ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 4065 vs 4066?  (Read 14777 times)

Mack McLaughlin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
4065 vs 4066?
« on: June 19, 2011, 01:40:45 PM »

Does anyone have any real world comparisons/experience with these two mics?  I know the difference in the tech specs, but I was wondering if there was a difference in quality of sound?    Implementation would be for a choir.   I currently have the 4066, but have not been overly pleased with them for what I need.  They often sound boxy....   Fine for speech, but not my favorite for vocals.   It's coming time to replace them and I am looking to see what better options I have.   



Logged

g'bye, Dick Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7424
  • Duluth
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2011, 02:35:30 PM »

Does anyone have any real world comparisons/experience with these two mics?  I know the difference in the tech specs, but I was wondering if there was a difference in quality of sound?    Implementation would be for a choir.   I currently have the 4066, but have not been overly pleased with them for what I need.  They often sound boxy....   Fine for speech, but not my favorite for vocals.   It's coming time to replace them and I am looking to see what better options I have.

Are you referring to the DPA mics?  If so, how are you using them?

Your question is kind of vague and lacking in the information needed to give a substantive answer.
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Mack McLaughlin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2011, 11:25:33 AM »

Hey,

I am in a 65 piece touring wind band with a 30 piece choir.   Management wanted headset mics worn by the chorus which makes it difficult to get a "choir" sound out of them.   Even on pop tunes, I find the current mics that I'm using DPA 4066 omni) to be difficult to EQ.....they just don't sound that full.  They have a consistent boxy sound to them that seems to be accross the chorus.  I can't think of a single choir member that sounds good on the things.    It is a night and day difference when I am "allowed" occassionally to put them on a handheld microphone and all of a sudden, they sound great.   

They are DPA 4066's.   The boss is insistent that we continue to use headset microphones, so I was looking at different options.   The crew several years before me used Countryman E6, but had troubles with the talent keeping it on thier head properly.   Far less problems with DPA headset bands. 

I had considered the 4088, but I understand that those are far more critical in terms of placement, so that is probably not a good idea.   I was wondering if I would have any better luck with the 4065, and wanted to know if anyne had any real world experience with them.

Running currently through a PM5D and a Meyer front end.

Logged

g'bye, Dick Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7424
  • Duluth
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2011, 01:11:47 PM »

Hey,

I am in a 65 piece touring wind band with a 30 piece choir.   Management wanted headset mics worn by the chorus which makes it difficult to get a "choir" sound out of them.   Even on pop tunes, I find the current mics that I'm using DPA 4066 omni) to be difficult to EQ.....they just don't sound that full.  They have a consistent boxy sound to them that seems to be accross the chorus.  I can't think of a single choir member that sounds good on the things.    It is a night and day difference when I am "allowed" occassionally to put them on a handheld microphone and all of a sudden, they sound great.   

They are DPA 4066's.   The boss is insistent that we continue to use headset microphones, so I was looking at different options.   The crew several years before me used Countryman E6, but had troubles with the talent keeping it on thier head properly.   Far less problems with DPA headset bands. 

I had considered the 4088, but I understand that those are far more critical in terms of placement, so that is probably not a good idea.   I was wondering if I would have any better luck with the 4065, and wanted to know if anyne had any real world experience with them.

Running currently through a PM5D and a Meyer front end.

OK.  Sounds like the chief problem is management......

Still looking for more information to determine why the mics aren't giving more usable sound, but I find in general that 3-4 voices/mic gives more of the "air blend" which makes the sum of the voices sound more like a choir than a bunch of individual voices put through a blender.

Given that you have a ton of wireless I wonder if you could try a "stealth" approach to blend in some area mics.  Depending on the positioning of the choir you could throw a few omni lavs on the collars of the people in the front row(s).....if they're in a traditional fixed choir positioning.  Use every sixth person in the front row as a "human mic stand" to pick up and blend the voices of the singers behind them.

But if they're concerned with looks over sound and can trump your knowledge and efforts with executive-ism, you're kinda s****ed.  It sounds to me like the technical problems are the least of your worries.

Good luck.   
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Brian Ehlers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • West Michigan
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2011, 06:11:28 PM »

It is my understanding that the DPA 4065 and 4066 head-worn mics use the exact same element (which I believe is also the exact same as the 4061 lav / general purpose mic).  The difference between the two headsets is simply that the 4065 is not adjustable (you have to bend it to adjust it) whereas the 4066 allows you to slide the ear mounts and boom and even switch the boom from side to side.  So, apart from placement of the element, I would expect both to sound the same.

For spoken word, I use the 4066 with the soft-boost grid.  I tried the high-boost grid once and didn't like what it did to the midrange.  I generally boost about 2 dB HF shelf, cut about 5 dB in the 500 - 700 Hz range, cut about 3 dB around 200 Hz, and cut anything below 80 Hz.  YMMV with different vocalists.

How much bleed are you getting from adjacent vocalists?  If standing shoulder-to-shoulder, I would think that each vocalist is bleeding into about 8 adjacent omni mics -- maybe not a lot into each one, but summing all 8 ..... there's got to be some interesting phase cancellations going on.

I'd really rather mic the group as a choir.  They could still wear (dead) headsets if it makes the director feel better.   ::)
Logged

Phill Chapman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2011, 12:10:14 PM »

The crew several years before me used Countryman E6, but had troubles with the talent keeping it on thier head properly.   Far less problems with DPA headset bands.

