Topic: Church Audio CA-14 cardioids vs. Core Sound Cardioids (bb) - with sample

[colargol]

Hi!

So, I've been reading a lot about mics and preamps here on taperssection (btw in Norwegian taper means loser, coincidence? ;-) for about a year now. I am a long time taper that've been taping since 1988, so I've learnt a bit through the years. I've been taping with Core Sound Binaurals (with bb),but stopped using them in 97 and started using Core Sound Cardioids (with BB), since I am mostly doing stealthing with occasionally lots of noise from the audience. As a preamp I've been using Sonic Studios PA-3SX-U with the r09hr.

After reading a lot here, I decided to get a set of Church Audio CA-14 Cardioids, since people here were praising them for their great sound quality and value for money. I also got a Ca-9100 preamp, that I was planning to use with the ca-14s. Being disappointed with the results, I have made a sample sound file. I taped the same portion of a song from my computer speakers on a pretty loud volume (not very scientific, but should be good enough for this)  in the same circumstances with 4 setups, the only editing is normalizing.

http://www.2shared.com/file/4592769/2ba29da/sample.html

This file includes the following 4 clips (with a 1 second gap between them):

1 - CA-14 cardioids > CA-9100 > line in > r09hr
2 - CSC (w/bb) > CA-9100 > line in > r09hr
3 - CSC (w/bb) > PA-3SX-U > line in > r09hr
4 - CA-14 cardioids > PA-3SX-U > line in >r09hr

AS you'll hear, there is a h*** of a difference between the clips.
Clip 1 has too much bass IMO, and the steady noise is too much.
Clip 2 is a lot better
Clip 3 is IMO the best, more clarity of sound, but not that much better than Clip 2
Clip 4 is the worst, probably due to the mics and preamp not being well suited for each other...

So, what should I make of this? I suppose you always get what you pay for, and here are the prices:

CA-14 cardioids - about USD 100
CSC (with bb)   - about USD 250
CA-9100         - about USD 140
PA-3SX-U        - about USD 450

which gives this price comparison between the clips (mics + preamp):

1 - USD 240
2 - USD 390
3 - USD 700
4 - USD 550

I do not want to start a Church Audio vs. Core Sound discussion, but there seems to be a lot of negative feelings towards Core Sound and positive feelings towards Church Audio on this site. Are people really that dissatisfied with the Core Sound Mics, or is it Len's service attitude? Because I think his cardioid mics are pretty good :-)

I would be interested in any advice concerning cardioids that would perform better than the Core Sound mics (that would still work for stealth), within a USD 1000 per pair spending limit...

Any comments appreciated :-) (but please keep any hatred off this post, I'm not into fighting over this)

-Colargol

[nameloc01]

CoreSound makes excellent gear...Lens customer service is somewhat lacking (from what I'm told)
Opinions on mics are like assholes...everybody has one.
There are sooooo many variables when recording it simply is not "black and white".
I've heard tapes from shows where a "el cheapo" Sony ECM mic has made a better recording than an MK4 source of the same show.
Chris Churchs' stuff,Coresounds,SP(audio-technica),DPAs,Sennheisers,..ect all can make simply excellent recordings...it usually has to do with how you use them and *YOUR* personal preference on sound.
Example..I run U853>PS2>AD20 those 3 items cost roughly(total) about $800.00. DPAs (406xs)and a DPA box can set you back around 1100.00 or more.. But I would not trade..I generally do not dig *most* DPA recordings (I'm talking stealth here) because unless you are in the *absolute perfect* situation/location, you'll get a muddy dry recording. That's just my preference.

[rowjimmytour]

Hi!

So, I've been reading a lot about mics and preamps here on taperssection (btw in Norwegian taper means loser, coincidence? ;-) for about a year now. I am a long time taper that've been taping since 1988, so I've learnt a bit through the years. I've been taping with Core Sound Binaurals (with bb),but stopped using them in 97 and started using Core Sound Cardioids (with BB), since I am mostly doing stealthing with occasionally lots of noise from the audience. As a preamp I've been using Sonic Studios PA-3SX-U with the r09hr.

