Topic: AT853 vs CA-14 card taste test

[nulldogmas]

I recently picked up some AT853 cardioid mics to serve as an alternative/backup to my CA-14 cards, and finally had the chance this week to run a side-by-side comparison:

https://soundcloud.com/nulldogmas/sets/cardioid-mic-comparison

Both mics were run in a similar configuration (about 7 inches apart, maybe 10-20 degrees off of parallel) from the front of the board in a fairly echoey room (Bell House in Brooklyn). The AT853s were raised a couple of feet higher, but that shouldn't matter much aside from avoiding audience chatter, of which there isn't any here.

I have my thoughts on the results, but would like to hear others' first.

[vanark]

What other equipment was involved? Battery box/preamp/recorders? I definitely have a preference, but I'd like to know more about other factors, if any.

[acidjack]

The level of difference is surprising. The CA-14 is both much boomier but also, therefore, seems a bit "warmer" and "fuller" than the AT853. I guess I'd give a slight edge to the AT853, as I just prefer the clearer/cleaner tone of it.

[lsd2525]

The level of difference is surprising. The CA-14 is both much boomier but also, therefore, seems a bit "warmer" and "fuller" than the AT853. I guess I'd give a slight edge to the AT853, as I just prefer the clearer/cleaner tone of it.

^ This. Wish my 853's had a top like these......could be the PA though.

[nulldogmas]

AT853s were SP-SPSB-1 battery box into M10 (mic in) at 24/48. CA-14s were Ugly battery box into iRiver 320 at 16/44.1. Both were ultimately converted to 16/44.1 before upload.

I tend to agree with AJ: It's a matter of taste, with the AT853s cleaner but thinner, the CA-14s fuller but boomier. (I haven't tried EQing the two, but wonder if that would bring them both closer together.) Which one I'd pick would probably depend on the venue.

[nor-cal henry]

The 853s sound more open, bright, and maybe even harsh in some frequencies.  The more 'open' part is important to me.  The CA-14s sound to me like the edges of the brightness/harshness have been rolled off, resulting in a pleasing overall sound.  Based on these recordings, I'd probably go with the 853s also.  I don't eq very much, but would think that I could use eq in post to get the track from the 853s to sound somewhat like the track from the CA-14s.  I don't see how one could apply eq to the CA-14 track to get them to sound like the 853 track.

[backwhereubelong]

I prefer the AT's as well also.  The Sound Pro box you use, I think, pushed the mics with 12 volts which is damn near perfect for the AT's.  I use a very similar setup as well.

[nulldogmas]

I prefer the AT's as well also.  The Sound Pro box you use, I think, pushed the mics with 12 volts which is damn near perfect for the AT's.  I use a very similar setup as well.

The Sound Pro box is powered by a 9-volt battery, so I'm pretty sure it can't push 12 volts.

[backwhereubelong]

LOL.  I misread, I thought you used the Sound Pro's SP-SPSB-10 which is in fact 12volts.

[fandelive]

Sounds like a not very crowded high ceiling venue.

The CA-14 sound as if the mics were placed further away. They sound a bit muffled also and bass rendition is nebulous. The acoustic guitar is more up front.

The AT835 sound brighter. It it wasn't for the CA-14, I wouldn't even have notice the presence of the acoustic guitar.

Both are certainly doing a great job filtering bad room echoes.

All in all, my vote goes for the AT853. I prefer a light bass over a nebulous bass.

[nulldogmas]

Sounds like a not very crowded high ceiling venue.

It wasn't packed to capacity, but was far from empty. As for the high ceiling, good call, but I think the bigger problem there is the extreme width of the room, which creates some nasty echoes. Here's a decent photo from a show somewhat more lightly attended than the one I recorded this at:



If recording from that spot in that venue again, I'd probably use the AT853s, yes. I'm curious to see how they each perform under different conditions, though — there's a show coming up this week at a tiny club where the CA-14s have done well in the past, so I may do another comparison test there.

[Gutbucket]

First, know that I'm one who would not be satisfied with either without some EQ work.  In light of that, if I had to choose one over the other, I'd most likely choose the CAs.  My initial thoughts are that the smoother, less peaky frequency response of the CAs is likely to be easier to EQ into a response I'd be satisfied with.  Not saying the ATs couldn't be EQ'd to satisfaction, only that higher 'Q' resonant peaks like I'm hearing in the AT sample here can sometimes be more of a challenge to deal with than starting with a flatter "low Q" response.  Sometimes I can correct those resonant peaks relatively easily with targeted EQ, sometimes not.  On initial listen, the CAs seem like a potentially more fruitful starting point, an easier base-line raw response to work with. 

