DPA 4011A vs Schoeps CMC6 MK22
Other than various Neumann microphones, the most used small-diaphragm condensers in classical concert halls and recordings are made by DPA and Schoeps. The philosophies behind their designs are quite distinctive, as are the usual descriptions of the family sound of each brand. Arguably though, they are more similar than different, as they both belong in the relatively uncoloured realm. But the big question remains; which microphone is better for recording the classical guitar.
To try and answer that question, for my needs and tastes, I had to get demo units of their cardioid microphones.
A Cardioid and an Open-Cardioid
The 4011A is a staple performer for many acoustic/classical instruments when a directional pick-up is required, Schoeps also offers a few different cardioid capsules with their Colette system suitable for a variety of uses. The MK22, which I chose for this shootout, is an open-cardioid. Schoeps describes its characteristics as a combination of the natural low-end of an Omni pattern with the benefit of cardioid directionality. In essence, it is a little wider than their standard cardioid capsule, MK4, and offers a marginally finer bass response.
Comparing the Polar Pattern plots of these microphones, I realised that the MK22 is closer to the characteristics of the 4011A than the MK4, making the decision easier, and this comparison quite logical.
DPA 4011A Frequency Response
DPA 4011A Polar Pattern
Schoeps CMC6 MK22 Frequency Response
Schoeps CMC6 MK22 Polar Pattern
It has nothing to do with sound
The DPA 3511A Stereo Kit
This might be a little unfair to Schoeps, but it's not my fault. DPA arranged for me to have for reviewing the 3511A Stereo Kit; a high-quality aluminium case which except for a matched pair of microphones, includes a lot of premium accessories, like their high-quality microphone mounting clips, shock mounts and a long stereo boom. All made with the highest standards and can be convenient in the field.
Schoeps CMC6 MK22 Set
From Schoeps, all I got was a pair of CMC6 bodies with the MK22 capsules. I know that ultimately the sound is what matters most, and I that can be evaluated without any extra accessories. But getting familiar with the DPA system, elevated my experience.
Another observation that doesn’t have to do with sound is that the NEXTEL finish of the CMC6 preamps and capsules is quite fragile, I thought I could scratch them, just by looking at them. In comparison, the 4011A have a more solid feel and seem more durable.
Setting up
As per my usual recording techniques for the microphone duels, I placed each pair at an AB configuration, with 36cm distance between them, 96cm from the ground and around 70cm from the top of my spruce guitar.
By listening to the samples, it is evident that both microphone pairs provide a solid performance. I would be totally satisfied with either, but there are some differences.
Unambiguous precision
The 4011As have a unique way to draw an utterly accurate and almost holographic image of the classical guitar, without any sign of harshness or hardness that is not a product of the performance. The sustaining notes, ring longer and the complex harmonies are captured clearer, like if they are taken apart.
Without sacrificing detail, the MK22 capsules portray an euphonic result. They are fast and analytic, but yet with a smooth and musical character; as if the performance is treated with a touch of kindness.
Au contraire, the DPA microphones will represent with unambiguous precision all the nuances and subtleties of a world-class instrumentalist and a high-grade luthier guitar; exposing likewise any flaws on a player's technique or the instrument. Their honesty can be brutal and overwhelming in some cases. If the source is good, they are going to reveal it; if not, forget about using them.
The Schoeps's offer a gentle depiction of the performance by applying a veil of wizardry and charming sweetness. However with the DPAs, it is like looking at the recording through a magnifying glass.
Noise concerns
My only gripe with the 4011A is the high self-noise. At 18dB-A the noise is not excessive and in most cases not even noticeable, but it can be bothersome for distant miking with softer instruments, or very dynamic musical styles.
The MK22 with 13dB-A of self-noise is almost as silent as my Neumann TLM 193 which have a remarkable 10dB-A of self-noise performance. In reality, most rooms are noisier than any of these mics.
Back to the original question
Honestly, I cannot say which microphone is better; probably neither is. The Schoeps have a sound, as the DPAs and ideally, I would love to own sets of both. In isolation, both pairs should sound stunning, if not, the problem is certainly not on the chosen pair of microphones.
When I'm not directly comparing and analysing them so closely, I believe that their differences are not as pronounced. Saying that, after hearing to my playing and guitar(s) with the 4011As (and 4006As which DPA also sent me), it is difficult to accept anything less realistic.
