DPA 4090 on acoustic guitar duties...

[roger]

Just wondering if anyone has a tune where i can hear it in action? I just want something nice and natural sounding to capture the sound of the source...that seems to be a word people use to describe the 4090 - 'natural'-sounding. If you think this mic is a lemon - feel free to offer alternatives.
thanks heaps!
roger

[lampmeister]

Hi,
I'm using the 4060 (the tiny, incey-wincey version of the 4090 with the same capsule) and it sounds really great. Really great. The only possible cloud on the horizon is whether you are happy with the self-noise of the mic, which isn't as good as some (Senheiser MKH20/80/800) but possibly in the same ballpark as the Avenson STO2's or lower-end omni Earthworks - neither of which I've used.

Only using, experimenting and listening will answer that question.

[The Byre]

I have tried the 4090, 4060 and the 4061. Self noise is just not a big issue and is as good or better than most. If you are recording musicalinstruments, then they are all so loud that self noise just doesn't matter.

There is a review I wrote of the 4061 on the DPA website on the press and review section.

[roger]

thanks heaps...'really great' sounds good to me....i'm gonna purchase.

[lampmeister]

Good move Roger. Let us know how you get on with them.

[NOCCA]

Guess I'm too late, but I just finished tracking on a song where I used the 4090s on 4 acoustic guitar tracks, an electric guitar track, and drum overheads.

In three words:
I love 'em!

If you still want to hear it PM me.

[mosrite]

Self noise is just not a big issue and is as good or better than most

Who are you kidding?

If you are recording musicalinstruments, then they are all so loud that self noise just doesn't matter

This is the strangest thing I think I've ever seen written here...

[The Byre]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Who are you kidding?



This is the strangest thing I think I've ever seen written here...

And, with all due respect, that is one of the more uninformed things I have seen written here. I have actually tested these microphones for self noise and they really have the value they claim. Most other brands do not. In particular all those Chinese jobs and the growing army of badged Chinese budget microphones and US and European housings with cheap capsules that are invading every part of the market.

The difference is that most cheap mic manufacturers do not give the true figures for their microphones for the simple reason that few of their retail customers are going to be in a position to test them in any way whatsoever.

The actual noise floor of this series of mics in (if my memory serves me correctly) 23dBA, which is only about 3 times the noise floor of the TLM103, hailed as the quietest microphone money can buy. (+10dB = double the subjective volume level.) To put it into perspective, the noise level of a chord on a grand piano at the recording position is about 110dBA and of an acoustic guitar about 100dBA.

Most recording environments do not give the user the dynamic range for a self noise of 23dBA to be a problem and most instruments such as piano or guitar produce unwanted noises such as body movements and pedal noise far, far in excess of that value.

I would agree that the use of the pre-polarized condenser technology used by DPA is not suitable for critical applications like recording very faint noises for scientific purposes, but they are ideal for recording relatively loud sound sources like musical instruments and in particular, they are very good at recording those instruments with sharp HF transients like acoustic guitar and piano.

[ISedlacek]

If you record music that is subtle, has also some pauses, silent passages etc., any self-noise is a horror ... If these 4060 and 4090 have more self-noise than the normal high end microphones then Gott mit uns ... (unless one records drums overheads...). I actually had 4060 here and compared them directly with 4006 - quite a different league it was. I did not explore the noise though.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by The Byre

I have actually tested these microphones for self noise and they really have the value they claim. Most other brands do not. In particular all those Chinese jobs and the growing army of badged Chinese budget microphones (...)

No one's making a comparison with chinese mics here. Apart from that, some of these mics really are quiet...

The actual noise floor of this series of mics in (if my memory serves me correctly) 23dBA, which is only about 3 times the noise floor of the TLM103,

"Only about three times"...

To put it into perspective, the noise level of a chord on a grand piano at the recording position is about 110dBA and of an acoustic guitar about 100dBA.

What is "the recording position"? Is there only one? I haven't personally tried the 4090, but from samples I've heard, I would say its self noise is unbearable at any disance greater than 5 inches...

(..) most instruments such as piano or guitar produce unwanted noises such as body movements and pedal noise far, far in excess of that value.

Irrelevant. The mics self noise will still be audible. Pedal noise can't cover hiss...

I would agree that the use of the pre-polarized condenser technology used by DPA is not suitable for critical applications like recording very faint noises for scientific purposes,

And why not...? Pre-polarized does not mean noisy. One of the quietest mics out there, the AKG C4000, is pre-polarized.

relatively loud sound sources like musical instruments

Just wanted to quote this one because it's kinda funny...
Try recording a clavichord with a 4090. Or a lute....

