any DPA or Schoeps users here?

[jnorman]

i do classical music recording in a studio setting where cheap mics just are not acceptable. i currently use pairs of neumann km184s and gefell M300s, which are only marginally passable. i am considering upgrading to some DPAs, josephsons or schoeps, and would like to hear some comments from those who have had a chance to compare these high-end mics with more mundane stuff like the km184s. is there a world of difference, or should i put my money into some high-end converters, or keep shopping for the magic preamps? i'm using a pair of grace 101s, but frankly, they really dont sound a hell of lot better than my old mackie pres. thanks for any thoughts.
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon

 

[Light]

I like DPA mics more than anything else for acoustic instruments. They are the best you will find. Schopes are just as good, though I have less experience with them. I do not like the KM 184s for much of anything, but they are not bad. I just think there are better mics out there.

For large orchestral recording, I am very fond of a REAL Decca Tree, which requires three Neumann M50s, TLM 50s, or M150s, all of which are great mics. Schopes and DPA both make acoustic spheres to modify their omnis, but I have never tried them. In theory this would also work for a Decca Tree, but like I said, I have not tried it.

And I think the mics are the first thing you should worry about. There is nothing in you system as important as the mics, no matter how popular the "high end" pre-amp idea has become. Don't get me wrong, pres make a big difference, but the mic makes a much bigger difference.

Of all the things I had the use of when I was doing this stuff for a living, I miss the great mics the most, and the B&Ks (DPAs) more than anything else. All of my favorite acoustic guitar sounds have been with B&K 4011s, though those are not the model you would want.

Light


"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Beezoboy]

Man, if Km184's aren't cutting it you're screwed. Maybe you should look into Royer 121 or 122, Earthworks Omni's, and some LD condensers like the U87, Soundelux U95.

Are the mics not capturing the tone of the instrument? Are there clarity issues? What is it you dislike in the sound of the mics you have and on what sources do they sound bad? Do you drink a lot?

I like the look of those Davisound preamps, supposed to be very clear. Also what about Neve maybe?? One version of their preamps are supposed to be clear with lots of gain. Also there is Earthworks, and many others that are "clinically sterile," only producing clean gain with little or no artifacts.

Do you drink a lot? Be honest!
Beezoboy

 

[musikman316]

You aren't screwed if KM184s aren't cutting it, yes they are good for many applications, but when it comes to the ability to reproduce a large group of instruments you may just need to spend some cash...

Some ideas are the DPA 3532-S's, wow, I have not used these mics but I have sat in on sessions where they were used, great, great, great, but also $7000.00.

Then the Schoeps CMC641 ST G's same deal, sat in on a session and they sounded great, and are more affordable at about $2100.00.

I must say that I have not A B'd these mics, two different sessions and two different studios, but I will say that they are both wonderful.

But please don't go and spend $2000 (or $7000) because someone said they think they sound great (that would just be stupid)... look around and see if you can get a set of these and any other high end products from these companies and listen, if you can't tell the difference then just keep looking for a solution, and if you can't find one... maybe you do drink too much?!

Later,
Musik

__________________________________________________
If it isn't fun, it isn't music...

 

[jnorman]

thanks guys - good comments all. light - why do you think the 4011s would not be the right choice? that is one of the models i am considering, since this is mostly in-studio rather than live venue work. beezoboy - yes, i drink plenty! we recycle our bottles here in oregon, and it is quite embarassing to put all the empty bottles out at the street each week and i have owned a pair of the royer r-121s - they are very nice mics, but ultimately not quite what i am after. same with tlm103s and rode NTKs. the U87, tlm170 and a couple of other LD condensers are still on my list for consideration though. odds are though, that i will go with SD mics in the long run.
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon

 

[Light]

For classical stuff, I tend to go with omnis. They have a much more acurate response. The 4011s are nice, but they are nowhere near as flat as 4006, which are what I would want in you place. What I really like the 4011s for is close micing, which I would imagine you are not doing much of.

