Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Brian

DPA 4017B Vs CMIT 5U

Recommended Posts

Brian   

Hey guys,

 

Recently I mixed a scene with the DPA 4060's on talent with 2 DPA 4098 as plant mics in a car.  Wow.  I was very impressed by how well they mixed together.  No phasing issues.  So now I'm interested in using the shotgun (DPA 4017b) with the 4060's.  Can anyone with real experience with the DPA compare it's sound quality to the CMIT 5U?.  I have been using the Schoeps without issue and own 2 CMC6 bodies with MK4 and MK41 capsules.  I'm thinking of switching over mainly because of how well the mix went with all DPA Mics.  On Monday I am meeting a  colleague  to compare on Monday thru a Cantar x-3, but looking for owner feedback, Positive or negative.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Brian H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4017 and the DPA lavs do mix well together, but I always thought that the CMIT and the DPA lavs mix well, too. 

I did switch from the CMIT to the 4017, too, because the 4017 is a bit lighter and smaller, it can handle higher SPLs. There is also a lot less hiss on the 4017. 

The last statement will be contested, but it's my experience and I can back it up with a spectrogram. 

Note that phasing issues have a lot to do with mic placement and very little with mic manufacturer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constantin and anyone,

 

How does  the 4017 handle the weather, humidity, etc? 

 

Also, did you choose the B or C preamp? Why?

 

And how do shoulders feel/sound compared to the CMIT 5U?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

PS- Brian, hope I'm contributing questions to rather than hijacking your thread. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I've had more experience with the DPA than with the Schoeps, but that's mostly because I like the DPA better. 

 

 The DPA overall sounds a bit brighter than the Schoeps, but to me that translates as having a bit more clarity to the sound.  It still sounds nice and full with a nice bottom end, and I don't feel that anything is missing.

 

The CMIT5u has the Schoeps sound -  very warm and natural –  quite similar to the CMC 641.  When I use it though, which is usually by client request, it always leaves me with the feeling that it's going to sound really great when it's had a little bit of EQ.  The DPA on the other hand sounds great as is.

 

The Schoeps seems to pick up a little more of the room than the DPA does. 

 

I have both the B and C preamps for the 4017.  I use the mic a lot for ADR sessions where I'm not worried about size or weight, and in that situation I love the extra filters on the B preamp.  When I'm booming I love the tiny size and weight of the C preamp.  I have the Rycote basket made for the 4017 C, and the thing is so small it's amazing.

 

-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JonG   

I've used the 4017, and it's a very good mic. I have DPA lavs and Scoeps mics cmc/mk41 & cmit5u, and they blend very well with the lavs. Personally, I think that DPA vs. Schoeps mics is splitting hairs, but I still prefer Schoeps. I've had a few experiences that made me lean that way and I see no reason to switch boats. However, if you do go the way of the DPA, you should give me your Schoeps mics :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree with Mike's comments. I love the CMIT, but overall, all things considered, I just prefer the 4017 - off-axis, reach, freq. response, noise and so on.

 I also have both preamps (they are comparatively cheap). Usually it's the C preamp for me, for size, but this summer I was working in very windy places and the lo-cut of the B came in very handy. 

Can't really comment about performance in wet weather. So far no problems, but I don't shoot in extreme conditions and I've never had an issue with the CMIT either

 

 

Jim, don't know what you mean by shoulders?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Constantin said:

Jim, don't know what you mean by shoulders?

 

Sorry. I mean "smoothness" of transition as source moves from on axis to more and more off axis. Does on axis, slightly off axis, and somewhat off axis sound enough alike? Something I see as a strongpoint in Schoeps 41 and CMIT 5U... 

 

Also, anyone have any thoughts about ruggedness of the 4017 vs. the CMIT 5U? Rather, does the 4017 seem more delicate?

 

Helpful answers everyone. At least for me. Hope they're also helping Brian. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jim Feeley said:

 

Also, anyone have any thoughts about ruggedness of the 4017 vs. the CMIT 5U? Rather, does the 4017 seem more delicate?

That is a good point. I try hard to baby my mics so I don't have any personal experience, but the DPA is a modular design whereas the CMIT5u is all one piece, so I can see the Schoeps being a bit more rugged. I do check my DPA every time I put it up to make sure the connection between the capsule and preamp is tight. 

 

-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Feeley said:

 

Sorry. I mean "smoothness" of transition as source moves from on axis to more and more off axis. Does on axis, slightly off axis, and somewhat off axis sound enough alike? Something I see as a strongpoint in Schoeps 41 and CMIT 5U... 

 

Definite Yes. In fact, it sounds so smooth that I find myself using it more and more inside and in rooms where previously I never would have even considered an interference tube. It sounds more like a supercardioid. 

 

7 minutes ago, Glen Deakin said:

 I don't think being modular has anything to do with it being less rugged.  

 

I think that was the conclusion some people came to regarding their Schoeps Colette series mics that through frequent un- and rescrewing of capsules, dirt would sometimes get in between capsule and preamp. This would result in problems of sorts. 

 

Like I said, I cannot confirm that. I have never had an issue with either CMIT or 4017. physically the 4017 feels really robust, but I mean any mic does. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the dpa b and c preamps but lately have been staying with the c just for size and love it.  I just wish for a smaller version of the b preamp even if it uses little swites on the XLR 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ramallo   
9 hours ago, Jim Feeley said:

 

How does  the 4017 handle the weather, humidity, etc? 

 

Also, did you choose the B or C preamp? Why?

 

And how do shoulders feel/sound compared to the CMIT 5U?

 

 

-Is perfect in humidity ambients, close to the MKH's. I used a 4017 in Amazon forrest with great results.

