Jazz trio w/ DPA 4061s

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:46 pm

rfreez wrote:

congratulations to sonarerec on a great recording, and very enjoyable music. do you think the 4060s will be a better choice for recording softer sources such as solo violin? do you ever find the lower sensitivity of the 4061s to be a problem?

Quote:

My current thoughts are to clip a 4061 on the violin and one on the vocalist (using one of DPA's head mounting things, allowing head movement and so on, which appears to be quite necessary in this music), and then a pair of [whatevers], one on either side of the mridangam, and finally a stereo pair to capture the air to glue it all back together again. Time align and pan each close mic to the stereo pair (as closely as possible, anyway) and blend in as much of each as is necesary.

this is definitely off topic, but unlike in other boards, i feel like nobody is going to pounce on me if i stray a little bit Wink

my intuition is that a mic such as the 4061 (which, as i understand, already has a rising HF response with the soft boost grid) is bound to sound very bright and thin when close micing potentially strident sources such as violin and vocal. comments from more experienced users? i'm actually quite surprised that the piano sounds as pleasant as it does in the linked example, was any HF rolloff applied?

thanks,

The lower output of the 4061 is exactly why these were chosen over the 4060. A rhythm section is a loud animal.

The intuition expressed above is why graphs are sometimes not helpful. The mic was designed as a body mic, hence the 3dB HF boost to make up for the off-axis placement. All one must do to have ruler-flat response is remove the grid (as the 4090/91 does). Even with the HF rise this mic never sounds like a typical electret clipon. It sounds like a really good DPA omni.

As I recall some mid EQ was dialed in but don't remember if the HF was rolled off. And the recording was produced to sound like the listener was on stage rather than in the house. Personal taste! PLus, the pianist is the star, although I think that the drums could have been a TOUCH more-- especially in the mp3 version.

As for one mic over the drums-- because the set is 5 feet wide I do not think that would work for me. THe SF12 had significant HF shelving EQ added.

Rich

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:36 pm

I'm curious to know where the mid EQ came into play.

My biggest beef with the 4061 is that, for some reason, around 800 Hz, there seems to be a bottle neck. While I think the linked recordings sound fantastic, I can hear the faint hint of that bottleneck.

I'm assuming you used linear phase EQ (likely Algo Orange or Blue...)? I don't hear the traditional artifacts from a mid EQ on this recording.

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:57 pm

Sonarerec wrote:

The lower output of the 4061 is exactly why these were chosen over the 4060. A rhythm section is a loud animal.

That makes sense - match the mic to the music.

Sonarerec wrote:

The intuition expressed above is why graphs are sometimes not helpful. The mic was designed as a body mic, hence the 3dB HF boost to make up for the off-axis placement. All one must do to have ruler-flat response is remove the grid (as the 4090/91 does).

This is all very good information. Graphs can indeed be deceiving. For example, some time ago on this board we discussed DPA's 4041, which has an on-axis HF boost, and yet the consensus was that it doesn't sound as bright as the graphs imply - probably because the boost is only on-axis, rather than throughout the polar response. But if the only information you had was the on-axis frequency response, you'd expect it to be very bright...

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:35 pm

I am looking at the VIP (or EDL to the non-Sequoia users) and am surprised how BAD my memory is!

The piano EQ (which is standard Sequoia and not the Algo Orange which I own) has a HF shelving set to -6.2dB @ 9.7 kHz with a Q of 1.00.

IOW it is counteracting what the grid is doing.

The drumset SF12 is also HF shelving (same Sequoia EQ) set to +11dB @ 7.7 kHz with a Q of 1.00.

I am also wondering what a synonym for "bottleneck" might be?

Rich

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Sonarerec wrote:

The piano EQ (which is standard Sequoia and not the Algo Orange which I own) has a HF shelving set to -6.2dB @ 9.7 kHz with a Q of 1.00.

Well, that ought to put rfreez's mind at rest! It also justifies his concerns over using the 4061s on violin for Carnatic music, as I was suggesting...

Sonarerec wrote:

The drumset SF12 is also HF shelving (same Sequoia EQ) set to +11dB @ 7.7 kHz with a Q of 1.00.

I love the fact that you can do that to the Royer without the sound going bad...

Sonarerec wrote:

I am also wondering what a synonym for "bottleneck" might be?

According to MS Word, your choices are: block, blockage, restricted access, hold up, traffic jam, tailback, jam, log jam...

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:11 pm

Simmosonic wrote:

According to MS Word, your choices are: block, blockage, restricted access, hold up, traffic jam, tailback, jam, log jam...