After reading a lot here, I decided to get a set of Church Audio CA-14 Cardioids, since people here were praising them for their great sound quality and value for money. I also got a Ca-9100 preamp, that I was planning to use with the ca-14s. Being disappointed with the results, I have made a sample sound file. I taped the same portion of a song from my computer speakers on a pretty loud volume (not very scientific, but should be good enough for this)  in the same circumstances with 4 setups, the only editing is normalizing.

http://www.2shared.com/file/4592769/2ba29da/sample.html

This file includes the following 4 clips (with a 1 second gap between them):

1 - CA-14 cardioids > CA-9100 > line in > r09hr
2 - CSC (w/bb) > CA-9100 > line in > r09hr
3 - CSC (w/bb) > PA-3SX-U > line in > r09hr
4 - CA-14 cardioids > PA-3SX-U > line in >r09hr

AS you'll hear, there is a h*** of a difference between the clips.
Clip 1 has too much bass IMO, and the steady noise is too much.
Clip 2 is a lot better
Clip 3 is IMO the best, more clarity of sound, but not that much better than Clip 2
Clip 4 is the worst, probably due to the mics and preamp not being well suited for each other...

So, what should I make of this? I suppose you always get what you pay for, and here are the prices:

CA-14 cardioids - about USD 100
CSC (with bb)   - about USD 250
CA-9100         - about USD 140
PA-3SX-U        - about USD 450

which gives this price comparison between the clips (mics + preamp):

1 - USD 240
2 - USD 390
3 - USD 700
4 - USD 550

I do not want to start a Church Audio vs. Core Sound discussion, but there seems to be a lot of negative feelings towards Core Sound and positive feelings towards Church Audio on this site. Are people really that dissatisfied with the Core Sound Mics, or is it Len's service attitude? Because I think his cardioid mics are pretty good :-)

I would be interested in any advice concerning cardioids that would perform better than the Core Sound mics (that would still work for stealth), within a USD 1000 per pair spending limit...

Any comments appreciated :-) (but please keep any hatred off this post, I'm not into fighting over this)

-Colargol

I have never used either product but I think your test is not fair for either mics and does not represent a real concert experience

[colargol]

I have never used either product but I think your test is not fair for either mics and does not represent a real concert experience

Well, I think just to illustrate some of the difference in sound quality, the test is fair. I agree it does not represent a real concert experience, but I don't really feel like stealthing with two setups ;-)

-Colargol

[nameloc01]

"Quality" is the wrong word to be using.
It all comes down to what *YOU* like best...it doesn't matter if the mics cost $50 or $5000. Nobody elses OPINION on what *they* like really should be influencing your opinion,otherwise you are never gonna be happy.

[Belexes]

Chris Church should and probably could charge more for his mics.  That doesn't mean they are of lesser quality.  I was a CS customer in the 90s and the recordings I have made thus far with the CA-14's absolute smoke anything I taping in the 90s.

The customer service aspects of the companies speak for themselves.

[nameloc01]

Whatdya' use for that TOOL show?

[Brian Skalinder]

Interesting.  Something screwy must be going on with the 4th sample.  My guess is the PA-3SX-U alone doesn't power the CA mics appropriately. 

Were the mics arranged identically in each sample?  Playback volume the same for each?  Record levels set the same for all?  How did you set the gain for each sample?

The samples each have different average RMS levels, which makes it difficult to compare.  While samples 2-4 were reasonably close, sample 1 was more than 2 dB lower.  So before listening, I added gain to the 1st sample to bring it up reasonably close with the others.  I found the 1st sounded the most natural (despite it's duller, more muted sound), the 4th sounded really out of whack (not sure what happened here), and the 2nd & 3rd produced the "classic" CSC sound I've heard sooo many times -- and that's all I'll say about that.  All the samples have substantial noise, but I have no idea if it's from the mics, preamp, playback gear, recording environment, etc.

[Church-Audio]

I would say your ca-14 mics are damaged or you did not have them in the exact same position. Ether way send them back to me and I will look at them and test them. There is no way they should sound that bad if they are in the same position. NO WAY.... I never heard from you so I had no idea you were not happy but I can tell you there is no way these mics sound muffled and with out any top end. Something is not right here. Also when your going to do a test make sure all the samples are exactly the same amplitude Helps with make it easy to hear the differences.... I dont think this was a very good test to be honest. For some reason I dont think the mics were placed in a stand and held in the exact same position.
Look at the wav file there is no way that the mics were all normalized the same way. And that they were in the same position when you recorded this. In any event send them back to me if you wish so I can test them.

