Topic: has any one ran church mics onstage?

[deadheadcorey]

has any one ran their church audio mics on stage?

[Church-Audio]

has any one ran their church audio mics on stage?

lots of customers have done this. but I personally don't recomend it only because for most things the mix on stage will not be good. unless its a small show where the "mix" is coming from the stage and not the sound man. Because once you mic everything up the mix on stage does not neccisarally have to make sense. meaning you can have vocal super loud just to get over drums you can have kick and snare in a wedge on stage for a bass player because he needs the sense of timing it gives him. but when you combine all that you usually end up with a recording that is pretty unbalanced. I  am not saying that's always the case it depends on how the band likes to sound on stage. I have always said that I like it when bands i work with have a good balance on stage makes
my job at foh much more enjoyable! so yeah it's been done lots of times results will be good or not so good!

[achalsey]

I did a lot once I got into mixing sources together.  The only times I really did just onstage sources though was for instrumental bands.  I was always pleased with the results.  I always try to avoid picking up whats coming through any monitor if at all possible though, and generally grab a board patch when available, or at least another set of mics picking up the PA.

Cards back by the board, omnis onstage:
http://archive.org/details/pgroove2012-01-06.CA14.mix.omni.card.flac16

Omnis split a couple feet, cards xy:
http://archive.org/details/dqb2011-11-30.CA14.card.omni.mix.flac16

Cards xy (instrumental jazz so probably the ideal time to run onstage):
http://archive.org/details/jcm2011-08-07.CA14.flac16

[F.O.Bean]

I did with the ca14 omnis back in the day. Came out great

[page]

Chris; whats the approximate max peak for 1% THD for the CA-14 (omni or cards)?

[Church-Audio]

Chris; whats the approximate max peak for 1% THD for the CA-14 (omni or cards)?

well that's a good question I have never measured it. but I can say at 114db at 1k they are less than 0.2% so I would guess maybe 125 db for 1% but it's not 100% linear. As it has been pointed out to me... I should state that this is purely an educated guess. But my measurement of 114 db at less then 0.2% THD is based on the limit of my test sound source. My sound source is Nist traceable to 0.005% THD at 114 db at 1k. All the specs on my mics are based on that figure of 114 db at 1k.

Chris

[Craig T]

http://archive.org/details/nms2009-07-09.ca14c.st9100.flac24

[it-goes-to-eleven]

has any one ran their church audio mics on stage?

Does running them on the pulpit count?

[stevetoney]

Chris; whats the approximate max peak for 1% THD for the CA-14 (omni or cards)?

well that's a good question I have never measured it. but I can say at 114db at 1k they are less than 0.2% so I would guess maybe 125 db for 1% but it's not 100% linear.

This response is so...ummm...classic. 

When your gear is comped, you jump in and whine for days and days about the unfairness of the methodology used because you say the results are subjective and unfair, yet you can't even provide objective data, other than an offering an extrapolated guess rather than just saying you don't know, in response to a question on the technical specs on the gear you've been selling here for many years.  That, in my books, qualifies as a double standard.

Two eye rolls for you. 

[Church-Audio]

Chris; whats the approximate max peak for 1% THD for the CA-14 (omni or cards)?

well that's a good question I have never measured it. but I can say at 114db at 1k they are less than 0.2% so I would guess maybe 125 db for 1% but it's not 100% linear.

This response is so...ummm...classic. 

When your gear is comped, you jump in and whine for days and days about the unfairness of the methodology used because you say the results are subjective and unfair, yet you can't even provide objective data, other than an offering an extrapolated guess rather than just saying you don't know, in response to a question on the technical specs on the gear you've been selling here for many years.  That, in my books, qualifies as a double standard.

Two eye rolls for you. 

lol really ok I have never measured it because I dont have the means to measure it!  My sound source is not capable of MORE than 114 db at ultra low distortion. Sure I could measure the fets distortion but thats not a true representation of the whole transfer function of the diaphram and fet together. Not to many mic company's my size can afford a ultra low distortion measurement source that will put out more then 114 db, Of actual acoustic sound pressure.

BTW : Most of the comparisons here are actually flawed. I have said so even when my gear looks good because of the flawed comparison. Sounds like I am being very fair an objective and unbiased to me. There is no double standard in my eyes. I was honest in saying what I said. I guess you have an axe to grind? Go ahead and grind it baby. I still sell lots of mics to people and they still record lots of shows WITH OUT distortion The foundation of my business has always been mics that produce ultra low distortion that's why I sell as many mics as I do. My guess is also based on the fact that I have tons of stack tapers who are standing sometimes as close as 2 feet away from a Major PA stack and under these conditions you can easily expect 125 db or more sound pressure to be present. Its an educated guess that's why I don't use that for my advertising I use my source of 114 db at 1k

[stevetoney]

Axe? 

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy.  I wouldn't have made any comment if you had simply stuck with the facts in your response in this thread, OR of course if you'd have let others do the critiqueing of your gear.  But since you've been aggressive in criticizing comps of your gear if the methodogy isn't perfect, I saw the response in this thread as hypocritical since you seem willing to fluff your gear with subjective data, but you have a different tone if the gear comp is subjective.

[Church-Audio]

Axe? 

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy.  I wouldn't have made any comment if you had simply stuck with the facts in your response in this thread, OR of course if you'd have let others do the critiqueing of your gear.  But since you've been aggressive in criticizing comps of your gear if the methodogy isn't perfect, I saw the response in this thread as hypocritical since you seem willing to fluff your gear with subjective data, but you have a different tone if the gear comp is subjective.

Half the time that I criticize  comps actually don't benefit me at all. When my product looks good because of a bad comp I also make comments. To be fair. I don't have to "sell" my gear the 8 years I have been in business and the 1000's of mics I have sold do that for me. I don't add my two cents because I am threatened by a comp. Because I am not.. I do it so that maybe one day a fair one will be created so that it gives all sides a fare shake That's all I care about. let the chips fall where they may. That's why I have said things like placement is more important then gear. That statement does not sound like the crazed comments of a desperate manufacturer
I am not desperate to make sales... I have lots of sales.

I am however desperate to educate people. Sometimes even when they don't want to be educated that's my fault. 

Sorry for the thread hijack...

[stevetoney]

Sorry for the thread hijack...

Me too. 

I agree...you make great gear at a great price.  It speaks for itself.

[Church-Audio]

Sorry for the thread hijack...

Me too. 

I agree...you make great gear at a great price.  It speaks for itself.

Christmas has come early thanks TD! 

[deadheadcorey]

i was simply just trying to figure out if the mics could handle such loudness on stage...

thanks for that post craig t, recording sounds good!