Topic: Stay with CMC-8 and SP-SB-3 _OR_ move to CA-11/STC-9000?

[adrianf74]

Hey Everybody:

Just got back into recording shows again after a four year hiatus (yeah, it's been some time).  Just did two shows in the past week or so and am using SP-CMC-8's (AT943) Cards with a SP-SB-3 battery box (which uses the mini 9v battery).  I'm finding my recordings, to my liking, a little muddy and murky which is one of the normal criticisms of the AT943's.

Now, I've listened to some shows from people using Church Audio CA-11's (and I've also listened to Chris' sample) and I'm quite impressed.  I'm wondering if it's a smart move to ditch my current setup and pick up the CA-11/STC-9000 combo?  I'm wondering what others on here think.

Thanks in advance for the feedback.

[Liquid Drum]

You shouldn't be getting muddy/murky recordings because of the mics. What type of music are you recording? Location? Venue size?

In my opinion it would only be a lateral move. I have both mics and they are both excellent.

[Belexes]

Agreed. Stick with what you have. My AT943's don't give me any mud.

[Church-Audio]

Hey Everybody:

Just got back into recording shows again after a four year hiatus (yeah, it's been some time).  Just did two shows in the past week or so and am using SP-CMC-8's (AT943) Cards with a SP-SB-3 battery box (which uses the mini 9v battery).  I'm finding my recordings, to my liking, a little muddy and murky which is one of the normal criticisms of the AT943's.

Now, I've listened to some shows from people using Church Audio CA-11's (and I've also listened to Chris' sample) and I'm quite impressed.  I'm wondering if it's a smart move to ditch my current setup and pick up the CA-11/STC-9000 combo?  I'm wondering what others on here think.

Thanks in advance for the feedback.

If you want more of a flat top end go with my ca-14 mics they have much more extended hi-end. I think the mics you have are very good but they can not be buried in your clothing they must be placed with no obstructions in front of them. I would also check your battery on your battery box. And run your battery box flat. With no roll off what so ever. Honestly the only mic that  I make that would be any kind of improvement would be the ca-14. But again look at your placement first and see if that helps before you go spending any more money.


Chris

[willyp523]

I have both mics too and wouldn't call anything I've done with the 943's muddy.  Nor have I heard them criticized as such.  If you're getting a muddy sound, it's more likely due to your location, the venue, mic placement...any number of things.  Are your mics covered with anything?  Do they have a clear line to the speakers?

Not trying to dissuade you from buying the Church mics.  Dollar for dollar, they're a great mic.   

[adrianf74]

Okay, +Ts for the advice here.  That said, should I think about the preamp then or is the battery box going to be enough for the R09 that I'm using as the recorder or with the preamp offer me any benefit?

I know the two shows I've taped have been VERY BASSY and one was MUDDY at the source.  I've also had excellent recordings in the past with these mics so I'm thinking it's just been the shows.

[nameloc01]

That sounds like you do not have your mics set up correctly..as in their positioning in relation to the music source.

[adrianf74]

You shouldn't be getting muddy/murky recordings because of the mics. What type of music are you recording? Location? Venue size?

In my opinion it would only be a lateral move. I have both mics and they are both excellent.

Okay, I've done a little bit of checking into this and have found the following.   One show was an alt.rock show at the Air Canada Centre (about 18 to 20-thousand people), but the Bass was mixed higher than normal (several reviewers have comments on this).  The other show as a free, outdoor show, and again, several people have commented on the artists website that the bass was loud (several YouTube videos that have surfaced also demonstrate this).

The question is: would a preamp be of any advantage of the mini-battery box (I like the size of the box for stealth but want to capture the best possible recording I can since I'm using an R-09).

+T!

[adrianf74]

I think the mics you have are very good but they can not be buried in your clothing they must be placed with no obstructions in front of them. I would also check your battery on your battery box. And run your battery box flat. With no roll off what so ever. Honestly the only mic that  I make that would be any kind of improvement would be the ca-14. But again look at your placement first and see if that helps before you go spending any more money.

Chris

For the alt.rock show at the ACC, I clipped them carefully to my thin wired glass frames and faced them forward at about 55-degrees as the bass stacks were about 5 rows away (I was on the floor). 

For the outdoor show, I clipped the mics to my hat and faced them at a 45-degree angle standing about 8 feet from the stacks.  I had to use windscreens because it was at Yonge-Dundas Square and it was a slightly windy day (gusts to 30km/h).

Battery box is flat (no roll-off) and I've checked the battery strength as I've had these for a while and they were "acceptable" based on charge.  I'm not using them for more than 6 hours even though they're rated at 16-20 (I'd bought these in 2004).  I used to do roll off at 95Hz (and 160Hz prior to that).  I'm wondering if I want to consider going back to 69Hz but I can always roll bass off in post (but never add it).

Preamp?  Worthy addition or is the battery box acceptable?