You also have to remember everyone that owns any mics is bound to be disappointed at one time or another. I personally lent these mics out to lots of tapers before I ever whent into production not one sample I have heard is lacking top end. Sounds like something fishy is going on here. Also if your going to do a blind test Dont tell everyone what source is what Not that it would matter they all sound BAD.  You need a good source and a good music cd to compair the mics with I suggest putting them all in exactly the same position and doing the test with a better pair of speakers
And guy sonics preamp will not power my mics properly....
Chris

[colargol]

Chris Church should and probably could charge more for his mics.  That doesn't mean they are of lesser quality.  I was a CS customer in the 90s and the recordings I have made thus far with the CA-14's absolute smoke anything I taping in the 90s.

Would you be able to post a sample or two from one of your best recordings? I am aware that we might disagree on what "good sound quality" is, but it would be interesting for me to see if there is actually something wrong with my mics (or my ears ;-)

-Colargol

[colargol]

I would say your ca-14 mics are damaged or you did not have them in the exact same position. Ether way send them back to me and I will look at them and test them. There is no way they should sound that bad if they are in the same position. NO WAY.... I never heard from you so I had no idea you were not happy but I can tell you there is no way these mics sound muffled and with out any top end. Something is not right here. Also when your going to do a test make sure all the samples are exactly the same amplitude Helps with make it easy to hear the differences.... I dont think this was a very good test to be honest. For some reason I dont think the mics were placed in a stand and held in the exact same position.
Look at the wav file there is no way that the mics were all normalized the same way. And that they were in the same position when you recorded this. In any event send them back to me if you wish so I can test them.

Hi Chris!
I hope you are right, that they are actually damaged :-)
I am not going to do the test again. I am not an expert in mic placement,  normalizing or any of the other factors. But I have taped quite a few shows through the years with great results. The interesting part for me was to show the general sound that I experience the mics make. As to the others who say sound quality is a matter of taste, sure, but most people prefer little hiss to much hiss, and most people don't prefer a muffled sound ;-)

You also have to remember everyone that owns any mics is bound to be disappointed at one time or another. I personally lent these mics out to lots of tapers before I ever whent into production not one sample I have heard is lacking top end. Sounds like something fishy is going on here. Also if your going to do a blind test Dont tell everyone what source is what Not that it would matter they all sound BAD. 

It was not meant to be a blind test...;-) I wanted to hear from people if my experience was the same as other people's. Basically:

* Do other people experience that the Ca-14s have more hiss (self noise) than for instance the ccs?
* Do other people get the muffled sound that I get from the CA-14s?
* Is it generally accepted here that the Core Sound Cardioids suck? And, in that case, why?
* If I was going to upgrade to better cardioids/hyper-cardioids, what would people recommend?

I will consider sending them back to you, I'll just wait and see if any other people reply... and BTW I never said I thought the sample sounded great ;-)

-Colargol

[Belexes]

I downloaded the file. My CA-14's do not sounds like that. Something has got to be wrong.  When I get a chance, I'll tape something from my computer speakers:

CA-14 > 9100 > R09
CA-14 > 9100 > D50

[Church-Audio]

I would say your ca-14 mics are damaged or you did not have them in the exact same position. Ether way send them back to me and I will look at them and test them. There is no way they should sound that bad if they are in the same position. NO WAY.... I never heard from you so I had no idea you were not happy but I can tell you there is no way these mics sound muffled and with out any top end. Something is not right here. Also when your going to do a test make sure all the samples are exactly the same amplitude Helps with make it easy to hear the differences.... I dont think this was a very good test to be honest. For some reason I dont think the mics were placed in a stand and held in the exact same position.
Look at the wav file there is no way that the mics were all normalized the same way. And that they were in the same position when you recorded this. In any event send them back to me if you wish so I can test them.

Hi Chris!
I hope you are right, that they are actually damaged :-)
I am not going to do the test again. I am not an expert in mic placement,  normalizing or any of the other factors. But I have taped quite a few shows through the years with great results. The interesting part for me was to show the general sound that I experience the mics make. As to the others who say sound quality is a matter of taste, sure, but most people prefer little hiss to much hiss, and most people don't prefer a muffled sound ;-)

You also have to remember everyone that owns any mics is bound to be disappointed at one time or another. I personally lent these mics out to lots of tapers before I ever whent into production not one sample I have heard is lacking top end. Sounds like something fishy is going on here. Also if your going to do a blind test Dont tell everyone what source is what Not that it would matter they all sound BAD. 

