Schoeps MK4 verses DPA 4011

[666666]

Schoeps MK4 verses DPA 4011

What say you? I've heard `em both, but at different times, different places, different contexts. I thought they were both amazing but did not have a chance to really compare side by side.

So... just curious, how do they compare? In a blindfold A/B test, what differences might be heard?

Which do you prefer overall?

[fifthcircle]

Like them both a lot. DPA is probably a bit more transparent with a bit more air on top. Schoeps will give you a bit of warmth and perhaps a bit more body to the sound...

Definitely room in a mic collection for both.

--Ben

[syra]

Think of MKIV as GML and 4011 Millenia. In other words MKIV more meaty and more presence and 4011 more even with scooped mids. I agree with the comment about MKIV sounding warmer. You need both.

[Firefox]

Originally Posted by syra

Think of MKIV as GML and 4011 Millenia. In other words MKIV more meaty and more presence and 4011 more even with scooped mids. I agree with the comment about MKIV sounding warmer. You need both.

nah - just the Schoeps for me!!!

more 'musical' .... whatever the hell that means....

[666666]

Thanks guys....

Any more comments?

[BLP]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd agree with what everyone else has been saying. The 4011's are really true to what I hear in the room, but they just don't give me that warm fuzzy feeling. To me, the Schoeps are just a bit more flattering with a really sweet high end (not too harsh) and a wee bit of meat and/or warmth.

Hope that helps...

P.S. I prefer the Schoeps for just about everything, especially anything more "studio" oriented.

[kissingonstilts]

My experience is as that of the previous posts. The Schoeps were more interesting and musical. The DPAs (I used them when it was B&K) were clinical in not a good way.

[tamasdragon]

I think the dpa is the better choice. It's more true whatever you do. I agree that it's clinical, but in a good way. Every nuance will be captured with dpa.
Tamas Dragon

[jordanh]

seems we all agree tonight

[666666]

Interesting. Thanks guys!

[tenor39]

It really depends on your recording philosophy. If you believe in capturing the truest sound and then deciding to play with it or not, the DPA's are the clear winner. If you want coloration from the get-go and are looking for a mic "sound", pick the schoeps.

As an aside, I always love it when recordists call the DPA mic's "clinical", as though transparency and clarity were dirty words. "Real" and "sterile" have become interchangable terms. My experience is that the preamp has a much larger impact on any good mic than does the mic itself.

[ESL]

I've found that the 4012 (130v version of the 4011) has a more even off-axis pickup than the MK4. The MK4+CMC6 puts out a hotter signal and I've never come close to clipping a 4012. Practically speaking, I wouldn't recommend nosing up to a piano's hammers ("jazz") with MK4s but I really like what a pair of 4012s can give up close in this situation.

[dbssound1]

It is like comparing Coke and Pepsi. Both are tasty and refreshing. Both will quench your thirst. Which you like better is preference.

We have both, and I prefer neither. Both work amazingly well in different situations.

From a strict numbers game..

The schoeps have 4dB more signal to noise than the dpa.
The dpa have a maximum spl of 158 and the schoeps 132.
Identical frequency ranges.

So similar, and so different. It is really just knowing what you want your result to be and knowing the tools at your disposal.

All the best!

[jnorman]

i've owned them both, and in general, i prefer the 4011s. the schoeps were a nice main pair for middle distance work, but were a tad boomy for me in close mic situations in the studio. the 4011s worked equally well as a main pair and in the studio as spots. i think the 4011s were pretty much the best all around mics i have ever run across.

[Jim vanBergen]

I have both, and feel that both are accurate, the DPA in a more clinical fashion, and the Schoeps with a little polish that makes it more pleasing to the ear. I find that string players, composers, and arrangers will drift to the Schoeps for the slight warmth they give a recording.

Of all the DPAs, I find the 4041s to be the only one I EVER prefer over Schoeps, though I constantly use my DPAs for all kinds of things- they are ever so clinical, and a touch sterile, which (like Gefells) I think has to do with the membrane of the transducer.

[amfortas2006]

I have MK4, and if someone wants these, he will have to pry them out of my cold, dead hands.

Never owned the DPA-s, but I heard some recordings, and they do sound great.

It is just that their sound didnt make me listen as concentrated as schoeps, thats why I took schoeps. (I know that this is a strange explanation, but its the best one I can give)

But I dont think I would have been unhappy with DPA also.

