DPA UA0777 Nose Cone

[JonesH]

Hiya!
People with experience with the DPA UA0777 nose cone for the 4003/4006 mics, can you please share your experiences? I have my eyes on a set of 4006:s and wonder if it's worth including the nose cones.

I've heard mr Josephson argue that they make things go phasey in the treble and aren't actually so useful as one would think. OTOH, I've heard people say that the extended omni-ness goes a long way to help sometimes. What do you think?

Janne_L, I know you use them in Luleå Cathedral. Klaukholm, I believe you've used them as well?

[rumleymusic]

I have found they make things sound a little washy, unfocused. Not my preference. I personally could do without them in a set. The APE's and diffuse field grids are very nice though.

[roonsbane]

I had a scenario in which they helped a lot. While using the cones on the Kings College Choir live Broadcast about two years ago. The adult singers gelled perfectly with the two 4006's without the cones. Unfortunately the boys in the choir were beamy as hell and we were not able to get the stand any further back into the room. Sticking the cones on the 4006's gave us what sounded like probably another two and a half feet in distance and made it so no one was sticking out of the group. Between the grids, cones and spheres, 4006's are with out a doubt the most flexible omnis that exist. Also, the TL's kick ass.
Cameron

[roonsbane]

By the way, the broadcast was at the Saint Paul Cathedral with the two organs also being played. This room I believe has an 18 sec. reverb time at certain times of the year. I was surprised at how far away the stereo pair ended up from the choir before they gelled. Probably 20 feet!
Cameron

[JonesH]

Good thoughts. Nice to hear the varying experiences. I'm going all in for the APE:s and grids, but I wonder if I should get the nose cones as well. Haven't had the opportunity to try them, sadly.

[rumleymusic]

Well perhapse the times which I used the 4006's (they belong to a local concert hall I have recorded in a few dozen times), the nose cones were probably used in the wrong application (In a large hall from a distance). I trust DPA knows what they are doing, and the cones could be an asset in a situation where less directionality is desireable.

[klaukholm]

I find working with the mic angle can do a lot.
Like many omnis, the 4003 is pretty directional in the treble and I like working with the angle more than the pattern.
That being said, I only use our 4003s as room mics (LsRs) for 5.0 work.

[JonesH]

Thank you, Kjetil. I agree wholeheartedly with directionality being useful for shaping your sound.

[666666]

Interesting stuff. I just discovered the DPA UA0777 nose cone myself at the DPA site and was quite intrigued by the concept. Seemed too good to be true, a nearly "perfect" omni polar pattern across the entire frequency range. Once I saw that I came right here to GS and did a search... and found this thread.

Seems the consensus is that the nose cone causes more harm than good. If the cone introduces even the slightest bit of phasey weirdness, then it's no good in my book. Bummer. I didn't have my hopes up too high in the first place, but... would have been a neat thing if it worked really well.

So now that I'm here, I'll ask a brief related question: What's the "ultimate" SDC omni in your opinion and why? Little by little I'm getting more into omnis. Been just using my LDC omnis up until now. I have yet to try a really good SDC omni and suspect I may be enlightened.

I'm a Schoeps fan and am starting to appreciate DPAs more now too. I could try an MK2 cap, or maybe go right to a 4006A. Or? Schoeps versus DPA, which omni is the "omni of omnis"? I may wind up with both anyway eventually (if I find the SDC omni to be useful in my own situations), but... gotta start somewhere. I occasionally see the 4006 being referred to as the ultimate reference mic, so.... maybe this is the "king" of the SDC omnis?

[boojum]

Originally Posted by 666666

Seems the consensus is that the nose cone causes more harm than good. If the cone introduces even the slightest bit of phasey weirdness, then it's no good in my book. Bummer. I didn't have my hopes up too high in the first place, but... would have been a neat thing if it worked really well.