It was not meant to be a blind test...;-) I wanted to hear from people if my experience was the same as other people's. Basically:

* Do other people experience that the Ca-14s have more hiss (self noise) than for instance the ccs?
* Do other people get the muffled sound that I get from the CA-14s?
* Is it generally accepted here that the Core Sound Cardioids suck? And, in that case, why?
* If I was going to upgrade to better cardioids/hyper-cardioids, what would people recommend?

I will consider sending them back to you, I'll just wait and see if any other people reply... and BTW I never said I thought the sample sounded great ;-)

-Colargol

No offence but I can tell the mics are probably ok and it was a placement issue.. Because even if the mics were damaged there is no way both sides would be screwed up..... So I have to assume that it was a lack of attention when placing mics. I would suggest before you take on such a challenge in the future you learn abit about how to conduct a test so that its fair to both sides. I would if I were you remove this test because it serves no purpose except to hurt my sales but that is up to you. If you want to do a fair test I would be more then happy to instruct you on how to conduct it so that it is unbiased.

As for uploading files to listen to please take a look at the T.S loaner thread or simply google "church audio ca-14" and you will come up with lots of samples. Mic placement when your doing these types of tests is critical when doing these test requires some type of stand so both mics can be mounted and "exchanged" with out moving the relationship between the mic and the sound source, this can be very difficult. Please if you have time send me a sample of the live recording via a web link so I can hear what kind of problem you were having with the audio. Also placement of my mics is critical as with any cardioid they are directional and must be placed on axis to the sound source when ever possible if not a lack of top end will always be the end result. If you still feel that you would like me to check them out please let me know I will send you a pm with my address to ship them back to.
This recording also comes to mind if you want to hear small club sound.

Remember placement is everything.... and so is a good source.. if you dont have both you will never get a good recording.

http://www.archive.org/details/ontheone2008-11-13
No opinion.

http://www.archive.org/details/rrfb2008-11-14
Dark sounding but Again I think that is the combo of the PA and the sound engineer he was going for a very warm sound.

http://www.archive.org/details/moe2008-04-11.ca-14.flac16
A bit bright but I think that's just the mix as I can hear the feedback







Chris

[Steve__A]

I have never used either product but I think your test is not fair for either mics and does not represent a real concert experience

Well, I think just to illustrate some of the difference in sound quality, the test is fair. I agree it does not represent a real concert experience, but I don't really feel like stealthing with two setups ;-)

-Colargol

I think that playing a good CD on a real stereo with real speakers cranked up would have been a better test. Computers sound like crap and can create a lot of noise which interferes with microphones, preamps and recorders. And as Chris pointed out placement is extremely important with cardoid mics (I've found that omnis are a lot more forgiving, and usually better for stealth recording when your options for mic placement are limited).

Steve__A

[Liquid Drum]

Not a proper test if you ask me.

[fmaderjr]

That Sonic Studios preamp must have a battery box in the chain to power anything but a Sonic Studios DSM mic for optimum performance. According to the specs from Guy's site, it only provides 1.6 volts of plug in power (because DSM mics are designed to run on low voltage).

SPECIFICATIONS
INPUT: ~1500 ohms;1.6 volts for powering/ amplifying DSM-1S/6S mics   

Your Core Sound mics sound good to you because they have a battery box attached. Chris Church recommends at least 5 volts of plug in power, so it's not surprising that his mics don't sound right with your preamp. I 'm sure Chris would have pointed this out had he realized the low voltage your preamp puts out.

I love Chris Church's products-best bang for the buck in the business. Before you send them back to Chris why not use the CA-14 & ST-9100 to tape an opening act that you don't care about recording and see what you think of the result?

At the moment, I am unable to download your clips, but I imagine any problem with the sound in clip 1 (CA-14 & ST-9100) must be as a result of placement and other flaws in the test as Chris says.              
     

     

[jefflester]

That Sonic Studios preamp must have a battery box in the chain to power anything but a Sonic Studios DSM mic for optimum performance. According to the specs from Guy's site, it only provides 1.6 volts of plug in power (because DSM mics are designed to run on low voltage).