[newyorker42]

I need some help understanding some of the wine tasting language used here on gearslutz, as they come up quite a bit and not just in reference to mics. Specifically, these descriptions:

- Clinical
- Laboratory-like
- Sterile
- Cold

When these adjectives are used, do they mean that the sound source recorded by the mic comes across as being just the sound as it exists in the wild with no extra "euphonic" electronic magic added to it that people tend to like added as sauce in their recordings?

Or does it mean that the sound is somehow diminished, that something is lost from the original source?

John

[AB3]

If they are truly different, and it sounds like they are, then they both have their purpose. I have a really rich piano. So the DPAS tame it and capture it really well. I would not want a richer sound. So I would probably not want the Schoeps. But if I was recording a thin sounding harp or thin sounding piano, my answer might be in the reverse.

I usually find that I can thicken sources after the fact easier than I can thin them, and that sometimes applies.

[tenor39]

Originally Posted by newyorker42

I need some help understanding some of the wine tasting language used here on gearslutz, as they come up quite a bit and not just in reference to mics. Specifically, these descriptions:

- Clinical
- Laboratory-like
- Sterile
- Cold

When these adjectives are used, do they mean that the sound source recorded by the mic comes across as being just the sound as it exists in the wild with no extra "euphonic" electronic magic added to it that people tend to like added as sauce in their recordings?

Or does it mean that the sound is somehow diminished, that something is lost from the original source?

John

Very good questions. As I said in my earlier post there seems to be a redefining of terms. "Accuracy" and "transparency" are now called "sterile, "clinical", etc. I have found that many engineers and musicians do not care for the "real" sound of anything. They like coloration and distortion and call it "musical", "warm", "round". I don't have a problem with personal preferences, but why label things "as they exist in the wild" with negative connotations? I would rather take in as pure a signal as possible and then manipulate it, if that's what I choose to do. However, as said by another post, you can't make a "thick" sound "thin" again. "Do no harm" should be the creed of every engineer in my book.

[Rick Sutton]

Originally Posted by tenor39

. "Do no harm" should be the creed of every engineer in my book.

In all sincerity I see that creed as the basic difference between classical music engineering and the world of "pop" (including rock, rap, jazz, folk, world ...you get the drift.)
In my world "do no harm" equals boring sound. Clinical, stiff etc.
But, I do believe that "do no harm" is the correct approach for the classical musician's sense of aesthetic.

Different strokes.

As to the OP question, I have Schoeps mics and find them very useful.......they are my most clinical sounding mics! For me, anything cleaner would be too boring as I tend toward old Neumans and AKG's. Love that color.

[666666]

Originally Posted by tenor39

...I would rather take in as pure a signal as possible and then manipulate it, if that's what I choose to do. However, as said by another post, you can't make a "thick" sound "thin" again...

I couldn't agree more.

I'm actually a rock n roll guy, and I've come to really appreciate the sound / performance of "accurate / transparent" gear. It's a very beautiful thing. I love hearing instruments on tape the way they actually sound in "real life" when being played. It's something that most folks outside the classical music recording / ultra high-end audio realm rarely or almost never experience it seems.

I'll admit, for years I was using common high-end "rock n roll" gear (Neves, APIs, etc)... great stuff... but having gotten used to that type of response from recorded performances, I was blown away once I tried some GMLs and Schoeps etc... it was heaven for me. Indeed the "accurate" stuff seems to have a "higher resolution", but what seems to really give the "accurate" stuff it's "real life" behavior is the spot-on transient response and ultra deep dynamic range. If your playback system is even good enough to handle it, you'd swear you were hearing the recorded performance LIVE in the room.

Perhaps many people accustomed to using colored "rock n roll" gear for years would find "accurate" gear cold and sterile... and thus not like it. I happend to find it absolutely vibrant, rich and thoroughly stimulating. It's now my favorite "color".... the color of non-color that is.

But, we need not forget, the degree of pleasure derived from an "accurate" recording has ALL to do with the quality of the recorded source!!! An accurate recording of a poor sounding source will sound poor! Colored gear will help to "enhance" a weak source. But if your source happens to be extremely rich, and you capture and play it back very accurately, it can be a spine tingling experience.

Indeed if and when I wish to "smear" the sound a bit, I simply do it later in the MIX using one of many colorful mixdown devices (colorful eqs, compressors, etc). If you smear the sound to tape though, then you can NEVER "unsmear" it. I like having the option during mixing to smear it to just the right degree.