I am pretty sure that a survey with as small a number of observations as in this thread is not representative. And the folks at DPA are very sharp. I am sure they would be careful in their offerings. I would like to see more responses before I make a judgement. BTW, I have the nose cones but have not yet used them. Now I am curious.

[sonare]

Having owned 4003/6 I would say to buy the cones, 40mm balls, trapezoidal grids and save the other several hundred dollars. The cones must be used properly, and the Dorian/ Baltimore Consort CDs that Brian Peters engineered are a beautiful example of the right way to use them. Most of those is nothing more than a pair of 4003 with cones.

Rich

[666666]

Originally Posted by boojum

...I am pretty sure that a survey with as small a number of observations as in this thread is not representative. And the folks at DPA are very sharp. I am sure they would be careful in their offerings....

Good point.

I guess I was quick to believe that the concept of the nose cone was too good to be true because it certainly seems too good to be true. But indeed we can't base anything off just a few opinions.

I tend to like uniform polar patterns in general, so this whole nose cone thing got me excited.

I've never seen or heard of another omni mic that yields an extremely uniform polar pattern. Is there anything else out there that claims to be able to yield such? I just find it interesting.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by 666666

I've never seen or heard of another omni mic that yields an extremely uniform polar pattern. Is there anything else out there that claims to be able to yield such? I just find it interesting.

DPA 4060 and 4061. Almost completely omni. I love my 4061's. And they are reasonable, and without grids just about perfectly flat.

[666666]

Originally Posted by boojum

DPA 4060 and 4061. Almost completely omni. I love my 4061's. And they are reasonable, and without grids just about perfectly flat.

Thanks. I'll check `em out.

[grrrayson]

It's not a location recording scenario, but as an example a main part of the piano sound on the Patricia Barber albums "Mythologies" and "The Cole Porter Mix" consisted of a B&K 4006 pair with the nose cones. They do give the close piano sound a slightly more distant sound or even some desirable phase smoosh.

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by 666666

So now that I'm here, I'll ask a brief related question: What's the "ultimate" SDC omni in your opinion and why? Little by little I'm getting more into omnis. Been just using my LDC omnis up until now. I have yet to try a really good SDC omni and suspect I may be enlightened.

There isn't such a thing as "the ultimate mic". Good SDC omnis are all very similar, except maybe for the distinction between diffuse field and free field omnis (but this can be achieved with a standard EQ as well - as even Schoeps' Jörg Wuttke says, although they're offering 4 differently eq'd omnis and 2 multipattern capsules with a true omni setting!). Yes, there is a difference between 4006, MK 2 flavours, and KM183 and its flavours. But it's rather a taste thing. To my taste, DPA sounds boring - others may find the KM183 too bright.

Originally Posted by 666666

I've never seen or heard of another omni mic that yields an extremely uniform polar pattern. Is there anything else out there that claims to be able to yield such? I just find it interesting.

Originally Posted by boojum

DPA 4060 and 4061. Almost completely omni. I love my 4061's. And they are reasonable, and without grids just about perfectly flat.

There are some other "lavalier" mics without actual Lavalier curve. I think the Sanken COS-11 (? - their clip-on mic, anyway) and even some Sennheiser clip-ons. The smaller the more perfect omni.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by grrrayson

It's not a location recording scenario, but as an example a main part of the piano sound on the Patricia Barber albums "Mythologies" and "The Cole Porter Mix" consisted of a B&K 4006 pair with the nose cones. They do give the close piano sound a slightly more distant sound or even some desirable phase smoosh.

Are the nose cones introducing this phasiness or are they reporting what is there?? Is there a way to determine this??

[grrrayson]

Originally Posted by boojum

Are the nose cones introducing this phasiness or are they reporting what is there??

I should've put "phase smoosh" in quotation marks.

I'm the wrong guy to ask this of; I'm of the "the only thing that matters is the results" camp and don't think recording is ever really "natural."

I'm just saying they seem to add a little of that (often desirable) very slightly blurred quality that using a spaced pair vs. a coincident pair adds.