Mind you, I have not done much classical recording, but from what I have done, this is what I would do.

And I really love B&Ks, or DPAs or whatever the hell they are called now. I gotta get me some 4011s, but I am too poor.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[audiofreak]

If Neumann TLM 170 is one of your options, you may want to try it out.

Decca used a pair of TLM170 to record Cecilia Bartoli in studio.

 

[BasPer]

No shadow should fall on the homerecording BBS, but this kind of stuff is not really our area of expertise. Why don't you go talk to Scott Dorsey on rec.audio.pro? (Usenet or http://groups.google.com) He'll talk to you all day about schoeps if you let him!

 

[jslator]

Maybe you should look into Royer 121 or 122, Earthworks Omni's, and some LD condensers like the U87, Soundelux U95.

Some of those might work in certain situations, but I don't think they'd be the most flexible choices for a main stereo pair in critical classical recording. I'd say you're going down the right road with the DPA, Josephson and Schoeps, but unfortunately I doubt that too many people around here (incluidng myself) have much hands-on experience with any of those.

One clear advantage of the Schoeps and Josephson mic's that you should keep in mind is that they have interchangeable capsules. So, you could get a pair of mic bodies with cardiod (or hypercardioid) and omni capsules and have the choice of which to use depending on the room and the ensemble. That would likely be cheaper than purchasng a pair of equivalent quality DPA mic's with those patterns. Of course, with the interchangeable capsules, you can also buy other capsules down the road (like a figure 8 to do M/S recording, or a pair to do Blumlein).

Whatever you do, let us know what you learn.

 

[Brent Casey]

I own a consecutive pair of Schoeps CMC6 bodies and MK-41 capsules. They are excellent for stage spot use and on acoustic instruments. The sonic characteristic is very plain, articulate and fairly linear both on and off axis. They're a joy to record with. The Schoeps are really a departure from the Neumanns in my opinion. The two companies have pursued different overall design technologies, originally stemming from their contracts with German radio as I understand it.
What do you find to be the marginalizing factors regarding the Gefell M300 in your case?
Do you have a soundstage in Salem?

Regards,

Brent Casey
Studio Projects Microphones
877-563-6335

No shadow should fall on the homerecording BBS, but this kind of stuff is not really our area of expertise. Why don't you go talk to Scott Dorsey on rec.audio.pro? (Usenet or http://groups.google.com) He'll talk to you all day about schoeps if you let him!

 

[jnorman]

again, thanks for the great replies.

light - i've tended to stay away from omnis, due to the medicore acoustics in my studio. i do agree with you though that the 4006s are probably the single finest mics to do classical work with, as long as you have a great space to work in.

audiofreak - yes, the tlm170 is on my list - if i go with a LD mic, i think it will be a toss up between the U87 and the 170. tough choice.

basper - yes, i've corresponded with scott several times - he's a great guy, and is always willing to share his experiences.

jslator - good thought, and i concur. while i do lean toward the DPAs sonically, the schoeps collette design offers a lot of flexibility.

brent - flat is what im after, and im interested to hear that you think there is a significant difference betwen the schoeps and the neumanns. i'm talking to mark nutter about renting a pair of the schoeps. i have no complaints about the gefells - they are really quite nice, and a sleeper in the market place. they are easily competitive with the km184s. btw, how do your new C4s compare with your schoeps?

 

[Brent Casey]

jnorman,

The Collette setup is basically flat and quite accurate unless specified to be otherwise, i.e. low cut, "Warm", high freq. emphasis, etc.
The C4 has a small resonant peak, but is also pretty darn flat, with the exception of a slight increase near 10kHz in cardioid and about a 1dB shelve from twelve to about 25kHz. That said, the C4 comes across as being a bit darker than the Schoeps in my a/b's. This is probably perceived in a lower frequency range around 4kHz-7kHz. Both mics start to behave differently as sound information increases both harmonically and in amplitude - the Schoeps handling the highs in a lovely if somewhat metallic fashion and the C4's in a bit thicker but smooth character. Placement can affect such an outcome and I find both mics relatively easy to position, although the two mic's locations are not necessarily interchangeable. This is however, is how my a/b's are generally conducted - with the mics placed as coincident as possible.
Perhaps you should try the C4's against your selection and let me know what you think. I should have my updated production prototypes within a couple of weeks.