[The Byre]

There is some fundamental misunderstanding of noise here. I cited the 103 because it is the very quietest mic money can buy. The very top of the range Neuman, the M149, has a self noise of 19dBA and I don't think that anyone is tearing their hair out over the self noise encountered in the top of the line Neumanns.

That means in plain language that an M149 is just one-third quieter than the 'noisy' 4090.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by The Byre

There is some fundamental misunderstanding of noise here.

How so?

I cited the 103 because it is the very quietest mic money can buy. The very top of the range Neuman, the M149, has a self noise of 19dBA

Hm, Neumann says 13 dB (cardiod)...

[The Byre]

and 19dBA omni and I am comparing like with like. The 4090 is an omni.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by The Byre

and 19dBA omni

Err... No, the site says 16...

[The Byre]

My mistake, the actual figure is 17dB according to the documentation I have with the M149s I have here. That is 6dB less than the 4090 and that is one-third less noise.

This is silly hair-splitting. The fact of the matter is that an own-noise level of 23dBA is perfectly acceptable for nearly every musical application. Someone breathing very quietly makes more noise.

A chord on that lute you spoke of is about 90dBA which is a dynamic range of 67dB. If you lashed out for a 149, you would get a slightly better figure of 73dB.

As I stated earlier, neither mic is suitable for scientific research in ants farting, but the self noise for both is good enough to record a musical instrument.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by The Byre

The fact of the matter is that an own-noise level of 23dBA is perfectly acceptable for nearly every musical application.
(...) As I stated earlier, neither mic is suitable for scientific research in ants farting, but the self noise for both is good enough to record a musical instrument.

With all due respect, I find these generalizations a tad silly... Define "a musical instrument"...
I can think of a lot of musical applications where self noise like this makes the signal unusable, in fact practically every musical application I use microphones for. I've tried the Earthworks SR78 (now called SR 30, quoted as 22 dB-A) as a spot mic for a harpsichord, about 3 feet away, and the signal was hopelessly noisy. I replaced it before the concert began.

A chord on that lute you spoke of is about 90dBA which is a dynamic range of 67dB.

a) Lutes sometimes don't play chords
b) At what distance (and for which duration of such a chord) will you measure 90 dB...? I don't think I'd place any mic (even a spot mic) that close to a lute.
c) Even considering your figures, you will hear the mic's noise through the music. I would never use a 4090 for anything except maybe a screaming guitar amp... And I hardly ever record guitar amps.
d) Try that Clavichord I spoke of...

[The Byre]

I do not know the Earthworks range, so I cannot judge their performance or whether the given figures actually relate to their real world performance.

I have tried most DPA mics at one time or another and I have used the old B&Ks as well. I am not a big fan of their mics, but the new mini capsule series does have a justified position in the mic locker, especially the 4060 and 4061 as they can be placed in positions that a regular mic could never go to. They also perform well as PZM mics.

But to criticise DPA mics because your Earthworks was noisy lacks logic. I suggest you try the mic before actually beginning to criticise it.

I have measured the noise on a 4090 and it is what they state on the can, 23dBA. I have measured others that have lower figures posted on their websites and in their documentation and they have come up with a higher figure in real life.

Is the 4090 too noisy to record an extremely low noise source? Yes, definitely!

Can one hear this noise and can one hear a difference to a microphone with extremely good self-noise figures? If you have very high quality pre-amps and crank the gain and compare that with the TLM103 (7dBA) then the answer is yes.

Is this a problem? In most cases such as recording an acoustic guitar, no.

When would it be a problem? Possibly in making extremely quiet foleys or in very quiet rooms where one is recording a quiet instrument at a distance. But this is not what the microphone is there for, anymore than the SM58 is there to be used for drum overheads.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by The Byre

I do not know the Earthworks range, so I cannot judge their performance or whether the given figures actually relate to their real world performance.

I would assume that Earthworks' figures are reliable...

But to criticise DPA mics because your Earthworks was noisy lacks logic.

I don't "criticize DPA mics". Apart from that, samples of the 4090 have been posted here. This is a mic I simply would never consider for anything I do. Not even for an acoustic guitar...

[mosrite]

And, with all due respect, that is one of the more uninformed things I have seen written here

And with all due respect how do you know that my comments are uninformed?

If you record music that is subtle, has also some pauses, silent passages etc., any self-noise is a horror

Exactly.

The noise is omni present and is just made more or less obvious by the masking effect of higher SPL's. But it is always there...

There is some fundamental misunderstanding of noise here.

How?? I'd like to know this too.

I have measured the noise on a 4090 and it is what they state on the can, 23dBA. I have measured others that have lower figures posted on their websites and in their documentation and they have come up with a higher figure in real life.

Irrelevent. We are not argueing about the accuracy of a manufacturers stated figure, we are argueing about the self noise issue in a real world application.