What I was REALLY wondering was the audio context for that term as Cucco used it.

Rich

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:20 pm

I just mean that, in the midrange, around 800Hz (as best as I can tell) when I've used them, the image seems to get ever so slightly more narrow. It's very wide all through the rest of the range, just right there, it seems like there's something a little closed in. Perhaps I'm sensitive to this where others may not be (like some people are excessively sensitive to noise and I'm not...)

If it were a 2-way speaker, I'd attribute it to a cross-over, but it's not so I don't. I owned 3 of them and they all seemed to have the same issue. It was always VERY slight, but to me, quite obvious when strapped to a violin. I also found it obvious on Mezzo-Soprano.

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:32 am

on a related note, i see pics of such miniature mics fixed on acoustic guitars all the time. as i cannot stand the sound of peizo electric pickups, i was wondering about using a similar mic as primary/only acoustic guitar microphone for an amplified live performance also featuring a drumkit, bass and vocals. given that stage monitors will be there (no IEMs) what is the chance of getting a clean sound without feedback?

thanks,

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:39 am

rfreez wrote:

on a related note, i see pics of such miniature mics fixed on acoustic guitars all the time. as i cannot stand the sound of peizo electric pickups, i was wondering about using a similar mic as primary/only acoustic guitar microphone for an amplified live performance also featuring a drumkit, bass and vocals. given that stage monitors will be there (no IEMs) what is the chance of getting a clean sound without feedback?

thanks,

In my view (which is limited in matters related to FOH) it is all a function of the laws of physics-- WHICH miniature mics (with what response curve), what EQ is in play, how loud the monitors are, how loud the house system is, how large is the room, what rooms nodes are a problem and how they are dealt with, etc.

In general, I suspect the only approach that could yield more gain is the pickup, with the downsides you allude to.

Rich

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:59 pm

rfreez wrote:

what is the chance of getting a clean sound without feedback?

First of all, if we take those piezo pickups out of the equation, we're left with two options: a cardioid on a stand, or an omni clipped onto the guitar. In either case, if the guitar is putting out enough acoustic volume, the mics won't need as much gain and so there is less chance of feedback.

The thing we're concerned with here is known in the PA world as Gain Before Feedback (GBF). The more GBF you have, the louder you can make the instrument (in the mix and/or foldback) before you get feedback.

Looking at our two miking options, and assuming both mics were the same distance from the sound source, the cardioid - with its rear rejection and forward focus - will offer a greater GBF than the omni. BUT, the two miking options are *not* at the same distance; relative to the cardioid, the omni is very close to the guitar and therefore requires less gain, which can often balance up the GBF equation against the cardioid. In other words, a clipped-on omni at 5cm from the sound source might provide the same GBF as a cardioid on a stand at, say, 20cm (figures vary depending on many factors, IIRC).

In that case, the omni has no disadvantage against the cardioid, and, in fact, offers some advantages: unlike the cardioid on a stand, the omni will move with the guitar so its sound remains consistent. The engineer does not have to push up the gain/fader if the guitarist happens to pull back a bit too far from the microphone - which, apart from sounding messy due to increased spill, is a real invitation for feedback. Another problem with the cardioid on a stand is that the guitarist might move too close to it, resulting in a boomy sound and offering yet another invitation for feedback due to gain increase at low frequencies from proximity effect. (Remember, omnis don't suffer from proximity effect, so we can get very close without the sound becoming boomy...)

As with all live sound situations, if the performer is one for moving around on stage, he or she will have to learn how close to get to the foldback and/or the front of the stage before feedback. That's normal when using any microphone, but may be a bit more critical when using omnis.

I've had good fortune using omnis on stage with amplification, but sometimes you just can't beat a cardioid or a piezo!

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:31 am

This might be an opportune time to point out that Frank Sinatra's handheld live mic of choice was a KM83 omni. Naturally the stage monitor scenario has changed a bit in the last several decades, but they had figured out that lack of handling noise (it's an omni) and the ability to work it closer (lack of proximity effect and therefore less "plosive" problem) enabled more gain before feedback.

Often the ability to work an omni REALLY close is what is needed.

Rich

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:17 am

Yes, this is an interesting approach. I see from some YooToob extracts that Patti from Tuck and Patti sings very close into a 4006. She certainly gets a good vocal sound. Why not go silly with it and use an M150. I'd like to try that sometime, if I ever get the chance to record a honey toned silky voiced black woman.

This topic sponsored by: