/4003.

Anyways, to answer the question about a used 4006 or a new 4006 TL, keep in mind that the upgrade costs about $500. With those prices, you can get the new TL's for what a used set costs with upgrades. I'd get the new ones and get the warranty.

I haven't heard the 4011 with the upgrade, but I have heard a 4006 TL and it is a pretty impressive microphone.

--Ben

[blueman]

Hey, Ben

What upgrade are you talking about?
What does it consist of?
Doesi it really makes a difference?

[klaukholm]

I could be wrong on this, but I believe the 4011 has always been a TL unlike the 4006.
Some people were using the 4011 electronics with the 4006 capsule.

There should be no difference between the older 4011 and the current one (even the one with the TL designation.

That aside I would recommend the TL upgrade for the 4006 it does make a big difference.

I am amongst those "foolish" people regarding the reworked lavalier mic.
You get what you pay for with those.

[fifthcircle]

As I alluded to, I know more about the 4006 than the 4011. I know the TL was a huge upgrade to the 4006. I had thought that the circuitry was not the same between new and old 4011's. However, I may be incorrect- a call to DPA would probably be the correct thing to find out.

Either way, the 4011 is a great sounding mic.

--Ben

[klaukholm]

It would be good to get an accurate answer regarding the 4011 versions.

For some things we just love our 4012's here too.
It's my goto grancassa spot and perfect for ultraclose spotting of perc in general.

[squeegybug]

Bruce Myers told me the 4011 has always been transformerless. The old 4006 had transformers. The new 4006-TL is transformerless, and more expensive.

The new designation "4011-TL" was just to get it described with similar labeling to the 4006-TL. 4011 and 4011-TL is the same mic.

I have not used either. Of the samples I've heard of 4006, I strongly preferred the transformerless version. If you are considering 4006, Bruce also highly recommended the transformerless version over the standard version, it has a better preamp as well according to him. Unless you are working in broadcast or need to run really long cables, that might require the transformer.

Steve

[The Byre]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

The 4061 has nowhere near the depth as the other DPA omnis. Not to say that they are bad mics- that is not the case at all, they are great. If you want an omni for "serious" recording, I'd stick with the 4006/4003.

Have you actually used the 4061 and 4060 as a PZM ?

[Sam Lord]

Originally Posted by squeegybug

Bruce Myers told me the 4011 has always been transformerless. The old 4006 had transformers. The new 4006-TL is transformerless, and more expensive.

The new designation "4011-TL" was just to get it described with similar labeling to the 4006-TL. 4011 and 4011-TL is the same mic.

I have not used either. Of the samples I've heard of 4006, I strongly preferred the transformerless version. If you are considering 4006, Bruce also highly recommended the transformerless version over the standard version, it has a better preamp as well according to him. Unless you are working in broadcast or need to run really long cables, that might require the transformer.

Steve

Hi Steve, I asked Bruce about this at AES, and there appears to be a mixup. To quote from the DPA site, "The 4011-TL cardioid microphone is a new upgraded version of the classic DPA 4011 renowned in recording studios all over the world as an exceptional mic..."
He confirmed that the the 4011TL had the exact same *new* preamp as the 4006TL. I then asked about the much poorer specs on the 4011TL, which appeared identical to the old 4011 specs regarding sensitivity, etc, and he was bewildered. I think that DPA simply failed to update the specs on the website. But Bruce was adament that the 4011TL had the new innards.

PS the Gordon teflon option got nixed because of problems getting 200V teflon caps--raw material QC problems reported by Rel. But my 2 model 4s arrived Wed...

[mr.gefell]

Originally Posted by Sam Lord

PS the Gordon teflon option got nixed because of problems getting 200V teflon caps--raw material QC problems reported by Rel. But my 2 model 4s arrived Wed...

Congrats!