[adrianf74]

I have both mics too and wouldn't call anything I've done with the 943's muddy.  Nor have I heard them criticized as such.  If you're getting a muddy sound, it's more likely due to your location, the venue, mic placement...any number of things.  Are your mics covered with anything?  Do they have a clear line to the speakers?

Not trying to dissuade you from buying the Church mics.  Dollar for dollar, they're a great mic.   

The things that's odd is that I used to use a Sharp MT-877 MiniDisc recorder with the bass roll off set to 95Hz (originally 160Hz).  I've since, at the suggestion of Chris and others, moved the roll off to FLAT (16Hz).   Have always had a clear line as I stand about 5'11" (I've given my specs to Chris on my previous post).  Personally, I've had better luck in the past with them - maybe I've just ended up at two boomy shows.

[adrianf74]

That sounds like you do not have your mics set up correctly..as in their positioning in relation to the music source.

Actually, I'm doing nothing differently than I have in the past (and I've got numerous killer recordings).  The only change is that I've stopped rolling off bass with these mics (as Chris and others have said they're not known for being very good with bass) but the two shows were both rather bass-heavy.  Clarity and separation on both shows was excellent, too. 

[Dede2002]

I was one of those "preamp is for acoustic, not so loud music" guys. That was before I got my Church-9100. I'm a R-09 (Line In) user and I can tell you that: my recordings now are way cleaner and transparent sounding. The diference is amazing.

[nameloc01]

Hmm. Well, regardless those are very nice mics and they shouldn't be putting out like that, so something else is going on. Maybe try some more shows at different venues and see what happens.

[willyp523]

5th row and 8'...you might be too close.  If the stacks are overhead, the best sound might be going over your head.  Most times I like to be 12-20 rows back.

And I don't concern myself with degree placement with these mics, given they're used mostly in 007 conditions...just point 'em at the stacks.

For the alt.rock show at the ACC, I clipped them carefully to my thin wired glass frames and faced them forward at about 55-degrees as the bass stacks were about 5 rows away (I was on the floor). 

For the outdoor show, I clipped the mics to my hat and faced them at a 45-degree angle standing about 8 feet from the stacks.  I had to use windscreens because it was at Yonge-Dundas Square and it was a slightly windy day (gusts to 30km/h).

[adrianf74]

Hmm. Well, regardless those are very nice mics and they shouldn't be putting out like that, so something else is going on. Maybe try some more shows at different venues and see what happens.

Like I mentioned, the alt.rock show was bass heavy (several reviewers mentioned this) and the free show (rock/pop) was bassy as well (people on the artists' website have commented on this) and the videos on YouTube also seem bass-heavy (I did some rolling off and rolling up to "unmuddy" the recording in post).

Thoughts on the benefit of a preamp?

[adrianf74]

5th row and 8'...you might be too close.  If the stacks are overhead, the best sound might be going over your head.  Most times I like to be 12-20 rows back.

And I don't concern myself with degree placement with these mics, given they're used mostly in 007 conditions...just point 'em at the stacks.

Bass stacks were directly ahead of me for that show; the recording turned out clear (great separation and clarity) but just a bit boomy - bus as mentioned, the bass was mixed higher than normal for this show for whatever reason. 

I placed them upwards to try and avoid the screaming girls that were to be expected where I was.  I still had one, however, she's pretty faint on the recording.

[nameloc01]

My thoughts on a pre-amp:

You only need one if your signal is too weak coming in and needs to be increased. All they do is boost the gain. While some people will swear with their life they "improve" the sound, uhhh.. again, all they do is boost gain. Most recordings sound "better" with more gain, but this can be added later. The primary function is for weak signals coming in. If you do mostly loud shows, its pretty much not needed..if you do moderate to soft shows it would be beneficial.

[Church-Audio]

My thoughts on a pre-amp:

You only need one if your signal is too weak coming in and needs to be increased. All they do is boost the gain. While some people will swear with their life they "improve" the sound, uhhh.. again, all they do is boost gain. Most recordings sound "better" with more gain, but this can be added later. The primary function is for weak signals coming in. If you do mostly loud shows, its pretty much not needed..if you do moderate to soft shows it would be beneficial.

If all preamps did was "boost gain" then old Neve preamps would not be selling for $3k per channel I strongly disagree that all preamps do is boost levels.. LOL why are there so many guys here using Grace or Neve or other high end preamps.. They could save all there money and just buy ART preamps lol for $50.00 wow think of the savings then they could all afford really high end mics! 


Uhhhh adding gain later when you have poor signal to noise ratio only increases your noise floor Uhhhhh not something you really want to do if you can avoid it. And Uhhhh when do you know you need a preamp when your at the gig and Uhhhh dam I dont have a preamp. Shit I wish I had a preamp oh well... That thinking is actually backwards... Do you need a preamp for all situations?? NO but when do you know when you will need one and when you wont unless you have already been to the gig with your gear and traveled back in time so you could leave it out of your gear bag?. I am not just saying this because I make preamps... I am saying this because its fact. If we applied your logic we to microphones we could all leave our mics at home and just use the built in mics in our recorders.. after all you can always fix it later right?



Chris

[nameloc01]

So on that thought... You "in theory" should be able to play a recording through a "loop" of preamps and increase the sound quality indefinitely..better and better...and better...and better...and better to a point that words cannot describe.

Doesn't make much sense.

As soon as someone can produce concrete evidence that preamps magically increase a recordings "quality" I will retract that statement...but as far as I know..no ones been able to yet.

[nameloc01]

Not only will I retract that statement.. I will send the person (who produces evidence) a six-pack of Clevelands best microbrew.
Game on ladies.

[Church-Audio]

So on that thought... You "in theory" should be able to play a recording through a "loop" of preamps and increase the sound quality indefinitely..better and better...and better...and better...and better to a point that words cannot describe.

Doesn't make much sense.

As soon as someone can produce concrete evidence that preamps magically increase a recordings "quality" I will retract that statement...but as far as I know..no ones been able to yet.

In theory you would know something about signal to noise ratio but UHHHH you dont.. So UHHH adding many more preamps does not help but adding one UHHHH that has a noise floor of UHHHH -109 db at +20 db of gain Uhhhhh makes your recordings more Uhhhh quiet uhhhh.
Jesus is that so hard to UHHHH understand? 
You are using Md recorders they have pretty good signal to noise ratio to begin with but if you have an r-09 and you run my preamp in front of it all of a sudden your signal to noise ratio improves and you have less noise in your recordings with more gain.. Plain and simple no complex pie charts or graphs needed..

[nameloc01]

Let's not get sassy...

So it helps in SOME situations?
Or it helps in EVERY situation?

Produce evidence. Without it, any comments on it "improving sound" is just heresay. Nothing personal.

That six-pack isn't going to last too long in my fridge.

[Church-Audio]

Let's not get sassy...

So it helps in SOME situations?
Or it helps in EVERY situation?

Produce evidence. Without it, any comments on it "improving sound" is just heresay. Nothing personal.

That six-pack isn't going to last too long in my fridge.

I am going to say this.. Having a recording with less hiss in it is a sonic improvement.. Having a recording go through a good preamp is also an improvement if it was not why would so many people waste there money on high end preamp are they all stupid or are you the only smart one? My vote is everyone is smart and your well? Prove me wrong. I am not in the business of proving your theory, my theory is based on 20 years as a sound engineer and what I hear with my ears ( witch by the way is alot easyer to hear then the difference in speaker cables )

What are you basing your theory on? If we all liked recordings with hiss in them then we would never have purchased recorders with low noise floors in the first place and I never would have sold over 2,300+ CA-9100 preamps world wide.. Are they all wrong? are my preamps snake oil? lol please. I think the heart of the matter is you dont personally like me so your attacking my business but your going about it all wrong. You should base your attack on actual facts. And you should lump in all the other guys that sell preamps too! because obviously were all wrong and we should not be selling preamps, Right? Do you not think it would be easier for me to corner the market on battery boxes? then to build complicated preamps? If I believed that preamps were not necessary I would sell only battery boxes. But I dont believe that to be true or I would not have gotten into the preamp business. But I would love to hear what your theory is based on please enlighten me.

[nameloc01]

Funny...although not really. Still after the wager of a good six-pack no evidence surfaces. I never said I was an expert, I DID ask anyone to produce evidence.
Simple.
And FYI, I was not referencing your gear specifically, yet you seem to get immediately defensive? Although not surprising considering you make money off of people buying them, I do not. Talk about motives. Hmmm.

Nor did I say everyone that uses a preamp is stupid,that was a nice attempt.
The fact is, the statement that a preamp IMPROVES THE SOUND remains unproven. Although maybe I shouldn't say that too loud eh??

Well, since apparently no one can disagree with certain other people here, I think I am gonna go finish baking my brownies (not that kind) and modify my 3 wire mics to run on 2 wire since that's the way AT intended them to be ran.

Weak.

[Church-Audio]

Funny...although not really. Still after the wager of a good six-pack no evidence surfaces. I never said I was an expert, I DID ask anyone to produce evidence.
Simple.
And FYI, I was not referencing your gear specifically, yet you seem to get immediately defensive? Although not surprising considering you make money off of people buying them, I do not. Talk about motives. Hmmm.

Nor did I say everyone that uses a preamp is stupid,that was a nice attempt.
The fact is, the statement that a preamp IMPROVES THE SOUND remains unproven. Although maybe I shouldn't say that too loud eh??

Well, since apparently no one can disagree with certain other people here, I think I am gonna go finish baking my brownies (not that kind) and modify my 3 wire mics to run on 2 wire since that's the way AT intended them to be ran.

Weak.

Weak is your argument. I would however like to try your brownes. But only if you can cook better then you can make an argument.  I am not saying that in every situation a preamp is the way to go because that stupid. I am saying that in some situations its better to have a quiet external preamp with very little self noise and a wide flat frequency response. Does it make your recordings sound better? I seem to have no shortage of people that swear my preamp does. I dont have to sell people on the fact that its going to turn all of there recordings into gold. I simply have to make a good preamp with very little self noise and a wide flat frequency response. I did that and that is the main reason why they sell as well as they do. Now I have stated my reasons for why having a preamp on hand is a good thing please explain to me why it is not.

[nameloc01]

When did I say it wasn't?
 All I stated, as others here have, as that there is no evidence that they (pre's in general) improve the sound quality.
I think I did state, that in a situation where you are getting a weak signal in, they would be a benefit...why wouldn't they?
But it seems that the general idea is that they IMPROVE your shit in every situation. This is what I argue...apparently you missed that.
I'm not quite sure how my statements turned into a personal attack on Chris Church?? Maybe you could tell me?

I'm not in the position to have to prove anything,and that's by design.
Unfortunately, you as a manufacturer of products are..when asked ( that's if I was talking to you to begin with, which I wasn't)
I quite aware of the preamps on the MDs,that's one of the two reasons I use them.
You seem to get immediately too defensive against any opposing opinions,which will now cost you a quite fudgy thick slice of brownie.
Obviously, I have no insight as to your business,but to answer your question as to why you've sold "X" amounts of units...my guess would be the price.
So,basically..I guess my ultimate question to you is ..if taper "X" is recording shows has adequate signal coming in time after time, and levels are always fine..do you suggest a preamp ?
If so..why?
(And can that be proven?)

Or is the preamp ESSENTIALLY to boost the gain on a weak signal?

And you removed any chances of that "Great Lakes" 6 pack.

[Liquid Drum]

Come on ladies!! lol

 

I don't know shit really but I do know that once I started using a pre-amp, my recordings were so much better once amplified in post. None of that hissing crap.

To the original poster: I seriously suggest you use a LOW setting for roll-off. Especially for rock shows. I always use 69hz with my battery box and the 80hz with my pre-amp. Don't go above 100hz. I've never had a recording that came out bad (or with lack of bass) by using a low setting roll-off.

I mean you could try fix in post but sometimes it doesn't work too well and it can be hard to rid of the muddiness. If you were taping softer music don't use any roll-off but I do suggest using a low setting for any rock/metal shows.

Thats my opinion anyway.

[Church-Audio]

When did I say it wasn't?
 All I stated, as others here have, as that there is no evidence that they (pre's in general) improve the sound quality.
I think I did state, that in a situation where you are getting a weak signal in, they would be a benefit...why wouldn't they?
But it seems that the general idea is that they IMPROVE your shit in every situation. This is what I argue...apparently you missed that.
I'm not quite sure how my statements turned into a personal attack on Chris Church?? Maybe you could tell me?

I'm not in the position to have to prove anything,and that's by design.
Unfortunately, you as a manufacturer of products are..when asked ( that's if I was talking to you to begin with, which I wasn't)
I quite aware of the preamps on the MDs,that's one of the two reasons I use them.
You seem to get immediately too defensive against any opposing opinions,which will now cost you a quite fudgy thick slice of brownie.
Obviously, I have no insight as to your business,but to answer your question as to why you've sold "X" amounts of units...my guess would be the price.
So,basically..I guess my ultimate question to you is ..if taper "X" is recording shows has adequate signal coming in time after time, and levels are always fine..do you suggest a preamp ?
If so..why?
(And can that be proven?)

Or is the preamp ESSENTIALLY to boost the gain on a weak signal?

And you removed any chances of that "Great Lakes" 6 pack.

I AM not telling you anything unless I get a Browne. And the 6 pack. That's the deal take it or leave it. I am sorry about getting all uptight it was pretty stupid. I am still 100% correct you will have to live with that but maybe this was not so much a personal attack on me and more so just a way for you to give away substandard beer?  I am not sure, But we all know Canada has the best beer  just like we all know my preamps are good So lets just eat a Browne and move on. 

[nameloc01]

Substandard breweries usually don't have 6 gold medals from Germany on the wall.
And neither of you fuckers (chris or L.D.) are getting any brownies.

We all think we're right I suppose. And I guess we are both right until one of us proves the other wrong, which probably isn't going to happen.

[adrianf74]

Can somebody just answer the damn question, already?

Sheesh!

Chris - FYI: not to take sides or anything, and being a fellow Canuck.. he's offering a good six-pack of brew.  It's possibly one of the few American beers I'd even remotely think of drinking.

[Church-Audio]

Can somebody just answer the damn question, already?

Sheesh!

Chris - FYI: not to take sides or anything, and being a fellow Canuck.. he's offering a good six-pack of brew.  It's possibly one of the few American beers I'd even remotely think of drinking.

