DPA omni comparison - 4006 and 4051?

[XLR]

Hi to all,

did anyone here compare the standard DPA 4006 (TL) omnis to the compact ones, DPA 5051 ?
The DPA people say that there is no audible difference, but for me it's hard to believe...

Thanks in advance,
XLR

[Jim vanBergen]

? 5051...I think you mean 4051. I have used 4022, 4023, and 4021 capsules a great deal and they compare VERY nicely to the 4011, so based on the history of their capsule design, I'd believe them.

The best thing to do, is to visit your local DPA dealer and do an A/B comparison. Then post your results!!

JvB

Originally Posted by XLR

Hi to all,

did anyone here compare the standard DPA 4006 (TL) omnis to the compact ones, DPA 5051 ?
The DPA people say that there is no audible difference, but for me it's hard to believe...

Thanks in advance,
XLR

[summer_room]

I've heard a direct comparison between 4061, 4006, 4053 (compact 4006) and 4041 at the DPA studio here in Denmark. My friend was shopping a mic for his double bass. We taped the 4061 and the 4053 on the backside of the fingerboard to hang free in the cable, and put the 4006 and 4041 on stands as close to the other mics as possible.

From that test I must say, that its was very hard to hear differences between 4006 and 4053 - and the differences we heard, may simply been the different positions of the mics (one mic a little closer to the fingers than the other, stuff like that).
For me, they sounded like the same mic.

By the way, the 4061, for the money, was a very nice mic, neutral and open - not so good as the others for soundlevel changes from quiet to fast fortissimo-attacs, sfortsando (there is a name for this..?).
The 4006 brothers did do a great job, and the 4041 was a step up from the 4006 - more juice, more open...

He took the 4053, recording a lot of jazz bass.

-jon

[XLR]

Thanks for Your answers!
Sorry for the typo, shure, it was meant "4051", "4052" or "4053".

We don't have a dealer around here with DPA mics in stock, mostly they are special order items.
The first comparison I had was for a short moment on the AES, where the DPA people had a setup with 4061, 4053 and 4006 on piano.
The only impressing difference I heard there was between the 4061 and 4053, which where both positioned inside of the piano.

Well, I just bought 3 DPA 4051's, "new old stock", for an AB or a Decca setup, probably flying.
Originally I was looking for some used 4003's to use with my Millennia pre, but got no offers. So I finally bought these.

But still no opportunity to compare...

[tenor39]

The capsule is essentially the same between the 4051 and the 4006, but the internal pre-amp is not, especially if it's the "TL" version of the 4006. Better electronics with the 06 vs. more flexability with the 51.

[Stefanizzi]

Originally Posted by XLR

Hi to all,

did anyone here compare the standard DPA 4006 (TL) omnis to the compact ones, DPA 5051 ?
The DPA people say that there is no audible difference, but for me it's hard to believe...

Thanks in advance,
XLR

Hi!
The compacts (and the miniature series too) are good indeed. They are very small and almost invisible, but there's no comparison with the 4006.

Regards

[XLR]

They are very small and almost invisible, but there's no comparison with the 4006.

Could You be so kind to explain it a little more?

[fifthcircle]

The omnis are pretty darned close between the compact ones and the 4006 (original). I use both here and while I haven't A-B'd them, I haven't noticed a huge difference. There is a big difference, though between those and the 4003 or 4006TL.

The compact cardiods are quite a different story, though. The output on all of the compact cards seem to be lower and the noise floor considerably higher. Still sound pretty good, but I definitely prefer the 4011 to the compact cardiod.

--Ben

[Stefanizzi]

Originally Posted by XLR

Could You be so kind to explain it a little more?

Hi XLR!

I am a Millennia user too, therefore I'm sure that if you make a test at your studio - say a couple of days - on different instruments, you can find out the differences. While I agree with Ben that the sound, the genetic fingerprint ...so to speak, may seem the same, but I found that the 4052 is not so crisp and accurate as the 4006. Moreover, I had the impression that the noise level was higher in the 4052, although DPA declare 15 dB(A) for both (?!?...)
In my opinion you should try the 4006-TL too.

Other users will not share my opinion, but I found a huge difference between 4006 and 4006-TL.
You can read my full report on the DPA web site (go to Users - Artists)

Regards

[XLR]

There is a big difference, though between those and the 4003

Yes, I only have 4003 to compare with the compact omnis,
I did no direct a-b comparison but I had the impression that it really would "do wrong to the small ones".
Only from hearing on very different things I'd say, they can't reach the 4003, although the specs seem so similar.

Last week I used the compact ones for ambients in AB, and the result was yet impressing, also the stereo image.
But I don't know whether to believe in that 15 dB noise level...

You can read my full report on the DPA web site (go to Users - Artists)

:-) Shure I will!!


And: thanks to all!

[Shaman]

We did a shootout some time ago between several dpa mics like 4011, 4006-TL + a pair of compact series omnis.

The differences in the high end were really small.
The 4006-TL has a bit higher resolution in the ultra high end and is a bit tighter in the low end.

Talking about 3 % +/- here . A real tiny difference for me.
Spectacular accurate mics those dpas !

