DPA4006 Decca Tree or DPA4060 ONNO, samples included

[Gaston69]

Dear Gearslutz,

Yesterday I got the opportunity to record a concert using a Vintage Decca Tree configuration containing 3 DPA4006 microphones mounted on a DPA Decca Tree stand and my own DPA4060 in a ONNO setup (stereo with 2 mics).

The sound is really different from each other however I can not tell which is better or what I like more bearing in mind that the Decce Tree setup is way more expensive, (please google if you like to learn more about the costs.)

I attached samples recorded with both setups and I would you to tell me what you hear and what you like best.

TO ALL PLEASE LISTEN AGAIN TO THE DECCA TREE SAMPLE, THE ORIGINAL POSTED VERSION THE STEREO WAS INVERTED. THIS NEW FILE IS NOW CORRECTED AND I REDUCED THE VOLUME ON THE CENTER MIC AND DECREASED THE LEFT CHANNEL TO BRING IT MORE IN BALANCE.

Regards,

Gaston

[Audiop]

Quick listen with HD600.. a clear preference for the AB take.

The 4006 take sounded strange in the "soundstage" with a slight mono-feel to it.

The 4060 is possibly a little bright. Those mic's have a diffuse filed bump if memory serves me?


/Peter

[audio ergo sum]

What was the level of the center in the Decca?
distances between mikes?

[andersmv]

Personally, I liked the sound of the ONNO better then the Decca Tree. The tree did sound a bit bright at points, but on the other hand the ONNO sounded a bit muddy at points. Great comparison, like I said I preferred the ONNO.

[DCtoDaylight]

I like the ONNO too - it feels more balanced than the tree, which (to my ear) sounds more like a film score with forward lows and highs.

[boojum]

Well, of course they both sound good, very good. No news there. And the performance is first-rate. Hats off to the orchestra. To me the 4060's sound more "open" and detailed while the 4006's sound more "solid." There is more of an airy openness to the 4060's and they are not quite as dramatic as the 4006's. I know this sounds like an audio salesman's snake oil pitch but I have not the technical vocabulary to describe what I am hearing. I really like the 4060's.

If I had neither and had to choose I would go for the 4060's and put the savings into something else.

NB - I have the 4061's and like their detail very much and their silky open, airy sound. I am non-technical but am guessing that their extremely low diaphragm mass allows transient response a great deal like ribbon mics.

I also have the 4006 TL's and if I can get a good hall and performance I will run the pair into my 788T and post the results. But the "good hall, good performance" is difficult out here in the sticks where I live.

[rumleymusic]

Well I did like the Decca better, though I thought the center mic should be taken down a few dB. I thought the presence was just more satisfying. The 4060's are great though, even if they were slighly more "hollow" sounding than the bigger brother.

When mics sound this good, you really get to nit pick with opinions.

[aracu]

Thanks for posting this, it's an interesting comparison. The last time you
posted a comparison with 4060 and 4006 I liked both and thought they
sounded different from one another but without a clear preference. Here
the 4060 pair doesn't quite work for me. The 4006 decca tree I quite like,
it has a deep bass and focus which goes well with the plodding, walking
rythm of the music. I like it more with the right channal turned up slightly.
I wonder what the difference would have been if the 4060 had been used
in the decca tree configuration.

[rumleymusic]

I wonder what the difference would have been if the 4060 had been used
in the decca tree configuration.

That would be interesting, though since Decca trees usually require mics with some HF directional characteristics, the 4060 as is probably wouldn't be a good fit.

I was planning on experimenting with a Dremel and a few neoprene balls to create APE mounts for my 4061's. It if works well, that might be a good solution for a Decca setup.

[guosh]

both sound great, but i'm personally going for the decca tree based on the sound. while it may sound like the centre channel could be brought down a couple of db, i prefer the sound quality of the 4006s to the 4060s

it sounds more well balanced for the instruments, a much fuller sound throughout the harmonics. the 4060s tend to sound a little thin in comparison. then again it could be the high frequency peak for the diffuse field?

i prefer a more balanced sound, and the 4060s for me sound as though they hype the upper middle frequencies. while it might sound more exciting, i prefer the sound of the 4006s for keeping it more homogeneous. then again, its my personal preference. i'd pick a surround bar of 4006s over the dpa 5.1 anytime

however, if price is an issue, i don't think the 4006s are worth that much more than the 4060s. in terms of the best bang for your buck, 4060s would be the winner imho (which has convinced me to pick up a pair. thanks gaston! )

[Audiop]

I have been trying to find pictures on the preamp module of 4060/61 without success. Can anyone help me with this?

How big is it and how long is the cable that goes between the capsule and preamp?


/Peter

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by Audiop

I have been trying to find pictures on the preamp module of 4060/61 without success. Can anyone help me with this?

How big is it and how long is the cable that goes between the capsule and preamp?


/Peter

Here is one preamp option.
DPA Microphones :: Products

[David Spearritt]

Both sound a bit muddy to me. It sounds like quite a poor acoustic. Low ceilings and early reflections? Not sure which one I "like".

[Gaston69]

Dave,

You are right the hall has a low ceiling and we discussed in an earlier thread the bad acoustics of this hall therefor I tried out a DECCA tree. I never used a DECCA setup and have therefore also no experience how the mix the 3 signals, should the middle mic have less volume, I don't know. I toke the Vintage DECC setup according the DPA manual which puts the outriggers 2 meters apart and 1.4m from the middle mic.

Of course you cannot camouflage the acoustics with overhead mics but I was trying to get a fuller sound which the Decca delivered however is it still in balance??

Anyway have a look at the pictures.

Advice or Suggestions are more then welcome.

Regards,

Gaston

[mljung]

I like the extended lows on the tree setup, also had a somewhat broader and maybe more stable image.

I like the top air on the 4060 onno setup.
I made a little experiment putting extra weight in the 'side' below 100hz [using m-s eq] and was able to achieve both more weight and more spacious sound. Not bad.

If you have the possibility to try the tree setup again, and have access the DPAs APE sphere balls [40 or 50mm] it would open up the top end and possibly make it more precise because of the added directionality and top lift this would add..!
Moreover this is closer to what is originally was the basis for the Decca tree: the Neumann M50

About the mid-mike in the tree - if you have enough channels to record onto, just make up your mind in post on how much you need of it.

::
Mads

[rumleymusic]

I never used a DECCA setup and have therefore also no experience how the mix the 3 signals, should the middle mic have less volume, I don't know. I toke the Vintage DECC setup according the DPA manual which puts the outriggers 2 meters apart and 1.4m from the middle mic.

Usually the middle mic is only brought up to the level that is needed to fill the acoustic gap (typically about 20-40% of the sides). Can you alter this in post or did you mix it to stereo before the recording?

[David Spearritt]

In my experience, when you have poor acoustics and/or low ceilings, you need dry microphones/technique, so omnis are the last thing you want to use. And you certainly wouldn't want three of them!

Cardioid main pair and cardioid spots is the solution, in close. Then, later in post add some high quality reverb judiciously. You are trying to exclude early reflections and the room as much as possible.

Keep those omnis in a drawer for poor acoustics.

[ljudatervinning]

I prefer the sound from the 4006 tree. However as others have suggested, bring the middle mic down in volume.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Here is one preamp option.
DPA Microphones :: Products

So the 4060/4061 mic's are delivered only as capsule with the thin cable and no electronics? Or does the small capsule contain a buffer?


/Peter

[ljudatervinning]

My stereo set was delivered with XLR-to-micro dot adapter.
I believe most sets are.

[Audiop]

And this adapter would be a small box with battery supply or phantom power from a pre or mixer?

I have a AT 803b which is a lavalier similar to DPA 4060/4061 and the small capsule is permanently fixed to the box (adapter/buffer-amp) via a thin cable and the output is XLR.

Help me out here, I still don't get the concept of the DPA 4060/4061. :-)


/Peter

[boojum]

Peter - I have the 4061's. I got them with the XLR converter so that they may be plugged in to regular phantom power. I believe the electronics in the adapter reduce the voltage to 9 - 10 volts. I also have the little battery box and connectors for a small recorder (SONY MZ-RH1) and that is the standard 9 volt battery box for this type of app.

The answer to your question then is "both" depending on which setup you order. The BB is an extra item. The stereo kits include the XLR converter as does the single mic kit.

[didier.brest]

DPA4060/4061 have their own cable attached to them ended by an unusual connector (micro dot ?). There is an XLR adapter. Then it becomes a 'normal' microphone that you can plug on any preamp delivering 48V phantom supply. DPA4060 has a rather large sensitivity: 20 mV/Pa. DPA 4061 is 10 dB less hot (6 mV/Pa).

[ljudatervinning]

DPA 4060/61 is a small capsule permanently attached to a tiny cable about 1,5 m long. In the other end of the cable is a small connector called MicroDot. Pretty similar to the small SMA connector used on oscilloscopes.
DPA have several different converters for their MicroDot connector, making it possible to use with virtually any wireless transmitter on the market.
Another converter is the MicroDot-to-XLR converter (the size of a XLR connector), making it possible to connect the microphone to a phantom powered microphone input.
This converter is included in a lot of mic-sets.

[JEGG]

I heard the recordings, and had forgotten about the room. I later came back to this thread and saw the pictures of the room once again.

I think both recordings are excellent, especially considering the room.

I think the room pretty much forgives everything!

On the 4060's, there was something every so slightly "papery" at the very upper end of the string sound. I also thought there were general tonal, clarity, and image changes when the texture got busier in both examples. In both examples, I thought the cymbal sound was strange. However, these phenomina are probably attributable to the mp3 process.

I also share the others comment about level/image with the tree. It would be easy to lower the middle to audition this (even in an approximate way) but I have not yet done so.

In these examples, I would give the very slight edge to the 4060's, on other occasions I have preferred the 4006.

Your posting of your work with both of the DPA's has been both interesting and informative. I hope you continue posting your work.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by ljudatervinning

DPA 4060/61 is a small capsule permanently attached to a tiny cable about 1,5 m long. In the other end of the cable is a small connector called MicroDot.

Not to hijack the thread, but is the portion of the cable up to the XLR adapter (or DPA preamp, etc.) balanced or not?

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the arrangement.

[ljudatervinning]

It is not balanced AFAIK.

[didier.brest]

It is not : only a single centre conductor and the ground.

[Gaston69]

Please see illustration for the dimensions of the Decca tree which I exactly used, height was approximately 3 meters.

[Gaston69]

Decca Tree was used using an Audient ASP008 pre-amp going through a 2882 metric Halo by ADAT at 48kHz