If you wanted to try using Countrymans again, they now have two-ear supports for their headworns available which may provide you with the added support required.
Logged
Phill Chapman
Delta Live

Mack McLaughlin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2011, 05:59:26 PM »

Brian....

They are standing shoulder to shoulder, which is probably where the majority of my problems come from.  In talking to DPA, they were really surprised that I was using their mics like this.  I've tried a few crazy things like flipping the phase on every other pair, but that causes other problems.  I can sometimes get a couple of area mics up too, but the management doesn't like it.   

Didn't know that the countryman have the ear supports now.  I might look into that as I have a ton of the E6 laying around the shop.

thanks so much for the input.

Logged

Roland Clarke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 841
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2011, 05:49:20 AM »

As pointed out all over this thread, "management" are the issue.  What you can do depends on what the management issue is.  If they are hell bent on telling you how to do the job, you are sc***ed, if on the other hand, it is just an issue of not having mic stands on the choir, there are options.  As pointed out above, with them standing that close together, and an omni mic on every person, you are bound to be getting into some serious "phase" and comb-filtering issues. 

When I have had to deal with choruses in this way I've adopted the approach mentioned above of spotting a few members throughout the group. Obvioulsy you have to be careful that you don't end up picking up just a few voices, and to that end, the suggestion about miking on the shoulder, back or top of the head are all possible soloutions. 

You need to find out if you are going to be able to implement this type of arrangement or if you are going to be continuly told that it's their way or nothing.
Logged

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1384
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2011, 09:31:52 AM »

Brian....

They are standing shoulder to shoulder, which is probably where the majority of my problems come from.  In talking to DPA, they were really surprised that I was using their mics like this.  I've tried a few crazy things like flipping the phase on every other pair, but that causes other problems.  I can sometimes get a couple of area mics up too, but the management doesn't like it.   

Didn't know that the countryman have the ear supports now.  I might look into that as I have a ton of the E6 laying around the shop.

thanks so much for the input.


The problem that you are experiencing is almost exclusively the result of having each person miced with their own omni mic and having each singer in such close proximity to their respective neighbor.  This is creating a tremendous amount of phase response/interaction problems due to multiple mics picking up the same signers from varying distances.  This can not be corrected with eq.  It can only be corrected by correcting the problem.

No matter what you do with omni mics, without changing your mic positioning and quantity and/or your singer positioning, you will experience the same/similar results no matter what omni mic you choose.

Your options are:
Change to directional mics and the associated sound issues with that (proximity effect, much greater problem from p-pops, etc.).

Don't use one mic per singer, instead, as was suggested in a previous response, move mics to singers shoulders or heads (this would require a lav mic rather than the headsets).  By moving to shoulders (we do this for opera chorus members a lot) you are essentially using the singers as mic stands and are creating group micing.  The mic layout needs to be based, at least somewhat, around the 3:1 rule.

This same concept can be done with thin mic stands mounted to the front edge of the risers and omni capsules placed on these.  That way the mics are all pre-mounted and wiring is much easier.

Group mic with different mics on mic stands (as has been suggested).


Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Don Spaulding

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
    • Symphonic Sound
Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2011, 08:42:41 AM »

Brian....

They are standing shoulder to shoulder, which is probably where the majority of my problems come from.  In talking to DPA, they were really surprised that I was using their mics like this.  I've tried a few crazy things like flipping the phase on every other pair, but that causes other problems.  I can sometimes get a couple of area mics up too, but the management doesn't like it.   

Didn't know that the countryman have the ear supports now.  I might look into that as I have a ton of the E6 laying around the shop.

thanks so much for the input.


The problem that you are experiencing is almost exclusively the result of having each person miced with their own omni mic and having each singer in such close proximity to their respective neighbor.  This is creating a tremendous amount of phase response/interaction problems due to multiple mics picking up the same signers from varying distances.  This can not be corrected with eq.  It can only be corrected by correcting the problem.

No matter what you do with omni mics, without changing your mic positioning and quantity and/or your singer positioning, you will experience the same/similar results no matter what omni mic you choose.

Your options are:
Change to directional mics and the associated sound issues with that (proximity effect, much greater problem from p-pops, etc.).

Don't use one mic per singer, instead, as was suggested in a previous response, move mics to singers shoulders or heads (this would require a lav mic rather than the headsets).  By moving to shoulders (we do this for opera chorus members a lot) you are essentially using the singers as mic stands and are creating group micing.  The mic layout needs to be based, at least somewhat, around the 3:1 rule.

This same concept can be done with thin mic stands mounted to the front edge of the risers and omni capsules placed on these.  That way the mics are all pre-mounted and wiring is much easier.

Group mic with different mics on mic stands (as has been suggested).


Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Yes - that "tinny" sound is comb filtering common in recording studios. Shared frequencies are cancelling each other out. You need to alter the mix so that mics within 4 feet of each other are NOT at the same level (within 10-15 db). I would try a different approach for a good ensemble sound. Directional mics will help, but maybe not enough. I would recommend a high quality (cardioid or wide cardioid) condensors on stands or even a stereo pair, then add in some of the weaker voices from the headworns.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: 4065 vs 4066?
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2011, 08:42:41 AM »


Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 24 queries.