That's it no more free advice for you  Seriously though you should get decent recordings from your mics. I would suspect a bad battery or some other cause if they dont sound right. You can always send them to me I will test them for you and give you an ok if they are functioning as they should be. But I suspect they are. Remember cardioids must be aimed at the sound source. If your right in front of a pair of bass speakers no mics no matter how good they are will produce good sound.. But if the sound was balanced to your ears then your mics should be pretty close if they were placed in a good line of site with the sound source. Remember we cant really talk about these things in public but the higher the mics are on your body they better they will work.

Chris

[taylordb]

Can somebody just answer the damn question, already?

Sheesh!

Chris - FYI: not to take sides or anything, and being a fellow Canuck.. he's offering a good six-pack of brew.  It's possibly one of the few American beers I'd even remotely think of drinking.

Yes, I would get the preamp, and for your setup the CA ST-9100 is perfect. I have the SP-CMC-8 (AT853's) and all I can say is that adding the ST-9100 to the chain made a marked improvement to my recordings.  I cannot give proof....I can only tell you what my ears hear.

[Humbug]

Can somebody just answer the damn question, already?

Try some hyper caps (either AT943, or adaptor + AT853).

That's my advice for outside or boomy/bassy venues with these mics.

Note: I don't like using Hypers, as they can sound a bit thin when the sound is good but when it isn't they can save a recording.

[adrianf74]

Can somebody just answer the damn question, already?

Sheesh!

Chris - FYI: not to take sides or anything, and being a fellow Canuck.. he's offering a good six-pack of brew.  It's possibly one of the few American beers I'd even remotely think of drinking.

That's it no more free advice for you  Seriously though you should get decent recordings from your mics. I would suspect a bad battery or some other cause if they dont sound right. You can always send them to me I will test them for you and give you an ok if they are functioning as they should be. But I suspect they are. Remember cardioids must be aimed at the sound source. If your right in front of a pair of bass speakers no mics no matter how good they are will produce good sound.. But if the sound was balanced to your ears then your mics should be pretty close if they were placed in a good line of site with the sound source. Remember we cant really talk about these things in public but the higher the mics are on your body they better they will work.

Chris

<Sobbing>.

Actually, I'm kidding.  But, yes, I know the mics MUST be aimed at the source in order to get a good recording.  Like I'd mentioned, the alt.rock show at the Arena was bass-heavy in the mix and sounds this way on the recording. Separation and clarity is EXCELLENT.  A good friend said, bar none, that this was the best recording I'd ever pulled (and I've got quite a few to date that turned out perfectly).

In both cases, the mics were in a good location.  The weekend show, was a free show - i.e., Public Domaion, and had a very murky mix so I'm going with "garbage in, garbage out."  I managed to roll-off some bass in post and then punch the mid and treble to a point where I was considerably happier but still not ecstatic.

I might send the battery box up to you, however, I'm also suspecting it's fine simply based on the fact that if the batteries were crap (or there was another issue), there wouldn't be enough juice to drive the mics and make the recording via line-in.

Thanks again.

[Dede2002]

Like the Soup Nazi would say: "no brownies for you"
See, I cannot give proof. But one thing is for sure: with the CA-9100 in front of my R-09, the resulting recordings are cleaner.
In my world, a cleaner sounding recording means a better, improved recording.
Anyway, I just loved the post exchange.  . Sense of humor is always the best way to go.

[adrianf74]

Like the Soup Nazi would say: "no brownies for you"
See, I cannot give proof. But one thing is for sure: with the CA-9100 in front of my R-09, the resulting recordings are cleaner.
In my world, a cleaner sounding recording means a better, improved recording.
Anyway, I just loved the post exchange.  . Sense of humor is always the best way to go.

This is the thing, I'm just trying to determine whether the pre- is worthwhile; in the past, I've encountered this same debate from tapers: one camp swears up and down by them while a second one denies their importance.

From a technical standpoint, I can see where the improvement "may" exist, however, with noise floors getting lower and lower with better technology, and because I mainly record loud events over quieter ones, that's where I'm debating grabbing a pre-.

What's the size of the STC-9100 anyway?

[Dede2002]

Like the Soup Nazi would say: "no brownies for you"
See, I cannot give proof. But one thing is for sure: with the CA-9100 in front of my R-09, the resulting recordings are cleaner.
In my world, a cleaner sounding recording means a better, improved recording.
Anyway, I just loved the post exchange.  . Sense of humor is always the best way to go.

This is the thing, I'm just trying to determine whether the pre- is worthwhile; in the past, I've encountered this same debate from tapers: one camp swears up and down by them while a second one denies their importance.

From a technical standpoint, I can see where the improvement "may" exist, however, with noise floors getting lower and lower with better technology, and because I mainly record loud events over quieter ones, that's where I'm debating grabbing a pre-.

What's the size of the STC-9100 anyway?

2.5" X 3.5" X 1"   

[emalvido]

I have
CMC-8's (AT943) with STC-9100 and Sony M1
Awesome!! no muddy in here, loud stuff? no problem!