SPECIFICATIONS
INPUT: ~1500 ohms;1.6 volts for powering/ amplifying DSM-1S/6S mics   

Your Core Sound mics sound good to you because they have a battery box attached. Chis Church recommends at least 5 volts of plug in power, so it's not surprising that his mics don't sound right with your preamp. I 'm sure Chris would have pointed this out had he realized the low voltage your preamp puts out.

He did, but it kinda got glossed over.

And guy sonics preamp will not power my mics properly....
Chris

[colargol]

Hi again!

I was finally able to test the CA14 cards the other day (didn't want to risk testing on a show I cared a lot about). Here's an excerpt from the result:

http://www.2shared.com/file/5016135/3b5eab97/cut2.html

(John Legend, if anyone is interested)

Lineage:
CA14 cards > CA-9100 > R-09HR > CoolEditPro (Normalization) > flac

I am pretty satisfied with the result, although I still think the mics are a bit too boomy for my preference. Also, there is more noise than I am used to...
But, having said that, these mics are perfectly fine in a concert setting with relatively loud volume...

-C

[Church-Audio]

Hi again!

I was finally able to test the CA14 cards the other day (didn't want to risk testing on a show I cared a lot about). Here's an excerpt from the result:

http://www.2shared.com/file/5016135/3b5eab97/cut2.html

(John Legend, if anyone is interested)

Lineage:
CA14 cards > CA-9100 > R-09HR > CoolEditPro (Normalization) > flac

I am pretty satisfied with the result, although I still think the mics are a bit too boomy for my preference. Also, there is more noise than I am used to...
But, having said that, these mics are perfectly fine in a concert setting with relatively loud volume...

-C

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

Chris

[colargol]

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

The Edirol was on 53, I think, line in of course. The 9100 about "half way". The mics were angled in a slight V position towards one of the stacks, which were about 5 meters from me. The mics were mounted on a hat.

-c

[Church-Audio]

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

The Edirol was on 53, I think, line in of course. The 9100 about "half way". The mics were angled in a slight V position towards one of the stacks, which were about 5 meters from me. The mics were mounted on a hat.

-c

The preamp should be at more then half way you are actually attenuating the signal that is why your signal to noise ratio is so bad. Try running the preamp at 95% and then back off your edirol input.

Chris

[colargol]

The preamp should be at more then half way you are actually attenuating the signal that is why your signal to noise ratio is so bad. Try running the preamp at 95% and then back off your edirol input.
Chris

Thanks for that advice, I'll try that next time... It's a pity that it's necessary to keep the preamp gain that high, because I wanted to use that to adjust the volume since the edirol volume is stuck with the hold button ;-)

-c

[Dede2002]

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

The Edirol was on 53, I think, line in of course. The 9100 about "half way". The mics were angled in a slight V position towards one of the stacks, which were about 5 meters from me. The mics were mounted on a hat.

-c

The preamp should be at more then half way you are actually attenuating the signal that is why your signal to noise ratio is so bad. Try running the preamp at 95% and then back off your edirol input.

Chris

Chris,

I'd like to ask you a few questions , if you don't mind. 
Just curious about your comments. As far as I can see, Colargol's R-09HR was set at just around Unity gain. So was the 9100
(volume at halfway=unity, roughly speaking), in this particular show the 9100 acting like a regular BB. Perfect scenario.
That being said, why did you say that the gain should be cranked up on the 9100 and reduced on the R-09HR to avoid a bad signal to noise ratio?
As a R-09HR user should I always use a preamp with the CA-14, even at loud shows?  What if I just use a regular bb at loud concerts?
Thanks in advance.

[heyitsmejess]

ive always ran the 9100 with the full gain, and adjusted the input level on the recorder.

[Dede2002]

ive always ran the 9100 with the full gain, and adjusted the input level on the recorder.

Thanks for the input, friend.
Yes, some of my friends do exactly that. Others ( me included), set the recorder somewhere around 50 and adjust the preamp volume level. But only at quiet concerts. I just can't see why should I use a preamp at a loud rock concert. That's why I'm asking Chris all those questions.

Take care.

[Church-Audio]

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

The Edirol was on 53, I think, line in of course. The 9100 about "half way". The mics were angled in a slight V position towards one of the stacks, which were about 5 meters from me. The mics were mounted on a hat.

-c

The preamp should be at more then half way you are actually attenuating the signal that is why your signal to noise ratio is so bad. Try running the preamp at 95% and then back off your edirol input.