Sometimes too, a source can sound very cool in a mix in its most "accurate" form (with ultra high resolution and sharp transients in all their glory) but with a "smeared" version of the identical program mixed in underneath. Kind of like "parallel compression"... except here I'm talking about "parallel smearing". Blend the accurate with the smeared... can retain a lot of life, resolution and overall flexibility to tracks while still providing some "color" to help shape and glue, etc.

Finally, to each his own... many great recordings have been done with less than accurate gear... there does finally come a point where there are only a very small amount of lunatics on the earth that are going to be able to detect and be annoyed by miniscule levels of inaccuracy or whatever... I think this stuff is way over-diagnosed here... but after all, we are Gearslutz, so... it's our job.

[newyorker42]

Originally Posted by tenor39

However, as said by another post, you can't make a "thick" sound "thin" again. "Do no harm" should be the creed of every engineer in my book.

I am a musician, not an engineer, but my thoughts lean the same way. I (naively?) chose DPA mics for my only pair to record things for archival purposes because of all the reading I did, it seemed these mics are some of the most accurate. (NASA even uses them to monitor for anomalies in rocket noises I have read, true?)

I just sold a guitar to someone and he is an engineer and makes his living at it. He asked to listen to something I had recorded with the mics that were sitting here in living room. So I played him some Bach I had done for a test of placing my mics. His comment was that there was no high or low end. So, I said, well let me just play the piece for you live. I did, as he stood in the exact position of the mics. Afterward, he said, "it sounds exactly like the recording." We finally figured out there was no high or low end in the recording because the entire piece's range was limited to the center of the keyboard. There is no high or low end live either!

If you are, unlike me, a skilled engineer, can't you add EQ to a accurately captured performance and get the same result as a mic that has a less flat response? Or is that impossible or just to difficult too do after the fact?

I hope these questions are coming off in the spirit they are meant, which is really probing for the answers here and trying to get beyond any personal biases of brand or working methods.

John

[666666]

Originally Posted by newyorker42

...can't you add EQ to a accurately captured performance and get the same result as a mic that has a less flat response?...

It's not just the frequency response, but the dynamics, transient response and "resolution" (meaning degree of "distortion" or lack thereof).

Yes, in theory you could take a mic with a "non-flat" frequency response and eq the recorded material afterwards to get it closer to "flat" if so desired.

But if the mic is slow in the transients, yields a somewhat "compressed" response (reduced dynamics) and imparts any extra "dirt" (distortion, etc) to the signal, you cannot undo that stuff. You've instantly and permanently lost a great deal of the quality and beauty of the original source (assuming it had beauty to begin with).

[newyorker42]

Originally Posted by 666666

It's not just the frequency response, but the dynamics, transient response and "resolution" (meaning degree of "distortion" or lack thereof).

Yes, in theory you could take a mic with a "non-flat" frequency response and eq the recorded material afterwards to get it closer to "flat" if so desired.

But if the mic is slow in the transients, yields a somewhat "compressed" response (reduced dynamics) and imparts any extra "dirt" (distortion, etc) to the signal, you cannot undo that stuff. You've instantly and permanently lost a great deal of the quality and beauty of the original source (assuming it had beauty to begin with).

I am getting off of my original questions a little bit, but following this thread above in your comments...

I must admit, I don't have all the data/knowledge when I just referred to EQ. So let's just assume you have a hypothetical mic that doesn't have these qualities you mention and is very transparent and reproduces the sound the most accurate way possible, can you then later in the mix give it the same spin as another mic that imparts some color? Or is that too much work?

John

[666666]

Originally Posted by newyorker42

...So let's just assume you have a hypothetical mic that doesn't have these qualities you mention and is very transparent and reproduces the sound the most accurate way possible, can you then later in the mix give it the same spin as another mic that imparts some color? Or is that too much work?John

One of us is getting confused here.

You say, "a mic that does not have these qualities" (I assume you mean a mic that does not have the qualities I described, such as spot-on transient response, deep dynamic range, etc)

But then you continue to say, "and is [also] very transparent... etc" If a hypothetical mic does NOT have the qualities I described, then it would NOT be transparent... period. It's those qualities that are part of making a mic transparent. It's either transparent (and thus has the ability to capture transients, dynamics etc accurately - among other things), or it isn't.