[Liquid Drum]

I stack taped 2 loud metal gigs in the past week. No distortion here and zero muddiness. I actually used the 80hz roll-off switch on the 9100 and the bass came through nicely. I do have the low sens mod on my 933's btw.

[Church-Audio]

Like the Soup Nazi would say: "no brownies for you"
See, I cannot give proof. But one thing is for sure: with the CA-9100 in front of my R-09, the resulting recordings are cleaner.
In my world, a cleaner sounding recording means a better, improved recording.
Anyway, I just loved the post exchange.  . Sense of humor is always the best way to go.

This is the thing, I'm just trying to determine whether the pre- is worthwhile; in the past, I've encountered this same debate from tapers: one camp swears up and down by them while a second one denies their importance.

From a technical standpoint, I can see where the improvement "may" exist, however, with noise floors getting lower and lower with better technology, and because I mainly record loud events over quieter ones, that's where I'm debating grabbing a pre-.

What's the size of the STC-9100 anyway?

I think its pretty simple. There are times when you dont need a preamp. We all know for taping really loud shows its a non issue. But the real problem is "loud" could mean 103db or 114db depending on where you are in the venue. So I say its better to have a preamp available then to go to a gig and find out you should have had one with you because you dont have enough gain. Furthermore you know your signal to noise is going to be better so you will have the confidence knowing that what ever amount of gain you need its going to be that much more quiet then with out my preamp or any good preamp. I would rather have a preamp in my rig and know I can work with pretty much any levels then rely on my recorder completely. And the other main issue is when you run my 4.7k mod or 3 wire your also reducing your levels by 11 to 13db where will that gain be made up if you dont have a battery box it must be made up in your recording device the only problem with that is how much "noise free" gain does your recorder have before you run into problems with signal to noise? That question is impossible to answer because with out knowing the acoustic level your going to be encountering you cant know there for a preamp will help you get over that unknown and help maintain the quality of the capture provided the preamps quaility is very good.

[Dede2002]

Like the Soup Nazi would say: "no brownies for you"
See, I cannot give proof. But one thing is for sure: with the CA-9100 in front of my R-09, the resulting recordings are cleaner.
In my world, a cleaner sounding recording means a better, improved recording.
Anyway, I just loved the post exchange.  . Sense of humor is always the best way to go.

This is the thing, I'm just trying to determine whether the pre- is worthwhile; in the past, I've encountered this same debate from tapers: one camp swears up and down by them while a second one denies their importance.

From a technical standpoint, I can see where the improvement "may" exist, however, with noise floors getting lower and lower with better technology, and because I mainly record loud events over quieter ones, that's where I'm debating grabbing a pre-.

What's the size of the STC-9100 anyway?

I think its pretty simple. There are times when you dont need a preamp. We all know for taping really loud shows its a non issue. But the real problem is "loud" could mean 103db or 114db depending on where you are in the venue. So I say its better to have a preamp available then to go to a gig and find out you should have had one with you because you dont have enough gain. Furthermore you know your signal to noise is going to be better so you will have the confidence knowing that what ever amount of gain you need its going to be that much more quiet then with out my preamp or any good preamp. I would rather have a preamp in my rig and know I can work with pretty much any levels then rely on my recorder completely. And the other main issue is when you run my 4.7k mod or 3 wire your also reducing your levels by 11 to 13db where will that gain be made up if you dont have a battery box it must be made up in your recording device the only problem with that is how much "noise free" gain does your recorder have before you run into problems with signal to noise? That question is impossible to answer because with out knowing the acoustic level your going to be encountering you cant know there for a preamp will help you get over that unknown and help maintain the quality of the capture provided the preamps quaility is very good.

What he said
Chris, I'm totally in love with my new CA-9100.
Greetings from Brasil

[SmokinJoe]

At the risk of getting everyone all worked up again, I will relate something I learned the hard way last weekend.  Sometimes a battery box is the best tool for the job.  Especially with AT-853's (different from  your AT-9x3s).  They need all the plug-in-power voltage they can get to provide headroom for high SPLs and the battbox provides more voltage than the preamp.

Last weekend I ran AT-853s > soundpro battbox > R-09 for three sets on a rainy morning.  These are "plain 2 wire AT-853s" like Soundpro sells, not the "low sensitivity mod" that Chris came up with.  To make a long story short, it worked fine with a 9V battbox (I normally use a 12v battbox), which sends 9V (or 12V) right to the mics.  Then just because I was bored and had too many options at hand, I decided to "improve" the situation by replacing the battbox with an ST-9100 preamp.  The preamp only puts out 3.5v plug in power, and I brickwalled for the next two sets.

When using Chris's mics with Chris's preamp, it's a great combo.  For my AT-853s in a quiet acoustic set where I need gain, the 9100 is great.  If it's loud, I'm going to stick with my battbox.  YMMV.