Chris

Chris,

I'd like to ask you a few questions , if you don't mind. 
Just curious about your comments. As far as I can see, Colargol's R-09HR was set at just around Unity gain. So was the 9100
(volume at halfway=unity, roughly speaking), in this particular show the 9100 acting like a regular BB. Perfect scenario.
That being said, why did you say that the gain should be cranked up on the 9100 and reduced on the R-09HR to avoid a bad signal to noise ratio?
As a R-09HR user should I always use a preamp with the CA-14, even at loud shows?  What if I just use a regular bb at loud concerts?
Thanks in advance.

Unity gain on the R-09 HR is at setting -38 with a -10 db input with a 5k output impedance from the source. So setting #38 for most sources via the line input will produce a wav file of the same amplitude of the input signal as seen at the line input. So If your running at 50 you are using gain and you would be better off using my preamp then the HR as my preamp still has a better signal to noise then the HR. As for loud concerts you will need less gain but you should still try and get as much as you can from my preamp. Using a battery box is fine for "some" loud shows but the definition of loud to some might not be to others and unless tapers start carrying Db meters and approach taping with a more scientific method ( in relation to knowing the acoustic level at an event and therefore knowing how much gain is actually needed to maintain a good signal to noise ratio ) Its better to play it safe and have a preamp then to not have a preamp IMO.

I recommend if you own my preamp to use it all the time.
Chris

[Dede2002]

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

The Edirol was on 53, I think, line in of course. The 9100 about "half way". The mics were angled in a slight V position towards one of the stacks, which were about 5 meters from me. The mics were mounted on a hat.

-c

The preamp should be at more then half way you are actually attenuating the signal that is why your signal to noise ratio is so bad. Try running the preamp at 95% and then back off your edirol input.

Chris

Chris,

I'd like to ask you a few questions , if you don't mind. 
Just curious about your comments. As far as I can see, Colargol's R-09HR was set at just around Unity gain. So was the 9100
(volume at halfway=unity, roughly speaking), in this particular show the 9100 acting like a regular BB. Perfect scenario.
That being said, why did you say that the gain should be cranked up on the 9100 and reduced on the R-09HR to avoid a bad signal to noise ratio?
As a R-09HR user should I always use a preamp with the CA-14, even at loud shows?  What if I just use a regular bb at loud concerts?
Thanks in advance.

Unity gain on the R-09 HR is at setting -38 with a -10 db input with a 5k output impedance from the source. So setting #38 for most sources via the line input will produce a wav file of the same amplitude of the input signal as seen at the line input. So If your running at 50 you are using gain and you would be better off using my preamp then the HR as my preamp still has a better signal to noise then the HR. As for loud concerts you will need less gain but you should still try and get as much as you can from my preamp. Using a battery box is fine for "some" loud shows but the definition of loud to some might not be to others and unless tapers start carrying Db meters and approach taping with a more scientific method ( in relation to knowing the acoustic level at an event and therefore knowing how much gain is actually needed to maintain a good signal to noise ratio ) Its better to play it safe and have a preamp then to not have a preamp IMO.

I recommend if you own my preamp to use it all the time.
Chris

Well, being regarded as a master on the customer service field, I'm sure you know that I own you awesome CA-9100.
I'm happy that the R-09HR Unity gain has been finally disclosed, thanks for that, Chris.  The whole taping world was waiting for that,me incuded.
Thanks a lot for that.

[Church-Audio]

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

The Edirol was on 53, I think, line in of course. The 9100 about "half way". The mics were angled in a slight V position towards one of the stacks, which were about 5 meters from me. The mics were mounted on a hat.

-c

The preamp should be at more then half way you are actually attenuating the signal that is why your signal to noise ratio is so bad. Try running the preamp at 95% and then back off your edirol input.

Chris

Chris,

I'd like to ask you a few questions , if you don't mind. 
Just curious about your comments. As far as I can see, Colargol's R-09HR was set at just around Unity gain. So was the 9100
(volume at halfway=unity, roughly speaking), in this particular show the 9100 acting like a regular BB. Perfect scenario.
That being said, why did you say that the gain should be cranked up on the 9100 and reduced on the R-09HR to avoid a bad signal to noise ratio?
As a R-09HR user should I always use a preamp with the CA-14, even at loud shows?  What if I just use a regular bb at loud concerts?
Thanks in advance.

Unity gain on the R-09 HR is at setting -38 with a -10 db input with a 5k output impedance from the source. So setting #38 for most sources via the line input will produce a wav file of the same amplitude of the input signal as seen at the line input. So If your running at 50 you are using gain and you would be better off using my preamp then the HR as my preamp still has a better signal to noise then the HR. As for loud concerts you will need less gain but you should still try and get as much as you can from my preamp. Using a battery box is fine for "some" loud shows but the definition of loud to some might not be to others and unless tapers start carrying Db meters and approach taping with a more scientific method ( in relation to knowing the acoustic level at an event and therefore knowing how much gain is actually needed to maintain a good signal to noise ratio ) Its better to play it safe and have a preamp then to not have a preamp IMO.

I recommend if you own my preamp to use it all the time.
Chris

Well, being regarded as a master on the customer service field, I'm sure you know that I own you awesome CA-9100.
I'm happy that the R-09HR Unity gain has been finally disclosed, thanks for that, Chris.  The whole taping world was waiting for that,me included.
Thanks a lot for that.

Thanks for the kind words.

It only took me about 10 million trys until I found the right gain setting.

[Dede2002]

What gain setting did you use on the 9100? and on your edirol? How were the mics angled what technique was used? Just wondering.

The Edirol was on 53, I think, line in of course. The 9100 about "half way". The mics were angled in a slight V position towards one of the stacks, which were about 5 meters from me. The mics were mounted on a hat.

-c

The preamp should be at more then half way you are actually attenuating the signal that is why your signal to noise ratio is so bad. Try running the preamp at 95% and then back off your edirol input.

Chris

Chris,

I'd like to ask you a few questions , if you don't mind. 
Just curious about your comments. As far as I can see, Colargol's R-09HR was set at just around Unity gain. So was the 9100
(volume at halfway=unity, roughly speaking), in this particular show the 9100 acting like a regular BB. Perfect scenario.
That being said, why did you say that the gain should be cranked up on the 9100 and reduced on the R-09HR to avoid a bad signal to noise ratio?
As a R-09HR user should I always use a preamp with the CA-14, even at loud shows?  What if I just use a regular bb at loud concerts?
Thanks in advance.

Unity gain on the R-09 HR is at setting -38 with a -10 db input with a 5k output impedance from the source. So setting #38 for most sources via the line input will produce a wav file of the same amplitude of the input signal as seen at the line input. So If your running at 50 you are using gain and you would be better off using my preamp then the HR as my preamp still has a better signal to noise then the HR. As for loud concerts you will need less gain but you should still try and get as much as you can from my preamp. Using a battery box is fine for "some" loud shows but the definition of loud to some might not be to others and unless tapers start carrying Db meters and approach taping with a more scientific method ( in relation to knowing the acoustic level at an event and therefore knowing how much gain is actually needed to maintain a good signal to noise ratio ) Its better to play it safe and have a preamp then to not have a preamp IMO.

I recommend if you own my preamp to use it all the time.
Chris

Well, being regarded as a master on the customer service field, I'm sure you know that I own you awesome CA-9100.
I'm happy that the R-09HR Unity gain has been finally disclosed, thanks for that, Chris.  The whole taping world was waiting for that,me included.
Thanks a lot for that.

Thanks for the kind words.

It only took me about 10 million trys until I found the right gain setting.

You're welcome  .
10 million? I wouldn't expect nothing less from you. Keep up that awesome work. 

[Ekib]

I do not want to start a Church Audio vs. Core Sound discussion, but there seems to be a lot of negative feelings towards Core Sound and positive feelings towards Church Audio on this site. Are people really that dissatisfied with the Core Sound Mics, or is it Len's service attitude? Because I think his cardioid mics are pretty good :-)

Yes , that's the way I feel about Core Sound mic's too.
I think it has to with the fact that Chris answers every question here frequently. While Len hardly looks around here ( no offense ). So people get a better impression of his mic's. It is really cool Chris answers questions. I don't mean that in a bad way. But he's very good at marketing his mic's here.

Core Sound makes excellent mic's. Even Chris should and probably would acknowledge that. The Core Sound Stealthy Cardioid is an excellent mic. Now I have made my point here more than enough it is my favourite mic ever. I don't ever want to change using another mic.
There's nothing I don't like it.

