Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: lmgbtapes on May 14, 2019, 04:57:05 PM

Title: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: lmgbtapes on May 14, 2019, 04:57:05 PM
Just want to say from the outset that I mean no disrespect to Mr. Church. I absolutely adore his gear and continue to get great pulls with his mics. Best bang for your buck I could ever imagine. Mostly for information's sake, though, I am wondering- is there even such a thing as an "upgrade" in the form of small, clippable omni mics? I know I could very well purchase a Schoeps and it would be an "upgrade", but I really highly value the ability to clip the mics to, say, a baseball card taped somewhere near the stage.

Please let me know if anything springs to mind :)
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: ycoop on May 14, 2019, 05:45:09 PM
The DPA406* d:screet mics seem to fit the bill (pun totally intended.)
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: lmgbtapes on May 14, 2019, 07:02:07 PM
I was looking at those exact ones shortly after I posted this :)

Not sure if I'm missing it- there are lots of options available, but I'm not sure if there's an option for a single 3.5mm audio connector? I'm searching and I see some people are talking about using the CA 9100 preamp for the DPA4060s- wondering how they connected.
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: ilduclo on May 14, 2019, 07:10:31 PM
AT’s, Sennheisers, Countryman
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: obaaron on May 15, 2019, 12:40:38 AM
The only upgrade for mics that small would be dpa 4061’s anything else pretty much a lateral move imo
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: chk on May 15, 2019, 07:20:00 AM
AKG CK77’s. They are absolutely an upgrade to the CA-11 omni’s i had for years, and i ran them side by side with my schoeps mk2S pair and they sound excellent. They don’t quite have the quantity of bass the mk2S has but are definitely not “lacking” bass and the highs are smooth and missing nothing. Extremely small, they are much smaller than the CA mics, roughly same size as DPA 406x. Full disclosure i have a new pair for sale in the YS that i re-terminated from miniXLR pair to stereo 1/8 for use with a battery box or direct in PIP recorder (they operate on 1.5 - 12V).  Got a great deal on three pairs, sold one on here, kept one for myself, one pair left.
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: jagraham on May 15, 2019, 11:25:28 AM
AT-853s with omni caps. This is considered a lateral move by others on here, but I think the sound of the AT-853 omni caps is vastly superior to the CA-14 omnis when used in a similar manner. Somehow they are nowhere near as "boomy" in similar recording conditions. That said, I find the AT card caps to sound very similar to the CAs, so go figure. Not sure if the ATs qualify as "clippable" though.
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: heathen on May 15, 2019, 12:04:56 PM
The only upgrade for mics that small would be dpa 4061’s anything else pretty much a lateral move imo

I'd pretty much agree with this.  The CA14 omnis are good enough that IMO it takes the big step up to DPA before getting a noticeable improvement.  The DPAs may not have integrated clips like the CA14s, but there are plenty of accessories available for the DPAs that accomplish the same thing.

As to a single 3.5 mm connector, the DPAs can be wired for that.
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: u2_fly_2 on May 15, 2019, 01:21:55 PM
Hello,

Would consider for example the AT943´s a bit of a upgrade if you can find a good deal on them.

DPA 4061 is also a good option.

Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: DavidPuddy on May 15, 2019, 01:53:15 PM
I would not call any of the AT lav mics a major upgrade from the CA mics. Minor, yes, but not worth the expense.

The Sennheiser MKE2s and DPAs would be, IMO.
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: unidentified on May 15, 2019, 03:39:19 PM
AT-853s with omni caps. This is considered a lateral move by others on here, but I think the sound of the AT-853 omni caps is vastly superior to the CA-14 omnis when used in a similar manner. Somehow they are nowhere near as "boomy" in similar recording conditions. That said, I find the AT card caps to sound very similar to the CAs, so go figure. Not sure if the ATs qualify as "clippable" though.

Great thread.  It's so interesting to hear other folks' assessments of mics.  I have a set of 4.7 modded AT853 cards and I find them to be much boomier (and unpleasantly so)  in the lower mid-range than my CA-14 cards in dealing with any amplified bass, so much so that I would never want to try the AT853s with omni caps.  Sometimes I wonder how much of the differences we hear are due to the physical differences in our inner ears themselves and in our ideas as to what recordings "should" sound like.  I suspect no two or three of us would agree entirely.     
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: bonghitwillie on May 16, 2019, 12:13:31 PM
somebody once said you have to eq all your 4061 recordings, and they were right. every once in a while i do not need to eq. not sure what that means.
Title: Re: What would be an "upgrade" from CA-14 omnis while providing the same utility?
Post by: Gutbucket on May 16, 2019, 04:05:22 PM
It's nice when the frequency spectrum of a raw recording is already good to start, without needing any further manipulation to correct or sweeten it.  And over the course of many recordings, some mics will be closer to that than others. Yet.. to the extent that does occur, when and where that kind of thing happens or not tends to correspond with variables of the venue, PA and soundman as much or more than it does with the microphones themselves.

For this reason I tend to judge microphones not by their native responses alone, but rather by how easily I can manipulate the response to what I want. The thing is, this can only be determined by trying the microphones and playing around with EQ making such corrections.  Doing that "levels the playing field", upon which a microphone which may have been less prefered without any EQ applied can end up producing a consistently superior result after correction than one which was closer to just-right from the start, yet doesn't respond as nicely when applying EQ.  Some mics "take EQ" better than others, and I take that to be related to their relative smoothness of response, both directly on-axis as well as the overall diffuse-field response for sounds arriving from all directions in average.