[Church-Audio]

At the risk of getting everyone all worked up again, I will relate something I learned the hard way last weekend.  Sometimes a battery box is the best tool for the job.  Especially with AT-853's (different from  your AT-9x3s).  They need all the plug-in-power voltage they can get to provide headroom for high SPLs and the battbox provides more voltage than the preamp.

Last weekend I ran AT-853s > soundpro battbox > R-09 for three sets on a rainy morning.  These are "plain 2 wire AT-853s" like Soundpro sells, not the "low sensitivity mod" that Chris came up with.  To make a long story short, it worked fine with a 9V battbox (I normally use a 12v battbox), which sends 9V (or 12V) right to the mics.  Then just because I was bored and had too many options at hand, I decided to "improve" the situation by replacing the battbox with an ST-9100 preamp.  The preamp only puts out 3.5v plug in power, and I brickwalled for the next two sets.

When using Chris's mics with Chris's preamp, it's a great combo.  For my AT-853s in a quiet acoustic set where I need gain, the 9100 is great.  If it's loud, I'm going to stick with my battbox.  YMMV.

Actually my new version of the 9100 preamp puts out 8 volts and there is no difference what so ever between 8 and 9 volts as far as performance goes. If you have one that puts out 3.5 volts its a really REALLY old one. Anyone that has one that old can get it upgraded for $95.00 this is basically a brand new preamp the only parts we "reuse" are the case and the plastic knob. Everything else is changed out.


Chris

[Liquid Drum]

At the risk of getting everyone all worked up again, I will relate something I learned the hard way last weekend.  Sometimes a battery box is the best tool for the job.  Especially with AT-853's (different from  your AT-9x3s).  They need all the plug-in-power voltage they can get to provide headroom for high SPLs and the battbox provides more voltage than the preamp.

Last weekend I ran AT-853s > soundpro battbox > R-09 for three sets on a rainy morning.  These are "plain 2 wire AT-853s" like Soundpro sells, not the "low sensitivity mod" that Chris came up with.  To make a long story short, it worked fine with a 9V battbox (I normally use a 12v battbox), which sends 9V (or 12V) right to the mics.  Then just because I was bored and had too many options at hand, I decided to "improve" the situation by replacing the battbox with an ST-9100 preamp.  The preamp only puts out 3.5v plug in power, and I brickwalled for the next two sets.

When using Chris's mics with Chris's preamp, it's a great combo.  For my AT-853s in a quiet acoustic set where I need gain, the 9100 is great.  If it's loud, I'm going to stick with my battbox.  YMMV.

Actually my new version of the 9100 preamp puts out 8 volts and there is no difference what so ever between 8 and 9 volts as far as performance goes. If you have one that puts out 3.5 volts its a really REALLY old one. Anyone that has one that old can get it upgraded for $95.00 this is basically a brand new preamp the only parts we "reuse" are the case and the plastic knob. Everything else is changed out.


Chris

Chris, sorry to be of bother. How can I tell which version of 9100 I have?

Thanks.

[Church-Audio]

At the risk of getting everyone all worked up again, I will relate something I learned the hard way last weekend.  Sometimes a battery box is the best tool for the job.  Especially with AT-853's (different from  your AT-9x3s).  They need all the plug-in-power voltage they can get to provide headroom for high SPLs and the battbox provides more voltage than the preamp.

Last weekend I ran AT-853s > soundpro battbox > R-09 for three sets on a rainy morning.  These are "plain 2 wire AT-853s" like Soundpro sells, not the "low sensitivity mod" that Chris came up with.  To make a long story short, it worked fine with a 9V battbox (I normally use a 12v battbox), which sends 9V (or 12V) right to the mics.  Then just because I was bored and had too many options at hand, I decided to "improve" the situation by replacing the battbox with an ST-9100 preamp.  The preamp only puts out 3.5v plug in power, and I brickwalled for the next two sets.

When using Chris's mics with Chris's preamp, it's a great combo.  For my AT-853s in a quiet acoustic set where I need gain, the 9100 is great.  If it's loud, I'm going to stick with my battbox.  YMMV.

Actually my new version of the 9100 preamp puts out 8 volts and there is no difference what so ever between 8 and 9 volts as far as performance goes. If you have one that puts out 3.5 volts its a really REALLY old one. Anyone that has one that old can get it upgraded for $95.00 this is basically a brand new preamp the only parts we "reuse" are the case and the plastic knob. Everything else is changed out.


Chris

Chris, sorry to be of bother. How can I tell which version of 9100 I have?

Thanks.

It depends on when you bought it. Anything made before Jan 2007 is the old version there were two revisions after between 2007 Jan and Now the latest version is 3.3a and it is usually writen on the battery compartment lid or underneath the label the easy way to tell is do a continuity test with a multimeter between input ground and output ground there should be no connection on the newer versions.

Chris

[Liquid Drum]

I got mine around jan-feb this year.

