Topic: M10, CA-14, 9200 Preamp Combo - Reduce muddiness tips?

[vanark]

By the way: the first track on that archive.org page is from another recording and the last song is missing... :-/ Looks like uploader's mistake.

I will fix it.  Not sure what happened.

[RoganSarine]

Okay, i might have found something interesting.

Does the CA-9200 affect the waveform at all? Does it change the sound the mics recieve in anyway? Or, does it simply boost the signal? Should it work ad a preamp like this for all microphones?

Out of curiousity, instead of using my shure preamp, i plugged a dynamic vocal mic into the 9200 and line in. I recorded it. I loadedthe wave into Reaper and couldnt even see it despite having it peak at the aame point as my Shure preamp. It also lost the voices dynamic range- it sounded a lot less harsh and natural, more like I was a radio DJ with a silky smooth voice. It sounded lifeless. Its interesting because this sounds similar what happens to my vocals.

A dynamic mic AFAIK won't work with that preamp. It's a 9V preamp designed to provide plug-in power to an electret-type mic.

All preamps "affect" the sound in some way, but the 9200 is not designed to do so intentionally (i.e., by addition of certain electronics like transformers that provide known types of coloration).

It will not work with "all microphones"; it will only work with mics that require 9V plug-in power.  Like Church Audio mics.

If you are recording loud shows, you really don't need the preamp at all and should just run with a simple battery box. Fewer failure points in the chain and fewer knobs to mess around with.

I thought it might simply because my Shure preamp uses the same 9V setup.

So, with this in mind, I've switched to doing a test with my CA-14's and CA-11's directly with the following setups. The microphones were about 6 feet away from the amps in the same spot, recorded simultaneously into two different M10's.

CA14, 9200, NO HPF, Mic in
CA14, 9200, NO HPF, Line In
CA14, 9200, HPF, Mic in
CA14, 9200, HPF, Line In
CA11, 9200, NO HPF, Mic in
CA11, 9200, NO HPF, Line In
CA11, 9200, HPF, Mic in
CA11, 9200, HPF, Line In

CA14, Battery Box, Mic in
CA14, Battery Box, Line In
CA11, Battery Box, Mic In
CA11, Battery Box, Line In

 I used my voice amplified across my home PA system. I was wondering if you guys could interpret the results.  I'll see if I can upload the samples.

I saw a trend whereby Mic In provided me with more clarity in my vocals in the CA-11's ONLY; they had more high-end frequencies and airness as opposed to a bassy low end. I have no idea why there would be a difference in this regard, unless it's the way the 9200 would modify the frequencies as it's processed.

The CA14's did not have any clarity change between the inputs. They sounded muddy (which I define has a lot of low-end instead of cutting at the 400-1000Hz range) regardless of the setup. When recorded seperately from rock instruments, this is fine because I can fix it in post. However, this cannot happen when Im pulling the PA mix. I used a frequency analyzer for both and saw that the CA-11's had more vocal cut through, unlike the CA-14's, at the 400Hz range.

The battery box versus the 9200 made no difference in any scenario.

The HPF showed me that it was indeed labelled correctly on the 9200 pre-amp (someone suggested it might not be awhile ago).

So, I'm going to test it a little more, but I've concluded a couple things so far:

• There is nothing wrong with my 9200 since it sounds like my battery box
• The Mic In and Line In treat the inputted sound differently
• While I need to do more tests, the CA-11's seem to treat the 400-1kHz vocal range with more delicacy; reproducing a sound closer to what my ear hears.

When I have time next Saturday, Im gonna set these mic pairs up simultaneously at a venue and play with the Mic In/Line In inputs.

[vanark]

By the way: the first track on that archive.org page is from another recording and the last song is missing... :-/ Looks like uploader's mistake.

I will fix it.  Not sure what happened.

Actually, I remember now.  There are only 9 tracks, but there were 10 in the download.  Track 4 was just a fraction of a second and I joined it to track 3 and renumbered all the tracks.  Not sure how the first track got messed up.  That was NMA, but must have been from a different show, maybe Poland?  Instead of sorting it out, I just deleted all the files and reuploaded a fresh set.  It will be fixed shortly.

[TimSmith]

By the way: the first track on that archive.org page is from another recording and the last song is missing... :-/ Looks like uploader's mistake.

I will fix it.  Not sure what happened.

Actually, I remember now.  There are only 9 tracks, but there were 10 in the download.  Track 4 was just a fraction of a second and I joined it to track 3 and renumbered all the tracks.  Not sure how the first track got messed up.  That was NMA, but must have been from a different show, maybe Poland?  Instead of sorting it out, I just deleted all the files and reuploaded a fresh set.  It will be fixed shortly.

Thank you very much for fixing this. One second track was my mistake (when I cut the original wav).

[mec111272]

What do you mean by "I like these on ether side of a head under a sound transparent cap"?

He's talking about a hat mounted situation - usually done in a stxxlth situation.

head == your noggin.
cap == some sort of hat

Nice.

I am running my new CA-14, 9200 rig this weekend.  (Sister Sparrow)  I too have run CA-11's and have come to like the sound,  but my understanding is that they are a bit tinny for some peoples taste.  Most times I had to give a  little base boost to get a "fuller" sound.

In the interest of "science" I'll run both for a few songs.  The Venue "The Spot Underground" has a real nice sound.

http://www.archive.org/details/thp2011-11-26.CA11.flac
http://www.archive.org/details/thp2011-11-26.NeumanTLM170

This is a direct comparison of CA-11's and Neuman TLM170's  a prime example of the value of Church Audio Gear

http://www.archive.org/details/ss2012-01-28.CA-14.flac

The first Roadhouse Blues is the CA-11 and the last one is the CA-14.  Both set up in the same location +/-DIN.

To my ear the CA-11's do not have as much bass and the vocals are more prominent.  That does change when you play it on the home stereo as opposed to the earphones.  So in short the CA-14's are an improvement as there is wider range of freq's captured.

Anybody else with an opinion?

[acidjack]

What do you mean by "I like these on ether side of a head under a sound transparent cap"?

He's talking about a hat mounted situation - usually done in a stxxlth situation.

head == your noggin.
cap == some sort of hat

Nice.

I am running my new CA-14, 9200 rig this weekend.  (Sister Sparrow)  I too have run CA-11's and have come to like the sound,  but my understanding is that they are a bit tinny for some peoples taste.  Most times I had to give a  little base boost to get a "fuller" sound.

In the interest of "science" I'll run both for a few songs.  The Venue "The Spot Underground" has a real nice sound.

http://www.archive.org/details/thp2011-11-26.CA11.flac
http://www.archive.org/details/thp2011-11-26.NeumanTLM170

This is a direct comparison of CA-11's and Neuman TLM170's  a prime example of the value of Church Audio Gear

http://www.archive.org/details/ss2012-01-28.CA-14.flac

The first Roadhouse Blues is the CA-11 and the last one is the CA-14.  Both set up in the same location +/-DIN.

To my ear the CA-11's do not have as much bass and the vocals are more prominent.  That does change when you play it on the home stereo as opposed to the earphones.  So in short the CA-14's are an improvement as there is wider range of freq's captured.

Anybody else with an opinion?

My opinion is that that statement is (in a broad sense) correct.  Short version: Mics that lack performance in the lower frequency ranges have "clearer vocals" on lower-performance systems because they simply don't have as much of the other frequencies that, on such a system, come across as "mud". 

On computer speakers (for example), CA-11s sound better than CA-14s.  On a more powerful system... nah.

[Church-Audio]

What do you mean by "I like these on ether side of a head under a sound transparent cap"?

He's talking about a hat mounted situation - usually done in a stxxlth situation.

head == your noggin.
cap == some sort of hat

Nice.

I am running my new CA-14, 9200 rig this weekend.  (Sister Sparrow)  I too have run CA-11's and have come to like the sound,  but my understanding is that they are a bit tinny for some peoples taste.  Most times I had to give a  little base boost to get a "fuller" sound.

In the interest of "science" I'll run both for a few songs.  The Venue "The Spot Underground" has a real nice sound.

http://www.archive.org/details/thp2011-11-26.CA11.flac
http://www.archive.org/details/thp2011-11-26.NeumanTLM170

This is a direct comparison of CA-11's and Neuman TLM170's  a prime example of the value of Church Audio Gear

http://www.archive.org/details/ss2012-01-28.CA-14.flac

The first Roadhouse Blues is the CA-11 and the last one is the CA-14.  Both set up in the same location +/-DIN.

To my ear the CA-11's do not have as much bass and the vocals are more prominent.  That does change when you play it on the home stereo as opposed to the earphones.  So in short the CA-14's are an improvement as there is wider range of freq's captured.

Anybody else with an opinion?

My opinion is that that statement is (in a broad sense) correct.  Short version: Mics that lack performance in the lower frequency ranges have "clearer vocals" on lower-performance systems because they simply don't have as much of the other frequencies that, on such a system, come across as "mud". 

On computer speakers (for example), CA-11s sound better than CA-14s.  On a more powerful system... nah.

Its funny because both the ca-11 and ca-14 have almost identical frequency response in the mid range.

[mec111272]

I suppose it's better to have "more".  End-user could adjust to taste. 

Any chance the pre-amp makes a difference?  CA-11 > 9000 > Edirol R-1   and CA-14 >9200 > Panasonic C24 both line in.

[adrianf74]

Interesting thread.

As I'm at work, and can't sit here for an hour posting a reply, I'm going to keep it short.

Muddiness is extremely:

  a) subjective
  b) dependent on the mic and pattern used
  c) dependent on the _exact_ location of mic placement.

I've recorded many shows in the past twenty years in Toronto and even a 1 foot "difference" in mic location can change everything up for the "not-so-better."

From experience, I've always found that I've had to do "some" post-work to an audio recording (even if it's the 'best one' I've ever done).    It can be a simple adjustment (<2dB either way) in either low-end, high-end or mid-range (or a combination) or some "crazy-ass" EQ'ing that becomes very involved.   I've used mics from Core Sound Binaurals (back in the day), Giant Squid Audio Labs (don't laugh), Sound Professionals (AT-933/c), Church Audio CA-14 omnis and cards along with the CAFS omnis, DPA 4061's and AKG 480's with CK61/63 caps.  All of the recordings with all of the mics (regardless of price) have required a little adjustment.   

Some rooms aren't forgiving and other rooms are impossible.  I'm sure acidjack would chime in as much and there is not way to avoid mudiness, however, using the right mic (and pickup pattern) in the right spot is always a good starting point.

I found it strange that the CA-11's would "sound better' than the CA-14's.  Somethin's amiss there.

[jamroom]

Though a little late to the party, I thought I would drop my two cents worth.

I owned CA11s, but pretty quickly got a pair of CA14 cards (due to needless upgradeitis). 90% of the shows I recorded with the CA14s needed adjustment to bass (mainly in the mid bass area, not the very low end). At the time, my recordings would all be "low-profile" (with CA9100->R09 then R05) and in venues ranging from 100 to 2500 capacities. Last year, I bought CA11V2s and no longer have the need to adjust every recording. Maybe 5-10% needing some kind of eq and even then, that would mostly be down to the house sound. The CA11V2s definitely have more top end, though I feel lack a little at the bottom. IMO, the issue you have is with your mics, not your technique. It may be that the CA14 sound after tweaking is better than the CA11, but it's all down to personal taste, I guess.

At these prices though, you can't have it all. If I want a significantly better sound, then I will need to be ready to spend a lot more cash.