Regards,

Brent Casey
Studio Projects Microphones
877-563-6335

again, thanks for the great replies.

brent - flat is what im after, and im interested to hear that you think there is a significant difference betwen the schoeps and the neumanns. i'm talking to mark nutter about renting a pair of the schoeps. i have no complaints about the gefells - they are really quite nice, and a sleeper in the market place. they are easily competitive with the km184s. btw, how do your new C4s compare with your schoeps?

 

[Beezoboy]

I am still a little foggy as to what you are using these for? A stereo pair for distance micing an orchestra? For sound reinforcement like making a woodwind section come through in a mix? For soloist microphones?

What is the application for these mics please, I am curious? Also if you want to get rid of your pair of Km184's for say $700 - 800 let me know!

Beezoboy

 

[jnorman]

brent - i'd be happy to try a pair of your C4s. send 'em on...

beezo - this is specifically for close-micing in a studio setting. the km184s and the M300s both do wonderfully as main stereo pairs in a nice hall. i'm looking for the best studio mic for solo acoustic instruments that i can find.

 

[t_chance]

I may be stepping out of bounds here,

But have you considered a dynamic? A Sennheiser 441 is one I might try. In a studio setting there may be others too. A Shure SM-7??

 

[Light]

Re: I may be stepping out of bounds here,

But have you considered a dynamic? A Sennheiser 441 is one I might try. In a studio setting there may be others too. A Shure SM-7??

Not for classical. It is not even an option. Dynamics do not have the frequency response which you need for classical music.

jnorman, for close micing, I would go with the 4011. I did not realize you were talking about a spot mic. I try to avoid spot micing, but if you need them, 4011s are great.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Beezoboy]

Another option would be to look for some older B&K measurement mics on Ebay (4188 I think). Those things sound great. A friend of mine snagged one of those and the machine that goes with it for a steal.

I would think that you might need a really nice pre though to help hear the difference. I am really looking at Davisound hard. You might give them a call and see what they have to say.

Also though, you might take the money you are going to use for a mic or two, and put it into getting a good sounding room. I think that would make more of a difference than any mic or pre. Even if you can only make an isolation booth that is 8 x 8 or something.

Beez

 

[littledog]

Also though, you might take the money you are going to use for a mic or two, and put it into getting a good sounding room. I think that would make more of a difference than any mic or pre. Even if you can only make an isolation booth that is 8 x 8 or something.

Beez

Beez, i would think that if he is recording classical music, he's not doing it in an 8x8 booth. At least, I hope not...

 

[Light]

Also though, you might take the money you are going to use for a mic or two, and put it into getting a good sounding room. I think that would make more of a difference than any mic or pre. Even if you can only make an isolation booth that is 8 x 8 or something.

Well, an 8x8 would not be a great choice for classical, but your point is excellent. Making your space sound better will go a lot further than mics, even DPA or Schopes. It will also make those DPA and Schopes mics go a lot further. They will notice the room more than any other mic.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Dot]

jnorman, I've used B&K 4003, 4012 and 4006 and a pair of Schoeps CMC62S. I definitely think there can be a difference, but not until you've got the A/D conversion and masterclock in order.

The Apogee Rosetta sells for around $1000 and would make much more difference than DPA's or Schoeps mics.

Also, the Grace 101 is a pretty good tranformerless pre. How are you running into your VS? Through the XLR inputs of the VS? How'd you run the Millennia HV pre you were trying?

_____________

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions