Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-in-acoustic-music-and-location-recording/)
-   -   DPA 2006/2011 thoughts? (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-in-acoustic-music-and-location-recording/1267481-dpa-2006-2011-thoughts.html)

tuba_noise 4th June 2019 02:36 PM

DPA 2006/2011 thoughts?
 
Hello, all!

I am going to be placing an order for some new gear to create a remote recording rig (for my job at a larger university), and I'm curious to know if anyone has experience with the DPA 2006 and 2011. I'm particularly interested in the "c" versions of the preamp, since uncluttered sightlines would be a plus for a few of the venues where these will be used. For the price, I could instead get the Neumann KM183s, so I guess I'm curious to know what sets the DPAs apart, if anything.

My preferred brand is likely out of reach for this order (Schoeps), so I'm trying to keep it around the ~$1000 per mic limit. My goal is to get a wide bar and do the traditional inner cardioid pair with outer Omni pair. I've already decided to ask for the Sound Devices MixPre 10T for the recording device.

Thanks, and any input is appreciated!

Plush 4th June 2019 03:33 PM

DPA is owned by a hedge fund and this has had consequences for the design of the microphones.

Rens Heijnis told me that they have greatly cheapened the electronics in their microphones when compared to earlier designs. From my own experience, I hear these cheaper electronics to sound less detailed and to have less headroom.

Neumann has not cheapened their designs.

There is a further big warning about the 2006 because it is not a real omni microphone. It is composed of two DPA made capsules that are combined to simulate an omni response.

The real omni is the 4006 model. That capsule is made by Bruel & Kjaer.

The 4011 cardioid mic is a real cardioid, but the 2011 dual diaphragm cardiod is not a real cardioid microphone. Instead, you will find that two back to back miniature mics are combined to offer the directional pattern.

Both to these "real omni and real cardioid" microphones cost a lot more than $1000, so take that into account.

I recommend instead the Neumann KM A preamplifier with the Neumann KK series capsules. Full quality with no diminished design.

sd270 4th June 2019 05:03 PM

The Sennheiser MKH 8000 series are great and very small. I especially like the MKH8040 cardioid, wonderful mic.

Eric D 4th June 2019 05:24 PM

I have a pair of DPA 2006 C, these are really excellent microphones, and their performance is really not far from the 4006 .

Compared to the 4006, the sound of the 2006 is very similar, and certainly doesn't sound like a cheap microphone .
The 4006 has a slightly better transient response and a slightly more open stereo reproduction, but these differences are really not big .
The only real weakness of the 2006 is the reproduction of very low frequencies (below 50 Hz), these are slightly lacking compared to other omni microphones like the 4006, the KM183 or even the Line Audio OM1 (very cheap, but really excellent microphone !) .

The 2006 is a true omni microphone, the use of 2 capsules has nothing to do with the directivity, it's a technique to improve the S/N ratio of the microphone .

It took a very long time for me to choose between the KM183 and the 2006 .
I finally opted for the DPA, because its frequency response is a very good compromise that allows them to be used in free field and also at a greater distance from the source . In fact, a very versatile omni microphone !

Plush 4th June 2019 05:58 PM

Nope

dasbin 4th June 2019 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plush (Post 14018689)
There is a further big warning about the 2006 because it is not a real omni microphone. It is composed of two DPA made capsules that are combined to simulate an omni response.

This is untrue, I'm afraid. The 2006 is made up of two capsules that are *both* true omnis (the capsule used in the 4060 omni lav). They are combined only for the purpose of reducing noise (as those small capsules mean a fair bit of noise).

So, having used both 2006A's and 4060's:

- They sound basically the same as each other (both incredibly open and relaxed and detailed, but maybe missing a slight amount of weight)

- The 2006's are less noisy, but still pretty noisy for my taste when used on quieter/smaller groups

- The 2006's I've used had a problem with gain matching - they aren't sold in matched pairs and the pair I used were like 5db different. EDIT: It looks like you can now buy them in matched pairs -- if you're going to get them, go this route for sure.

Overall, I feel like they're good mics but you might as well save a bunch of money and go for 4060 Core's now unless the slightly better noise performance is required for you. If much better noise performance is needed around the same price, look at 183's or MKH8020's -- but in most cases I much prefer the relaxed detail of DPA's to the harder brightness of 183's. 8020's are good but have a very different sound - I would describe them as "woody" sounding, if that means anything to you. I think the cardioid MKH8040's work better for some reason.

If I was wanting a cardioid ORTF + omni outriggers setup with a limited budget, like it sounds you want, I would spend as much as I could on the ORTF pair (MKH8040's?) and hang some cheaper (nicely invisible!) DPA 4060 Core's as the outriggers and call it a day. Their noise performance will not matter as much if the main cardioids are less noisy and mixed higher. Those mics will really complement each other's weaknesses. DPA's are very detailed and airy but noisy and lack weight; Sennheiser's are nicely weighty and have great image depth and much quieter, but will be helped by the DPA's top-end detail.

Or, forget mixing cardioid + omnis and just blow your whole budget on a single pair of Schoeps MK21 subcardioids in NOS. They should work well pretty much anywhere.

Eric D 8th June 2019 02:54 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Hello,

There are nearly no audio samples available on the internet for the DPA 2006's, so it's very difficult for people who are interested in this model to make a decision .
To give an idea of "how they sound", here are 2 samples from concerts I recorded last year .

Sample 1 is a Beethoven string quartet, recorded with a pair of DPA 2006's (compact preamp), in AB configuration with a spacing of 45-50 CM . Recorded directly on a Tascam DR 680 MKII, no eq, no compression . Just a very slight amount of added reveb in post-prod .

Sample 2 is a Schumann piano recording, with the same DPA ST 2006 C pair, spacing 45 cm, recorded directly on a Tascam DR 680 MKII . No eq, no compression, no reverb .

I hope this helps a little, and sorry for my English ...
Eric

emenelton 8th June 2019 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric D (Post 14026921)
Hello,

There are nearly no audio samples available on the internet for the DPA 2006's, so it's very difficult for people who are interested in this model to make a decision .
To give an idea of "how they sound", here are 2 samples from concerts I recorded last year .

Sample 1 is a Beethoven string quartet, recorded with a pair of DPA 2006's (compact preamp), in AB configuration with a spacing of 45-50 CM . Recorded directly on a Tascam DR 680 MKII, no eq, no compression . Just a very slight amount of added reveb in post-prod .

Sample 2 is a Schumann piano recording, with the same DPA ST 2006 C pair, spacing 45 cm, recorded directly on a Tascam DR 680 MKII . No eq, no compression, no reverb .

I hope this helps a little, and sorry for my English ...
Eric

Thank you for posting. I found the 2006 sounded much better on the piano. Don’t know if it’s a placement issue or if the piano just didn’t expose the 2006’s general character like the quartet. Helpful post!

Eric D 8th June 2019 03:42 PM

Hi emenelton,

for the quartet, please note this :
-the musicians opted for an "agressive" and "bright" sounding interpretation,
the 2006's reproduce this fauthfully and didn't add any artificial hardness or brightness to the sound, this quarted really sounded like that . You should note that in the quieter moments the sound is smooth .
- If this had been possible, I would have placed the microphones slightly further, but it was not possible due to the presence of the public ...

shosty 8th June 2019 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric D (Post 14027011)
Hi emenelton,

for the quartet, please note this :
-the musicians opted for an "agressive" and "bright" sounding interpretation,
the 2006's reproduce this fauthfully and didn't add any artificial hardness or brightness to the sound, this quarted really sounded like that . You should note that in the quieter moments the sound is smooth .
- If this had been possible, I would have placed the microphones slightly further, but it was not possible due to the presence of the public ...

I liked the quartet sound - to me it didn't sound too bright or aggressive, in fact. It seems pretty neutral to me.

Thanks for posting. I hadn't heard these DPAs before.

emenelton 8th June 2019 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric D (Post 14027011)
Hi emenelton,

for the quartet, please note this :
-the musicians opted for an "agressive" and "bright" sounding interpretation,
the 2006's reproduce this fauthfully and didn't add any artificial hardness or brightness to the sound, this quarted really sounded like that . You should note that in the quieter moments the sound is smooth .
- If this had been possible, I would have placed the microphones slightly further, but it was not possible due to the presence of the public ...

It did sound real close...

deedeeyeah 8th June 2019 07:57 PM

i recently had a band (for which i mixed monitors) that brought along a dozen 2011's: the mics were used for amplification only, not for recording - my impression is that the mics have a much exaggerated hf boost which several musicians asked me to compensate.

i didn't look up the specs but from watching the filters on my desk, the hf boost must be quite severe/noticable, something that plagues so many modern sdc's but imo is hardly ever needed....

also, the mic has a little too much noise, especially when compared with offerings from other manufacturers so i'm not interested in further investigating the mic after this experience!

emenelton 8th June 2019 08:03 PM

The 4006a should not be compared to the 2006; it is in a different league. Arguably the best of the top tier mics.

Eric D 8th June 2019 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emenelton (Post 14027449)
The 4006a should not be compared to the 2006; it is in a different league. Arguably the best of the top tier mics.

Are you sure about this ?
Because I have worked with the 2 models, and the differences between the 4006's and the 2006's are certainly not as "in a different league", but very slight differences !

Perhaps a hazard, but this quator concert was also recorded at the same time by a colleague using a pair of DPA 4006's, placed at the same place as my 2006's . When we compared our recordings, impossible to tell who is who ...

Like I explained before, yes the 4006's are superior to the 2006 on some particular aspects . But, from my personal experience with these 2 microphones, they are very similar and certainly not "in a different league " .

But of course if you like the DPA sound and can afford the 4006's, go for them !

emenelton 8th June 2019 09:34 PM

It’s reasonable to hear the 2 models and have them sound alike.

The importance of a recordings sound:

Artist
Room
Mic placement
Mic
Pre
Ad

the mic is firmly in the middle of those five. There are the other two categories that have more weight to how they affect the sound.

I just thought the tonal structure of the Quartet recording did reflect on how I remember the 2006 sounded which the piano recording did not show

shosty 9th June 2019 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emenelton (Post 14027587)
It’s reasonable to hear the 2 models and have them sound alike.

The importance of a recordings sound:

Artist
Room
Mic placement
Mic
Pre
Ad

the mic is firmly in the middle of those five. There are the other two categories that have more weight to how they affect the sound.

I just thought the tonal structure of the Quartet recording did reflect on how I remember the 2006 sounded which the piano recording did not show

I agree with you list with this addition...

Artist
*Instrument*
Room
Etc..

emenelton 9th June 2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuba_noise (Post 14018569)
Hello, all!

I am going to be placing an order for some new gear to create a remote recording rig (for my job at a larger university), and I'm curious to know if anyone has experience with the DPA 2006 and 2011. I'm particularly interested in the "c" versions of the preamp, since uncluttered sightlines would be a plus for a few of the venues where these will be used. For the price, I could instead get the Neumann KM183s, so I guess I'm curious to know what sets the DPAs apart, if anything.

My preferred brand is likely out of reach for this order (Schoeps), so I'm trying to keep it around the ~$1000 per mic limit. My goal is to get a wide bar and do the traditional inner cardioid pair with outer Omni pair. I've already decided to ask for the Sound Devices MixPre 10T for the recording device.

Thanks, and any input is appreciated!

1000 per mic is a healthy budget

I just reread your post and wanted to be helpful

km 184 a Neumann cardioid pair (same as another suggested)
mkh30 Sennheiser Omni pair

Those are both professional and versatile mics that will always have a place in your locker and with careful shopping could be acquired in your budget. The modular km a’s and not the older km184’s are what are being recommended

Good luck

Eric D 9th June 2019 03:55 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Fore those interested in this microphone, here are 2 other samples recorded with a pair of DPA ST 2006C .

The first is an extract of Ravel's "Tzigane" for violin and piano . DPA 2006's in AB 40 cm, recorded directly on a MixPre 6, no processing at all .

The second is an extract of "Laudario de Cortona", music from Tuscany at the Middle Ages .
The ensemble consists of a singer and five musicians (medieval fiddle, lyra, percussion, oud, flute), placed in a classic way .
To have a correct balance between the singer and the musicians, I had to place the microphones at greater distance than normal for omnis : 3,8 m from the singer, nearly 7 m from the percussion at the rear . AB 40 cm, height 2,4 m .
I was impressed by the ability of the 2006's to reproduce so much detail and finesse at such a distance ! :)
Recorded in concert, directly on a Tascam DR 680 MKII, no processing at all .

Thank you,
Eric

king2070lplaya 9th June 2019 06:44 PM

This all just makes me think I should prioritize buying a pair of 4060s! Cheaper mic, same very good sound, more flexible placement options...

tourtelot 9th June 2019 07:39 PM

Okay, but sorry. Doing A-B comparisons via a computer using mp3 files doesn't really go far to being able to make an informed choice.

Folks on a budget will always contend that something at $x sounds almost as good as something at $xxxx. That is the nature of justification. I think that anyone here who has has the pleasure of using either the 4006(X) and/or 4011 would contend that it isn't reasonable to suggest that they are not "better."

And this whole discussion of the 4060 being the equivalent of the 4006 (Mr. Ohno not withstanding) are delusional. Not bad, mind you, and useful. But not the same.

Just my $.02 as always and knowing that those of us who have spent huge money to buy the highest quality mics have rationalizing issues of our own :)

D.

Eric D 9th June 2019 07:53 PM

I know the 4060's very well and have used them a lot of times
for my broadcast work

The 4060 is a very good lavalier microphone and can give excellent results for music recording, but has 2 problems in this kind of use :
- its noise level is too high for being used at some distance from the source (like an AB pair for an orchestra) ;
- you can't buy the 4060 in matched pairs . If you have chance, your 2 4060's will be very similar, if you don't they will each have a slightly different sound . Same as with all Lavalier microphones ...

I have 4060's and 2006's . The main differences are :
- due to their very small size, the 4060's are fully omnidirectional at all frequencies and in all directions, for this reason they are really easy to place ;
- the 4060's have a vey extended LF response and have nearly no attenuation at 20 hz, which is a famous performance ...
- the 2006's have 6 dB's less noise compared to the 4060's and have a hotter output . The result is a much quieter microphone ;
- the 2006's have a clearly audible better transient response than the 4060's, and a clearly audible more precise and more detailed reproduction .

From my experience with these 2 models, no doubt the 2006 ia a much better miccrophone for most situations in music recording, but the 4060 can give excellent results in some situations .

The price difference is not so big, the 4060 is certainly not a cheap microphone !

By posting samples ofu 2006's recordings, I just wanted to help interested people to have an idea of their performance, but I don't pretend they are the best ones at the price .
But, having used a lot of prestigious microphones, I can say with no doubt that the 2006 is certainly one of the very best affordable omnis, even if some people who have no experience with it say it's an inferior microphone ...

tourtelot 9th June 2019 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric D (Post 14029183)
I can say with no doubt that the 2006 is certainly one of the very best affordable omnis, even if some people who have no experience with it say it's an inferior microphone ...

And a Honda Fit is one of the very best affordable cars. Doesn't mean that it compares to a Bugatti. Or even a Porsche.

D.

Eric D 9th June 2019 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourtelot (Post 14029155)
Okay, but sorry. Doing A-B comparisons via a computer using mp3 files doesn't really go far to being able to make an informed choice.

Folks on a budget will always contend that something at $x sounds almost as good as something at $xxxx. That is the nature of justification. I think that anyone here who has has the pleasure of using either the 4006(X) and/or 4011 would contend that it isn't reasonable to suggest that they are not "better."

And this whole discussion of the 4060 being the equivalent of the 4006 (Mr. Ohno not withstanding) are delusional. Not bad, mind you, and useful. But not the same.

Just my $.02 as always and knowing that those of us who have spent huge money to buy the highest quality mics have rationalizing issues of our own :)

D.

Hi Tourtelot,
Who said the 4060 is equivalent of the 4006 ?
Certainly not me !
The 4060 is inferior to the 2006 and the 2006 is inferior to the 4006, no doubt on that (for me at least) !
I said the 2006 is just slightly inferior to the 2006, which is true because I could compare them several times, and clearly there is not a big difference .
I don't want to justify anything, I just try to share my personal experience to help other people in their choice .
Thanks to my company, I have access to the best DPA's, Neumann, Schoeps, Sennheiser and others . I perfectly know these prestigious and expensive microphones and have several of them .
But I try to remain curious and to discover other products, even if they are very cheap . And sometimes there are good surprises . I know most professionals don't do that, and they can't accept the idea that cheap or relatively cheap microphones can give remarkable results in some situations (the Line Audio OM1 is perhaps the best example) .

About the samples, even if they are in mp3 due to the limited size for downloads, anybody understands that the original will have a better quality, but I think they can be very useful to give an idea .
Isn't it always better to post samples with relatively limited quality than giving opinions about products one havent't used, no ?
Just my opinion ... :)

pentagon 9th June 2019 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric D (Post 14029183)

I have 4006's and 2006's . The main differences are :
- due to their very small size, the 4060's are fully omnidirectional at all frequencies and in all directions, for this reason they are really easy to place ;
- the 4060's have a vey extended LF response and have nearly no attenuation at 20 hz, which is a famous performance ...
- the 2006's have 6 dB's less noise compared to the 4060's and have a hotter output . The result is a much quieter microphone ;
- the 2006's have a clearly audible better transient response than the 4060's, and a clearly audible more precise and more detailed reproduction .

Might want to correct the typos. Because this means/confuses different mics.

Eric D 10th June 2019 09:25 AM

Thank you very much, pentagon ! Post edited .

dasbin 10th June 2019 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric D (Post 14029183)
- you can't buy the 4060 in matched pairs .

Yes you can actually. Look for the -SMK suffix, on both legacy and now Core versions too.

https://www.dpamicrophones.com/dscre...icrophone-kits

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric D (Post 14029183)
- the 2006's have 6 dB's less noise compared to the 4060's and have a hotter output . The result is a much quieter microphone

Well, they're 6db quieter (SNR already takes into account the output level). Personally I still find them to be on the noisy side. Never unusably so, but I notice the noise.

I don't really notice a difference in transient response or detail between 4060's and 2006's myself, just noise level. 2006's do have a bit of a sharper HF rise, which might be what you are hearing.

I think both are great mics and have that relaxed, open and detailed DPA sound. In that way I also think that both sound better than many other options around the same price, but it depends what you are looking for. They are a certain flavour and not everyone will prioritize the same things.

Eric D 11th June 2019 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasbin (Post 14030686)
Yes you can actually. Look for the -SMK suffix, on both legacy and now Core versions too.

https://www.dpamicrophones.com/dscre...icrophone-kits



Well, they're 6db quieter (SNR already takes into account the output level). Personally I still find them to be on the noisy side. Never unusably so, but I notice the noise.

I don't really notice a difference in transient response or detail between 4060's and 2006's myself, just noise level. 2006's do have a bit of a sharper HF rise, which might be what you are hearing.

I think both are great mics and have that relaxed, open and detailed DPA sound. In that way I also think that both sound better than many other options around the same price, but it depends what you are looking for. They are a certain flavour and not everyone will prioritize the same things.

Thank you for the info about this (new) possibility of buying the 4060's in matched pairs .

I noticed these differences in noise and sound between the 2006's and the 4060's with my own microphones, the 2006's are from 2017 and the 4060's are from 2010, probably these latter have lost some of their qualities with time …

The DPA sound is not for anybody, some don'like it .
For omni microphones perhaps an interesing option for Tuba Noise would be a pair of Neumann KM 183's or DPA 2006's and a pair of Line Audio OM1's .
The Neumann's and DPA's will give good results at some distance but are a bit bright for use in free field . In this situation the OM1's could be an excellent choice …

Lurcher_lover 3rd August 2019 06:12 PM

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj49ibt5rg...DITED.wav?dl=0

This recording was made using the DPA 2006 omni mics.

Other than edits there was no other processing (96KHZ 24BIT FILE)

studer58 4th August 2019 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurcher_lover (Post 14130553)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj49ibt5rg...DITED.wav?dl=0

This recording was made using the DPA 2006 omni mics.

Other than edits there was no other processing (96KHZ 24BIT FILE)

Nice blend of instrument and surrounding space, was it in a smallish room ? I don't hear any distracting self noise from the mics.

Lurcher_lover 4th August 2019 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by studer58 (Post 14131178)
Nice blend of instrument and surrounding space, was it in a smallish room ? I don't hear any distracting self noise from the mics.

Thanks Studer58. Your comments are extremely appreciated. I value them highly, especially after hearing some of your very fine recordings.

It was made at home with a Steinway Model 0 grand which has been totally refurbished by Steinway a year ago. Yes, it's a small room and I have to close mic to keep the room sound out. If I go out 6 or 8 feet then the room standing waves spoil the sound a lot.

I recorded at 96KHZ 24bit and I keep a pretty high headroom - in this recording of -9.6 dB true peak. (-14 LUFS). It was recorded on a MixPre-3 and apart from an edit or two there is no processing at all.