If a mic does NOT capture the original transient response and/or dynamics etc, these attributes CANNOT be restored later. Even if insane surgical attempts were made using digital surgical tools to bring back some of the dynamics / transients, it would never be the same... the original response could never be restored... at best you might be able to "expand" the dynamics and/or synthetically "sharpen" the transients, but this would still be far from "accurate" and would instead be sort of a Frankenstein re-creation.

Someone should post some audio examples here (high quality WAV files)... record a high quality source with a DPA or Schoeps mic and GML pre.... then record the same exact source with a more colored mic and colored pre... you need to really HEAR the difference. When you do, your questions will be answered.

Another way to look at it.... let's say you take a photograph of an object using a super hi-end camera and lens... we'll assume that the photo comes out dead "accurate", you can SEE every detail, every shade, every color, all lines and edges are SHARP and crisp, it looks REAL. Then let's say you take another photo of the same object, except this time you put a piece of wrinkled cloudy plastic wrap over the front of the lens... the resulting photo of the object is now blurry, the colors are "faded", the small details are totally missing, etc. Can you now "restore" this photo and make it look like the original object??? Perhaps you could synthetically "improve" it a bit, but you cannot put something back into the photo that was never there to begin with. Anything you'd "add" would be a synthetic alteration... while it might bring you back closer to the original in some way, it will NEVER be accurate by any means... you are now effectively replacing original content with something that has nothing to do with the original content.

If you want "accurate", record using "accurate" tools... period. You must CAPTURE the original content and ALL aspects of it. If some aspects are NOT captured, they are GONE forever. Whether or not you actually NEED all the aspects on tape is another story and a matter of person taste.

[CaptCrunch]

Originally Posted by syra

Think of MKIV as GML and 4011 Millenia. In other words MKIV more meaty and more presence and 4011 more even with scooped mids. I agree with the comment about MKIV sounding warmer. You need both.

Very similar to what I was thinking with my comparisons being Martech (Schoeps) and GML (4011). Schoeps seems to have more body in the sound (like Martech with the input transformer) whereas the 4011 seems lean in comparison (like a GML transformer-less pre). Both are absolutely fantastic microphones, but my preferences tilt toward Schoeps.

[newyorker42]

Originally Posted by 666666

One of us is getting confused here.

I can see how what I wrote about "not having these qualities" is confusing.

Instead of referring back to the already confusing thread, let me just rephrase completely what I meant in both my questions.

Say, for the sake of argument, you have a fantasy mic that captures perfectly, accurately and with complete faithfulness the source of the sound, adding nothing and taking away nothing.

1. Would that mic be called cold, sterile, clinical or laboratory-like on this board? Or would only a mic that diminishes or distorts (in the dictionary sense of the word) something that was in the original performance be described with those adjectives?

2. Could you take a recording made with that fantasy perfect mic and then, in the mix, change it to add whatever audio juicy-ness a "warmer," "more euphonic" mic might have imparted had you used that mic to record this source in the first place.

John

[666666]

Originally Posted by newyorker42

1. Would that mic be called cold, sterile, clinical or laboratory-like on this board? Or would only a mic that diminishes or distorts (in the dictionary sense of the word) something that was in the original performance be described with those adjectives?

It's all in the ear of the beholder. There's no standard. Take all opinions / descriptions here with a grain of salt.

2. Could you take a recording made with that fantasy perfect mic and then, in the mix, change it to add whatever audio juicy-ness a "warmer," "more euphonic" mic might have imparted had you used that mic to record this source in the first place.

Pretty much, yes... in my opinion. You can surely take an "accurate" source and then make it "warmer" and/or "more euphonic" in the mix using one of a billion different tools out there. Whether or not you can add the EXACT character that a specific ultra-colorful microphone might have imparted, perhaps not. But you can get it darned close and ultimately "pleasing" if that's your thing.

I suppose, in a perfect world, an engineer would capture the ultimate desired sound directly to tape so that not much processing would need to be done later. This is a theoretically good way to work. If you have colored mics that yield a result that you KNOW will be "perfect" in the final mix, then by all means use those colored mics. You will never be able to "uncolor" the result later, but you wouldn't want or need to so it doesn't matter.

For me personally, I like things on the "accurate" side. I'm not yet at a point where I have found "colored" mics that I like enough to COMMIT all my recorded performances to that specific color. Perhaps eventually I will. For now, I like playing back a recording and having it sound pretty much the way it actually sounded in the room. This sounds good to me. Not "sterile", but "detailed" and "life-like"... and "rich". Every teeny-tiny nuance that is captured further helps translate the emotion behind the performance, brings forth the true tone and character of the instrument, etc... it's like "being there"!