About Len's customer service. I have never had any bad experience with him. Sometimes it takes him a little longer to reply. But he goes out of his way helping you with your question or problem. He once gave me a very fair deal when I had to replace a pair after using it for a long time.

[Church-Audio]

I do not want to start a Church Audio vs. Core Sound discussion, but there seems to be a lot of negative feelings towards Core Sound and positive feelings towards Church Audio on this site. Are people really that dissatisfied with the Core Sound Mics, or is it Len's service attitude? Because I think his cardioid mics are pretty good :-)

Yes , that's the way I feel about Core Sound mic's too.
I think it has to with the fact that Chris answers every question here frequently. While Len hardly looks around here ( no offense ). So people get a better impression of his mic's. It is really cool Chris answers questions. I don't mean that in a bad way. But he's very good at marketing his mic's here.

Core Sound makes excellent mic's. Even Chris should and probably would acknowledge that. The Core Sound Stealthy Cardioid is an excellent mic. Now I have made my point here more than enough it is my favourite mic ever. I don't ever want to change using another mic.
There's nothing I don't like it.

About Len's customer service. I have never had any bad experience with him. Sometimes it takes him a little longer to reply. But he goes out of his way helping you with your question or problem. He once gave me a very fair deal when I had to replace a pair after using it for a long time.

The reason I sell a lot of mics is not "marketing" ( I dont even have a functioning web site ) My mics are popular simply because they are not overpriced and they sound good. I am not going to get into who's mic sound better simply because its a matter of taste and personal opinion. I will however say that in most cases I will fix or replace a mic with out any hassle what so ever, that's why people come to Church-Audio. Good customer service is not "marketing" its common sense and its the best selling tool I have. Do I have customers that are not happy with me sure but I do my best to fix the problem they may have and I always go the extra mile to keep my customers happy. They are the reason I do this. If I actually marketed my products I would never be able to handle the flow of customers. We are going to be moving soon to Hamilton a much bigger city and I will at some point in time be able to hire a second hand when that happens I will actually start to "market" my products.

Chris
 

[ninjadave]

just to throw my 2 cents in here.

i have just had the chance to use my new CA-14s with my UGLY Preamp at Fleetwood Mac (Pgh) and i can say, pound for pound, with out a doubt that these mics are better than the AT-U853's. i've run them and the smaller twin AT933's in the past and this recording is so clean and clear, its unbelievable. i was in a good spot but not the best and it really pulled the sound in like i was sitting under the stack. the sample i have is too big to post right now, i'll try and cut a small one and put in here, but i'll be putting this show to DIME shortly. i can't speak about the CS mics but for the money, you can't go wrong here with CCs stuff.

[acidjack]

FWIW, I am not familiar with the setup of your computer speakers, but I am not sure that test is reflective of either mic's characteristics in the real world. 

I too own a set of CSBs and used them extensively for a long time.  Purchased the CSCs back in 99 and ran them for awhile.  I have nothing but good things to say about the build of both the CSB and CSC mics - extremely solid, easy to use - and I had a great experience with Core overall and may well get the HEB's eventually. 

However, I ended up going back to the CSBs and using the battery box after many recordings with the CSC, in a variety of spaces (indoor, outdoor, close to the PA, far away) did not give the results I wanted.  I didn't like the bass response and found the sound lacked a sort of roundness that I like in a recording.  To some degree, I think this is an issue with all of the small cardiod mics, even the most expensive.

I wouldn't tell you to get rid of your CSCs if you're happy with them, but I would definitely try a real-world test of the CA-14's before dismissing them also. I have not used them myself but have heard samples that were very strong.

For what it's worth, I myself run the Sound Professionals CMC-8's now with omni caps for more up-close situations and the cardiods for everything else.  I have been very pleased with the results of both caps and recently upgraded the cards to the AT853.  FWIW, I chose SP over the Church product because I wanted the versatility of switchable caps.  Since you already have a battery box, if you're trying out mics, you could give the SP-CMC-4U a shot as well and see what you think, as that model uses the AT853 caps. 

But who knows - if the CSCs are working for you, stick with it.  I find with any of these the user of the mics can have a big impact on the mic's performance.

[ninjadave]

i never did post the sample but i did get my show up on DIME. there are samples there.

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=240479&page=0#startcomments