The main difference between the compact series and the standard mics is the headroom.
Standard series usually has 7-10 db more headroom + the signal to noise ration is a tiny bit better.

I have pair of 4006-TL for the studio and a pair of compact cardioids for the road.

[Don S]

I got to hear them side by side at last year's AES in NY. Even listening to the room sound, you could instantly tell that the sound was much less defined and less natural sounding than the 4006TL. With DPA especially, IMHO, you get what you pay for!

[Shaman]

Originally Posted by Don S

I got to hear them side by side at last year's AES in NY. Even listening to the room sound, you could instantly tell that the sound was much less defined and less natural sounding than the 4006TL. With DPA especially, IMHO, you get what you pay for!

As far as I can remember from their piano mic booth at the AES in Vienna last autumn they used different positions for their standard series mics and the compact series - the same way they recorded the different mics on their free

"miking a grand piano" cd - which I strongly reccommend to everybody interested in dpa mics.

The position for the large condenser 4041-SP & the 4006-TL was AB a bit outside of the piano lid which sounds in deed more natural, but this lies in the nature of the position and stereo technique.

The compact cardioids and omnis have been positioned inside of the body via magnets and used ORTF / XY stereo which sounds different enough from AB & outside the piano.

So I think the mentioned differences have mainly to do with different positions and stereo technique - not with the mics itself...

Originally Posted by XLR

Last week I used the compact ones for ambients in AB, and the result was yet impressing, also the stereo image.
But I don't know whether to believe in that 15 dB noise level...

We compared an old bruel & kjaer compact omni with my brandnew 4006-TL by recording silence on 2 fully cranked channels of my gml 8304 pre.
The noise floor was allmost the same on both....don´t trust specs...trust your ears.

The main difference between compact and standard is the max. spl.
Unless you don´t record the new airbus A-320 during startup 10 meters close it really is redundand.

The other thing is that you cannot use the APE balls on the compact series, which is physically to small to fit.

As a studio solution / for room miking I´m prefering the standard series.
For close miking drums / location recording the compact series are a godsend.

[aracu]

Hope this is not too dumb of a question.... in the product literature
DPA states, referring to the compact cardioid 4021, 4022, and 4023
variations:

" The result is the world's smallest studio quality cardioid condenser microphone, which runs directly on phantom power with no external preamplifier needed."

What exactly do they mean by that?

I asked one of the DPA reps if it meant the mic could be used without
a preamp (Gordon, Millenia etc.), going in at line level, and he said yes, but I'm not sure he understood the question. Seems too good to be correct.

[rumleymusic]

" The result is the world's smallest studio quality cardioid condenser microphone, which runs directly on phantom power with no external preamplifier needed."

What exactly do they mean by that?

I asked one of the DPA reps if it meant the mic could be used without
a preamp (Gordon, Millenia etc.), going in at line level, and he said yes, but I'm not sure he understood the question. Seems too good to be correct.

That is a little confusing. The microphones still need a standard preamp, the output is actually a little less than the 4006. I'm sure the literature was just refering to the fact that the microphones run off of standard phantom power and do not require special preamps or adapters like the smaller 406x models.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Shaman

We compared an old bruel & kjaer compact omni with my brandnew 4006-TL by recording silence on 2 fully cranked channels of my gml 8304 pre.
The noise floor was allmost the same on both....don´t trust specs...trust your ears.

Are the sensitivity equal on these mic's?

Need to be for such a test to be meaningful, otherwise you need to use a tone for calibration when setting gain.

I did a similar test with QTC1 and MKH8020 placing the mic's close and whistling while setting gain. The 12dB difference from spec's was easily heard.


/Peter

[JonesH]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Are the sensitivity equal on these mic's?

10 mV/Pa for the transformer version vs 35 mV/Pa for the TL, if I'm not mistaken.

I've done this once as well, where the rented and manhandled 4006:s went belly-up (or rather, one started spitting noise) after soundcheck before the concert. Luckily I had my own TLs with me and could switch them and lower the gain adequately.

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by aracu

Hope this is not too dumb of a question.... in the product literature
DPA states, referring to the compact cardioid 4021, 4022, and 4023
variations:

" The result is the world's smallest studio quality cardioid condenser microphone, which runs directly on phantom power with no external preamplifier needed."

What exactly do they mean by that?

It means likely that it can be plugged on a mic input of a mixing desk as an opposite to other DPA models (e.g. 4003 and 4041) that require 130V phantom power delivered only by some adequate preamps (DPA, Millenia, ...).

By the way, the DPA 4041 is a fabulous mic.

[meltemi]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

By the way, the DPA 4041 is a fabulous mic.

and is available as a 48V phantom version as well (4041SP).

[Marlan]

If it helps at all, I just replaced all of the vocal mics we were using at the Houston Grand Opera with the compact 4023 cardioids. They sound absolutely fantastic. I will be using them on all of our National radio broadcasts across the country from now on.

Don't let the small footprint fool you. These are the real deal.

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by aracu

I asked one of the DPA reps if it meant the mic could be used without
a preamp (Gordon, Millenia etc.), going in at line level, and he said yes, but I'm not sure he understood the question. Seems too good to be correct.

That is incorrect information. The 402x cardioids require a preamp and 48v phantom to operate.