[SmokinJoe]

Actually my new version of the 9100 preamp puts out 8 volts and there is no difference what so ever between 8 and 9 volts as far as performance goes. If you have one that puts out 3.5 volts its a really REALLY old one.

<modified to reduce appearance of dissatisfaction>
I guess mine is older than I thought.

[run_run_run]

Is my 3.5 volt one going to screw me over with my busman active nak 300s?

[SmokinJoe]

Look I am not 100% sure when I made the transition. I dont promise anything to anyone and not keep my word. I am sorry about that second I think your really trashing me here in public and that kinda sucks.. I would be more then happy to do the upgrade for you. Products change they developed and improve.. I DONT improve my products so I can make more money from customers...  I improve them because NOTHING IS PERFECT

^^ Agreed.

My apologies Chris... I didn't mean to personally slam you in public.  I think you make good product, and one of the few that make product just for our hobby.  My very poor attempt at humor obviously went over poorly.  My bad.

I would like to remind the world in general that I do own CA mics with card and omni caps, and an ST-9100, and that I've had good luck with it.  I took the experimental stuff to Mountain Jam and have torrented samples.  I publicly said in another thread that the best pull of the weekend was when I mixed CA Omnis > 9100 > R4 with my Sennheiser ME-66 > R4.  I loaned my CA cards and ST9100 out to a few people so they could try them, and I think a couple of people bought soon after.  I think in general I have been a supporter of Church Audio products. 

The point of this thread is to "what should this guy do".  Some people are saying "what you have should work", other people are saying "buy new mics and pre", and someone else suggesting he buy a new preamp to go with his existing AT mics... at that point in the thread I mentioned my experience, because my experience didn't show this was beneficial to him.  I had no idea some were 3.5v and others were 8v, or that this might concern people.  I just didn't know.  The bottom line is that it won't matter to 98% of us.  Chris's products work well together.  The AT mics with the reduced sensitivity mod should work with Chris's pre.  New pres work fine with ATs.  I'm in the 2% category, and most of you are not.

In my mind, this thread is about helping this guy with his concerns, not about boosting or trashing CA products.  I apologize to all of you if I was responsbile for derailing it, and suggest we get back on track.

[Church-Audio]

Look I am not 100% sure when I made the transition. I dont promise anything to anyone and not keep my word. I am sorry about that second I think your really trashing me here in public and that kinda sucks.. I would be more then happy to do the upgrade for you. Products change they developed and improve.. I DONT improve my products so I can make more money from customers...  I improve them because NOTHING IS PERFECT

^^ Agreed.

My apologies Chris... I didn't mean to personally slam you in public.  I think you make good product, and one of the few that make product just for our hobby.  My very poor attempt at humor obviously went over poorly.  My bad.

I would like to remind the world in general that I do own CA mics with card and omni caps, and an ST-9100, and that I've had good luck with it.  I took the experimental stuff to Mountain Jam and have torrented samples.  I publicly said in another thread that the best pull of the weekend was when I mixed CA Omnis > 9100 > R4 with my Sennheiser ME-66 > R4.  I loaned my CA cards and ST9100 out to a few people so they could try them, and I think a couple of people bought soon after.  I think in general I have been a supporter of Church Audio products. 

The point of this thread is to "what should this guy do".  Some people are saying "what you have should work", other people are saying "buy new mics and pre", and someone else suggesting he buy a new preamp to go with his existing AT mics... at that point in the thread I mentioned my experience, because my experience didn't show this was beneficial to him.  I had no idea some were 3.5v and others were 8v, or that this might concern people.  I just didn't know.  The bottom line is that it won't matter to 98% of us.  Chris's products work well together.  The AT mics with the reduced sensitivity mod should work with Chris's pre.  New pres work fine with ATs.  I'm in the 2% category, and most of you are not.

In my mind, this thread is about helping this guy with his concerns, not about boosting or trashing CA products.  I apologize to all of you if I was responsbile for derailing it, and suggest we get back on track.

Well I feel bad too... I am sorry I did not mean to react like that. Anyway lets fix this please I want you to be happy honestly I take things very personally, I do really care about my customers. I have only really had 2 customers I could not make happy and I still think about them to this day. So lets fix this send it to me when you have the time let me look it over. I can tell how old it is by the insides. And I will fix you up.

Ok

Chris

[su6oxone]

I loaned my CA cards and ST9100 out to a few people so they could try them, and I think a couple of people bought soon after.  I think in general I have been a supporter of Church Audio products. 

Just thought I'd chime in that I was one of the people who SmokinJoe kindly loaned out the CA-11/9100 to who subsequently purchased them from CA.  I did happen to sell the CA-11s for financial reasons later, but still use the 9100 every time with my 4.7k modded AT853 mics, with great results.  As for the OP's question, I would use the 9100 if only for the convenience of adjusting the gain on the 9100 instead of the recorder as I find it easier under stealthy situations.