 

-I'm using the B preamp, I have also the C, but I prefer the filtered B (Protects my recorder preamp from overloads)

 

-I prefer the DPA, I did a test between the two, both are very close

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jim Feeley said:

Sorry. I mean "smoothness" of transition as source moves from on axis to more and more off axis. Does on axis, slightly off axis, and somewhat off axis sound enough alike? Something I see as a strongpoint in Schoeps 41 and CMIT 5U... 

 

Re SHOULDERS,

or in other words the linearity of the frequency response beyond the front axis? I seem to remember that both Schoeps and DPA as companies seem to be the most vocal of all 'our' contenders at proclaiming this for their cardioid and later hypercardioid capsules (why indeed it took a while for DPA to release it's hyper and why it took decades for Schoeps to develop an interference tube).

 

Sorry Jim if I'm wrong, or indeed for any further hijack!? (Especially since I have used neither on the end of a boom to capture dialogue!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've got a CMIT and are happy with it, I would stick with it. I have owned both CMITs and 4017s, but have since passed on them. The sound in virtually identical in many ways, with subtle personal differences as to what it "better". In the end I bought a pair of 8060s, which match well with my 50s, 4071a and COS11s.

 

As noted above, you are splitting hairs when discussing the quality and performance of any of these mics. It's just down to personal preference.

 

And also, as noted, phasing will have nothing to do with the mic, and has more to do with placement. Unless, of course, the mic has reverse phase (i.e. COS11). In which case you just flip a switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mack   

I have both and reach for the 4017 the most, particularly if I am booming all day.   It is light, versatile, and sounds fantastic.  Key word light.  I also use it quite a bit indoors and find it cuts well with the MK41.  I also prefer having the filter.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 11:03 AM, Jim Feeley said:

How does  the 4017 handle the weather, humidity, etc? 

 

 

On 9/8/2017 at 8:37 PM, ramallo said:

-Is perfect in humidity ambients, close to the MKH's. I used a 4017 in Amazon forrest with great results.

 

 

I second Ramallo's sentiments about DPA's ability to resist humidity. I used a 4017B for a week in a half in Sri Lanka during the rainy season and the mic preformed flawlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9.9.2017 at 5:19 AM, The Immoral Mr Teas said:

it took decades for Schoeps to develop an interference tube).

 

 

Schoeps refused to produce an interference tube design mic for decades as they are microphone purists and believed the principle to be somewhat flawed. As more and more people were using MK41 capsules in production sound, more and more people asked for an interference tube by Schoeps, so they eventually gave in and made one (and a very good one at that). But I'm sure they could have made one much earlier on, they just didn't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Christian Spaeth said:

 

Schoeps refused to produce an interference tube design mic for decades as they are microphone purists and believed the principle to be somewhat flawed. As more and more people were using MK41 capsules in production sound, more and more people asked for an interference tube by Schoeps, so they eventually gave in and made one (and a very good one at that). But I'm sure they could have made one much earlier on, they just didn't want to.

 

Agreed. Although to me it felt like it was only possible after Joerg Wuttke had left and Helmut Wittek took over as  technical director. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pindrop   
5 hours ago, Christian Spaeth said:

 

Schoeps refused to produce an interference tube design mic for decades as they are microphone purists and believed the principle to be somewhat flawed. As more and more people were using MK41 capsules in production sound, more and more people asked for an interference tube by Schoeps, so they eventually gave in and made one (and a very good one at that). But I'm sure they could have made one much earlier on, they just didn't want to.

Then they went from refuseniks to proselytizers and made an interference tube with an additional capsule and Illusonic processing.......!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian   

Awesome information guys.  Thanks so much.  I just tested the Mics yesterday both hardwired and thru a Lectro HM plug-on, into venue, and into Cantar X3.

 

My thoughts.  I love the way the 4017B sounds.  Very natural and transparent sound, almost "clinical" whereas the CMIT comparatively sounded slightly coloured.

I thought they sounded similar at about 2 feet away, but once the schoeps got closer, proximity effect was much more pronounced.  The 4017 acted like a longer MK41 to me, not necessarily "shotgun" like.  Noise floor seemed to be the same.  

 

My only concern was this.  The 4017 had considerably lower output then the CMIT and even my MK4.  I'm talking 10 db at the preamp on the Cantar x3.  That was slightly alarming for me as when it gets quiet with scenes I am struggling sometimes with the noise floor of the HMa.  With another 10db needed I feel it would reveal maybe to much of the wireless noise floor that we all deal with.  I am talking about quiet sets and quiet locations only.  Usually it's negligible.

 

I tested the mic because I wanted another shotgun in the kit with a full cinela indoor and outdoor mounting system.  So my investment will be large.  

 

Can anyone comment on the output levels between each?

Thanks again.  If I was not to buy 4017b, my choice would be mini CMIT.

 

Thanks for all your thoughts, very appreciative of all your feedback

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

Agreed. Although to me it felt like it was only possible after Joerg Wuttke had left and Helmut Wittek took over as  technical director. 

 

I didn't want to spell that out but I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brian said:

 

My only concern was this.  The 4017 had considerably lower output then the CMIT and even my MK4.  I'm talking 10 db at the preamp on the Cantar x3.  That was slightly alarming for me as when it gets quiet with scenes I am struggling sometimes with the noise floor of the HMa.  With another 10db needed I feel it would reveal maybe to much of the wireless noise floor that we all deal with.  I am talking about quiet sets and quiet locations only.  Usually it's negligible.

 

What about gaining up your HMa?

I have not encountered this as a problem. But I also feel that the 4017 has a lower noise floor and works especially well in quiet scenes (remember I talked about the hiss in the CMIT). It also has a very high max spl of 146dB (with the C preamp) so it works better for scenes on the opposite end of the dynamic range

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×