Again, if the source sound is not really happening, then an "accurate" recording of such will not be very pleasing. The most important thing to note is that an "accurate" recording is only going to be clean, rich and exciting IF the original source sound / performance was clean, rich and exciting. It's very revealing. There's not much room for "imperfections" with either the sound or performance.

However, using a mic / mic-pre etc that adds a lot of "hair" (harmonic distortion), and compresses the dynamics, etc, can indeed take a weaker source, "smoothen" it, "inflate" it, "warm" it... it can round-off the potentially "ugly" detail and leave you with a "louder" more dynamically controlled result. This can indeed be a very good thing... all depends on what you're going for. No right or wrong. Again, it's all in the ear of the beholder .

[tenor39]

Originally Posted by 666666

Another way to look at it.... let's say you take a photograph of an object using a super hi-end camera and lens... we'll assume that the photo comes out dead "accurate", you can SEE every detail, every shade, every color, all lines and edges are SHARP and crisp, it looks REAL. Then let's say you take another photo of the same object, except this time you put a piece of wrinkled cloudy plastic wrap over the front of the lens... the resulting photo of the object is now blurry, the colors are "faded", the small details are totally missing, etc. Can you now "restore" this photo and make it look like the original object??? Perhaps you could synthetically "improve" it a bit, but you cannot put something back into the photo that was never there to begin with. Anything you'd "add" would be a synthetic alteration... while it might bring you back closer to the original in some way, it will NEVER be accurate by any means... you are now effectively replacing original content with something that has nothing to do with the original content.

Couldn't have said it any better. A superb analogy and one that deserves more discussion, especially from the "musical" bunch.

[newyorker42]

Originally Posted by 666666

It's all in the ear of the beholder. There's no standard. Take all opinions / descriptions here with a grain of salt.



Pretty much, yes... in my opinion. You can surely take an "accurate" source and then make it "warmer" and/or "more euphonic" in the mix using one of a billion different tools out there. Whether or not you can add the EXACT character that a specific ultra-colorful microphone might have imparted, perhaps not. But you can get it darned close and ultimately "pleasing" if that's your thing.

I suppose, in a perfect world, an engineer would capture the ultimate desired sound directly to tape so that not much processing would need to be done later. This is a theoretically good way to work. If you have colored mics that yield a result that you KNOW will be "perfect" in the final mix, then by all means use those colored mics. You will never be able to "uncolor" the result later, but you wouldn't want or need to so it doesn't matter.

For me personally, I like things on the "accurate" side. I'm not yet at a point where I have found "colored" mics that I like enough to COMMIT all my recorded performances to that specific color. Perhaps eventually I will. For now, I like playing back a recording and having it sound pretty much the way it actually sounded in the room. This sounds good to me. Not "sterile", but "detailed" and "life-like"... and "rich". Every teeny-tiny nuance that is captured further helps translate the emotion behind the performance, brings forth the true tone and character of the instrument, etc... it's like "being there"!

Again, if the source sound is not really happening, then an "accurate" recording of such will not be very pleasing. The most important thing to note is that an "accurate" recording is only going to be clean, rich and exciting IF the original source sound / performance was clean, rich and exciting. It's very revealing. There's not much room for "imperfections" with either the sound or performance.

However, using a mic / mic-pre etc that adds a lot of "hair" (harmonic distortion), and compresses the dynamics, etc, can indeed take a weaker source, "smoothen" it, "inflate" it, "warm" it... it can round-off the potentially "ugly" detail and leave you with a "louder" more dynamically controlled result. This can indeed be a very good thing... all depends on what you're going for. No right or wrong. Again, it's all in the ear of the beholder .

Very helpful answers for me. Thanks.

I do wish there were a better vocabulary for talking about all this, since as you and another poster further up the thread have said in various ways that one person's "clinical" is another person's "transparent."

So, what I'm taking away from all this is that "clinical" or "sterile" -- in response to a question about a DPA mic, or other gear of generally accepted high quality -- probably means "accurately representing the source", but that the person who says that doesn't like plain old accuracy (at least in the musical situation that is being asked about), they want "euphonic" "hair" on there of some sort from the outset. If that isn't somewhat in the ballpark, then I am going to be forever lost when reading these types of descriptions.

Ok, I've hijacked the thread too much already, so I'll shut up now.

John