I don't eq very much, but would think that I could use eq in post to get the track from the 853s to sound somewhat like the track from the CA-14s.  I don't see how one could apply eq to the CA-14 track to get them to sound like the 853 track.

 
I don't see this constraint.  I could work with either one, and just think the CA would be easier to "get right".  I wouldn't rule out the possibility of pretty closely matching the subjective frequency response of the CA track to that of the 853 track, I just don't care much about trying to do that or see the point of doing so.

The AT853s were raised a couple of feet higher, but that shouldn't matter much aside from avoiding audience chatter, of which there isn't any here.

Irregardless of audience chatter, that amount of height difference can be quite significant with regards to tonal EQ balance from some PAs and some rooms.  I'd certainly not dismiss this variable outright, it may be quite significant here.

[fandelive]

I think the bigger problem there is the extreme width of the room, which creates some nasty echoes.

FOB doesn't seem to be the best spot here. Maybe you could try a spot closer to a stack next time. Depends if the mix is mono or stereo.

[bombdiggity]

As above I think the height differential may have a substantial impact, though it doesn't change the signature of the two mics.  Were it me I'd have put the CA's up higher than the AT's. 

I don't have AT853's but they might lean a little more toward my innate preference but seem pretty bright.  That often gives a more pleasing raw recording in a room that sounds like this one but there a some issues on the top here (the vox and some other aspects are buried and it's really quite bright) that I didn't like too much.  The CA's seemed a little muddy but may actually be more like what it sounded like there?   

I had gotten some CA's on that first sale of Chris' as potential spares.  Since then I've put them on essentially permanent loan to a local friend who is becoming somewhat the primary documentarian of the scene here (since he goes to shows 4 nights or more a week).  Their sonic signature is definitely more low-end oriented (to an extent that is quite notable for essentially miniature mics).  Used up close (he has already realized the aural benefits of sitting stage lip before he started taping) they are nice and have a good off the shelf sound.  I edit what he records and I've never felt inclined to eq what he brings back except for one he did close in a really boomy room I did think twice about but didn't since a mixed multitrack recording became available. 

I'm happy with the CA's but they seem better suited out of the box to some situations than others. 

The room in this test I think you'd have a hard time getting anything good out of the box (even high end mics might not seem high end there).  As to the results of which mic would polish up easier I have no idea.   

[nulldogmas]

First, know that I'm one who would not be satisfied with either without some EQ work.  In light of that, if I had to choose one over the other, I'd most likely choose the CAs.  My initial thoughts are that the smoother, less peaky frequency response of the CAs is likely to be easier to EQ into a response I'd be satisfied with.  Not saying the ATs couldn't be EQ'd to satisfaction, only that higher 'Q' resonant peaks like I'm hearing in the AT sample here can sometimes be more of a challenge to deal with than starting with a flatter "low Q" response.  Sometimes I can correct those resonant peaks relatively easily with targeted EQ, sometimes not.  On initial listen, the CAs seem like a potentially more fruitful starting point, an easier base-line raw response to work with.

I would love a further explanation of this, because it seems important and yet I only understand about half of it. In particular, when you say "higher 'Q' resonant peaks," what are you talking about here?

Irregardless of audience chatter, that amount of height difference can be quite significant with regards to tonal EQ balance from some PAs and some rooms.  I'd certainly not dismiss this variable outright, it may be quite significant here.

Next time I'll be sure to set them right next to each other. This was a last-second decision — oh, hey, I have these other mics I'm not using, I can run a comparison — and I didn't have time to mount the CA-14s on the stand right next to the AT853s.

FOB doesn't seem to be the best spot here.

Oh, for sure. My original plan was to get there early for a good spot and record from my seat, until I arrived and found that unlike the last time Freakwater played there, this wasn't a seated show. Since I already had a board feed and was just using the mics for added ambience and balance, I figured FOB would do okay, which it did, more or less.

Used up close (he has already realized the aural benefits of sitting stage lip before he started taping) [the CA-14s] are nice and have a good off the shelf sound. ... I'm happy with the CA's but they seem better suited out of the box to some situations than others.

Agreed as well — my best results with the CA-14s have been where I'm close to the stage, the stacks, or both. I've tried supercards (the SP-CMC-25s I ended up selling you, in fact) and wasn't happy with the sound, which feels kind of thin for amplified guitar music. For more acoustic shows like this one at a boomy venue like this one, they probably would have been perfect for recording from FOB, but I'm not quite in a position to invest in a different set of mics for every occasion. Yet.