As to whether or not this leads to a more accurate portrayal of what the source sounds like in the room, that depends on the source, room, and mic technique. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's a simple matter of "piece of gear has effect X, so if effect X is required to acheive a desired sound (whether that be "more natural" or anything else), then use that piece of gear."

Is there a way to determine this??

Yes: An A/B comparison with and without the nosecones for any given source.

I'll shut up now.

Regards,

Grayson

[666666]

Originally Posted by grrrayson

...I'm just saying they seem to add a little of that (often desirable) very slightly blurred quality that using a spaced pair vs. a coincident pair adds...

Interesting, thanks for the report.

...Yes: An A/B comparison with and without the nosecones for any given source...

I'd think that a simple A/B test, nose cone verses no nose cone, is not necessarily going to show that the cone itself is introducing some sort of phase distortion. Because IF the nose cone actually does what it is supposed to do (yield a near perfect polar consistency), it is possible that the "phase smear" being heard is due to actual unfavorable upper-frequency reflections arriving at the capsule location that the nose cone is able to pick up due to its broader upper-frequency polar reach, but otherwise not recorded without the nose cone in place.

Point is, the "smoosh" might actually EXIST acoustically in the capsule location to a mic that can "hear" all frequencies equally from all directions, but the mic without the cone (and thus a biased / directional upper-frequency polar pattern) will not experience the "smoosh" because it is not "hearing" all the reflections equally.

The only way to really know if the nose cone itself is introducing some sort of issue would be to do an A/B test against some other omni mic that boasts a near perfect polar consistency, and both mics (capsules) would have to be in the exact same spot, within a fraction of an inch. And we'd have to hope that the other mic does not have any inherent "phase smoosh".

This report might also suggest that using an omni mic with a near perfect polar consistency, at least in certain situations, is just not a good idea in general. There may be something to be said about having some directional bias on the upper frequencies for omnis.

And I speculate all this having a limited degree of experience with omnis myself, but just making conversation.

[meltemi]

Originally Posted by 666666

I'd think that a simple A/B test, nose cone verses no nose cone, is not necessarily going to show that the cone itself is introducing some sort of phase distortion. Because IF the nose cone actually does what it is supposed to do (yield a near perfect polar consistency), it is possible that the "phase smear" being heard is due to actual unfavorable upper-frequency reflections arriving at the capsule location that the nose cone is able to pick up due to its broader upper-frequency polar reach, but otherwise not recorded without the nose cone in place.

Point is, the "smoosh" might actually EXIST acoustically in the capsule location to a mic that can "hear" all frequencies equally from all directions, but the mic without the cone (and thus a biased / directional upper-frequency polar pattern) will not experience the "smoosh" because it is not "hearing" all the reflections equally.

The only way to really know if the nose cone itself is introducing some sort of issue would be to do an A/B test against some other omni mic that boasts a near perfect polar consistency, and both mics (capsules) would have to be in the exact same spot, within a fraction of an inch. And we'd have to hope that the other mic does not have any inherent "phase smoosh".

This report might also suggest that using an omni mic with a near perfect polar consistency, at least in certain situations, is just not a good idea in general. There may be something to be said about having some directional bias on the upper frequencies for omnis.

Fully agreed!

[boojum]

Originally Posted by 666666

Interesting, thanks for the report.



I'd think that a simple A/B test, nose cone verses no nose cone, is not necessarily going to show that the cone itself is introducing some sort of phase distortion. Because IF the nose cone actually does what it is supposed to do (yield a near perfect polar consistency), it is possible that the "phase smear" being heard is due to actual unfavorable upper-frequency reflections arriving at the capsule location that the nose cone is able to pick up due to its broader upper-frequency polar reach, but otherwise not recorded without the nose cone in place.

Point is, the "smoosh" might actually EXIST acoustically in the capsule location to a mic that can "hear" all frequencies equally from all directions, but the mic without the cone (and thus a biased / directional upper-frequency polar pattern) will not experience the "smoosh" because it is not "hearing" all the reflections equally.

The only way to really know if the nose cone itself is introducing some sort of issue would be to do an A/B test against some other omni mic that boasts a near perfect polar consistency, and both mics (capsules) would have to be in the exact same spot, within a fraction of an inch. And we'd have to hope that the other mic does not have any inherent "phase smoosh".

This report might also suggest that using an omni mic with a near perfect polar consistency, at least in certain situations, is just not a good idea in general. There may be something to be said about having some directional bias on the upper frequencies for omnis.

And I speculate all this having a limited degree of experience with omnis myself, but just making conversation.

Quickest and easiest for me would be the nose cones and the 4061's simultaneously. I will keep it in mind. Possibly at the next amateur bluegrass jam. That would work. The venue sucks but I will try it.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by sonare

The cones must be used properly, and the Dorian/ Baltimore Consort CDs that Brian Peters engineered are a beautiful example of the right way to use them. Most of those is nothing more than a pair of 4003 with cones.
Rich

Didn't know that nose cones was used on these, as far as I recall, splendid recordings - Rich, do you have more specific info on the technique used..!?

::
Mads

[Brian Peters]

Well Mr. 666666 (how many was that) hit on the exact reason for using the cones.

The 4003's with nose cones were used almost exclusively on all BC recordings by Dorian. Of course the mic amps (130V bias) were completely custom but that was more for noise and bandwidth reasons. I now own the original pair and electronics which I have just updated.

I think even B&K says that the cones are for intermediate distances for best results. This makes them ideally suited for a small ensembles in a reverberant chamber. What they excel at is resolving the phase (high frequencies) of the wavefront of the group to a higher degree. Meaning that if the group is not ideally placed then the sound will have more phase smear than is desirable. AB recordings will always have some degree of smear and this can be used for effect good or bad.

We at Dorian (the real one, not the Sono Luminus brand) spent the time to arrange the group for phase accuracy with risers and points of various instruments and the point of the mics in the acoustics of TSBMH. We even went as far as adding are own reflectors to move the primary reflection points to our benefit. This sometimes made ensemble sight lines more difficult but the audible results were well worth the time spent.

Interesting that the group is sort of demanding to go back to this method or so I have heard.

BP

[mljung]

Originally Posted by Brian Peters

Well Mr. 666666 (how many was that) hit on the exact reason for using the cones.

The 4003's with nose cones were used almost exclusively on all BC recordings by Dorian. Of course the mic amps (130V bias) were completely custom but that was more for noise and bandwidth reasons. I now own the original pair and electronics which I have just updated.

I think even B&K says that the cones are for intermediate distances for best results. This makes them ideally suited for a small ensembles in a reverberant chamber. What they excel at is resolving the phase (high frequencies) of the wavefront of the group to a higher degree. Meaning that if the group is not ideally placed then the sound will have more phase smear than is desirable. AB recordings will always have some degree of smear and this can be used for effect good or bad.

We at Dorian (the real one, not the Sono Luminus brand) spent the time to arrange the group for phase accuracy with risers and points of various instruments and the point of the mics in the acoustics of TSBMH. We even went as far as adding are own reflectors to move the primary reflection points to our benefit. This sometimes made ensemble sight lines more difficult but the audible results were well worth the time spent.

Interesting that the group is sort of demanding to go back to this method or so I have heard.

BP

Thanks very much for this answer - I will re-listen to the Dorian/BP recordings that I have, with this in mind. It all sounds like an interesting and somewhat complicated process to arrange the band - did you use phase meters for this [+ of course your ears].. ?

Thanks also for clarifying that there's two different "Dorian" brands, I was confused about it!

Best regards

::
Mads

[Brian Peters]

No phase meters just ears. And the original Dorian went belly up in 2003-2004 and the back catalog and the artists under contract went to Sono Luminus in bankruptcy court. Except for a lucky few (4 artists) everything was an asset. It certainly was a circus. I still have detailed files and was the primary person along with Mary Ann to steer the assets to Sono.

They have just dropped the Dorian part from their name and think they are moving forward. I wish them well.

BP

[mljung]

Originally Posted by Brian Peters

No phase meters just ears. And the original Dorian went belly up in 2003-2004 and the back catalog and the artists under contract went to Sono Luminus in bankruptcy court. Except for a lucky few (4 artists) everything was an asset. It certainly was a circus. I still have detailed files and was the primary person along with Mary Ann to steer the assets to Sono.

They have just dropped the Dorian part from their name and think they are moving forward. I wish them well.

BP

Thanks for the info!

I've got [among other things from Dorian] the wonderful set of Villa-Lobos string quartets, and can see that you did some of the recordings - was the same nosecone recording technique in play here..?

I don't know if you are willing to share this info, but if you do - was the basic setup always using [more or less] the same A-B spacing [say 50cm] and did you point the cones to the ceiling or elsewhere - or was this just different from setup to setup..!? Moreover was any spot microphones used sometimes or was it a two microphone setup all the way?

Thanks in advance!

::
Mads

[JEGG]

I would like to hear more about "arranging a group for phase accuracy." The concept is a new one for me, or perhaps I would know it by another name. Is there a link for something, or could it be described briefly here?

Thanks

[Brian Peters]

Without giving too much away I can answer Mijung & JEGG with a short description.

For practically all Small Ensemble, Quartets, Trios or Soloist and Piano or Piano solo they were all two mic Omni AB pair recordings. Almost all the time either Schoeps MK2 variety (H, 2s, 2lin) or the B&K with cones or silver grid. Sometimes we used a velocity mic in omni like a modified U87. Towards the end it was either the MK2H's or B&K with cones.
Mic spacing was variable between 26 inches to 40 inches on small ensemble and larger than that for Organ. Sometimes as much as eight feet. For the Wanamaker organ recording we had a grid of 4 Schoeps in a eight foot square hung from the seventh floor ceiling and back near the organ console on the side. So about 50-60 feet back from the beast.

To tune the phase response of the ensemble came about by the engineering team as a group effort. And is sort of a proprietary old school Dorian way of doing things. Suffice it to say we refined the technique over many years of working in one particular hall.

You have to listen with a good phase accurate speaker system, not a euphonic style. One where you can actually hear small movements of the mics to the group or the environment. What you will notice when you are getting close is the room resonances and the group pop into a much more 3d listening experience. Spend the time to refine this effect and have the ability to go back and listen again making many very small mic adjustments in height and spacing as well as moving the musicians around for proper ensemble balance . We would take a whole day sometimes just to set the sound. We also kept very detailed measurements and started from the last setup to refine it more. It gets a little complicated when the repertoire changes dramatically but the proof is in the recordings.

As an experiment sometime try an AB pair pointing straight ahead and then splay the mics just slightly to the sides, nothing extreme, maybe just an inch. Listen again and see if it helps or hurts. It isn't always one way or the other but depends on that particular recording session.

With AB recording you have to be much more critical of the multipath environment than with an ORTF pair for example. The distortions of the sound source in a multipath environment have a direct correlation to the three dimensionality of the recording in a playback room. Which will have its own signature too, and so it goes. Refine, listen, refine and listen, but most of all listen.

BP

[mljung]

Thanks very much Brian - it sounds as if you had musicians around you enjoying the recording sessions and getting things right as much as you did as engineers and producers.
One thing I couldn't see out of your writing was if you actually pointed the cones [when they were in use] as you would have ordinary microphones, as the tip of the cone direction has quite a rise in the hi-freq spectrum, whereas the sides has the most linear response. Thanks for your description thumbsup

::
Mads

[boojum]

This brings to mind the very first recordist's dictum: "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."