[squeegybug]

Originally Posted by Sam Lord

Hi Steve, I asked Bruce about this at AES, and there appears to be a mixup. To quote from the DPA site, "The 4011-TL cardioid microphone is a new upgraded version of the classic DPA 4011 renowned in recording studios all over the world as an exceptional mic..."
He confirmed that the the 4011TL had the exact same *new* preamp as the 4006TL. I then asked about the much poorer specs on the 4011TL, which appeared identical to the old 4011 specs regarding sensitivity, etc, and he was bewildered. I think that DPA simply failed to update the specs on the website. But Bruce was adament that the 4011TL had the new innards.

PS the Gordon teflon option got nixed because of problems getting 200V teflon caps--raw material QC problems reported by Rel. But my 2 model 4s arrived Wed...

Well, that is confusing then Sam. Maybe I should shut up
I was pretty sure he had told me they were the same, but I will certainly trust your excellent memory. I was mainly going off the fact that the 4011 has always been transformerless. But I do remember a *long* discussion about the development of the new 4006-TL preamp, must have missed that they are putting it in the new 4011-TL. Sorry for the confusion if that is the fact.

Gordons in your house! *TWO* of them? Outstanding for you, I'll be interested in your assessment, especially since you have the nice GMLs.

Can I ask why you did not get a Model 5, instead of the two singles? A bit more $$ that way, wasn't it? I did know he wasn't going to offer the Teflon options. Should be great anyway.

Steve

[Sam Lord]

Originally Posted by squeegybug

Well, that is confusing then Sam. Maybe I should shut up
I was pretty sure he had told me they were the same, but I will certainly trust your excellent memory. I was mainly going off the fact that the 4011 has always been transformerless. But I do remember a *long* discussion about the development of the new 4006-TL preamp, must have missed that they are putting it in the new 4011-TL. Sorry for the confusion if that is the fact.

Gordons in your house! *TWO* of them? Outstanding for you, I'll be interested in your assessment, especially since you have the nice GMLs.

Can I ask why you did not get a Model 5, instead of the two singles? A bit more $$ that way, wasn't it? I did know he wasn't going to offer the Teflon options. Should be great anyway.

Steve

Yeah, the long thread with maestro Erik Sikkema faded a little early, I think. I do recall seeing a 4011-4011TL (not mistaken for the earlier 4006upgrade) upgrade advertised a while back. That came after the thread, for what it's worth.

Sorry all, this is OT here, but...I feel kinda lousy having the GMLs (very lovely sound), a 4006TL set, and the two Gordons with so little time to use them at the moment. (Other work has surfaced these days.) But times are a-changin'...
I wanted my first 2 channels to be independent for AB arrays and solo uses, keeping the babies at the foot of the mic stands. (Got the 4ch remote unit.) It was a tough choice, given the >-110dB crosstalk of the 5s...and much lower $$. I put in the first order for the teflon option, and they were being made, but RelCap suddenly had a 200V dielectric supply dilemma, only feeling 600V caps were acceptable. I'll PM you with other details if you like, or you could check with Grant. Dang, don't know if you made AES, wish we'd met, I got there at last-minute decision, had to skip day 3--but I'll never forget it!

Adios, will talk soon, Sam

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by The Byre

Have you actually used the 4061 and 4060 as a PZM ?

Sure- I wouldn't have written it if I hadn't tried it. I talk about things that I have experience with... I've used the 4061 mics in a couple different situations and while they sound very good, there is a much greater depth of sound to the full sized capsule mics.

Plus, I'm really not a fan of PZM micing. Sound is big, but rather flat IMO

--Ben

[Gregg Sartiano]

http://www.bksv.com/3084.asp

This mic can go up to 165 dB! Holy s^&t!

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

http://www.bksv.com/3084.asp

This mic can go up to 165 dB! Holy s^&t!

Then you will like our 4012 - it clips at 168db!
When we use it for ultraclose micing (timpani at 1/2 inch from skin playing FFFF)
it sounds pristine.

[JonesH]

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but it could be interesting for archival purposes.

From DPA's Bo Brinck I got the information that the 4011-TL is the same capsule as the 4011, but the preamp electronics has been "refined over the years".
From what I gather, it's always been transformerless, but is now updated in other areas of the electronics as well.