Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: Dede2002 on June 26, 2007, 11:00:32 AM
-
Hi,
Like most MM-HLSC-1 users, I love how they handle high SPL plus the clear and detailed sound, but I'd like to have a little more bass. The SP-CMC-9 seems to be a good mic choice. Any comments?
Thanks in advance ;D
-
That won't have any more bass. The SP-CMC-8 and the SP-CMC-4U, might have slightly better bass, but noth worth the upgrade IMO.
You got a nice set of mics there with the HLSC....
-
That won't have any more bass. The SP-CMC-8 and the SP-CMC-4U, might have slightly better bass, but noth worth the upgrade IMO.
You got a nice set of mics there with the HLSC....
Hey, thanks for the tips! ;)
-
get some omnis for fat bass sound ;).
if i get my dpa 4061s in time, i´ll do a testrun on saturday evening.
am curious how these babies will perform! ;).
will also record with my sp-cmc-4u at the same time on my iriver.
-
get some omnis for fat bass sound ;).
if i get my dpa 4061s in time, i´ll do a testrun on saturday evening.
am curious how these babies will perform! ;).
will also record with my sp-cmc-4u at the same time on my iriver.
My friend Arni, you're such a buyer, arent' you? (Just kidding...)
Did you get some 4061s? WOW, that's awesome. I've only heard wonderful thing about'em.
You know, I've almost got a pair couple of months ago. I gave up because the omni pattern has some issues I really can't live with (for the kind of music/venue I usually go).
What about last weekend concerts? How did you like the R-09?
Take care ;)
-
Hi,
Like most MM-HLSC-1 users, I love how they handle high SPL plus the clear and detailed sound, but I'd like to have a little more bass. The SP-CMC-9 seems to be a good mic choice. Any comments?
Thanks in advance ;D
you can always add a little extra snatch of bass in post - its better than having too much bass=distortion
-
That won't have any more bass. The SP-CMC-8 and the SP-CMC-4U, might have slightly better bass, but noth worth the upgrade IMO.
You got a nice set of mics there with the HLSC....
IMP, but CMC-4 seems to have better bass than CMC-8 and the HLSC. With phantom power you could get even better sound.
Here is my recording with CMC-4 > PS-2 >D100
http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=150928 (http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=150928)
-
get some omnis for fat bass sound ;).
if i get my dpa 4061s in time, i´ll do a testrun on saturday evening.
am curious how these babies will perform! ;).
will also record with my sp-cmc-4u at the same time on my iriver.
My friend Arni, you're such a buyer, arent' you? (Just kidding...)
Did you get some 4061s? WOW, that's awesome. I've only heard wonderful thing about'em.
You know, I've almost got a pair couple of months ago. I gave up because the omni pattern has some issues I really can't live with (for the kind of music/venue I usually go).
What about last weekend concerts? How did you like the R-09?
Take care ;)
yes, i´m a GEARSLUT HAHAH! ;)
last week´s concert got postponed to saturday 30th june.
was too windy+stormy last week.
my used dpa 4061s should arrive today.
go for the dpa cardioids, they cost 2 or 3 times more than the omnis HAHA! ;D
i already taped with the r09 in march +april...no problem with this little toy.
easy to use...the red REC-light should NEVER flash when adjusting rec levels or using HOLD-button...maybe with the next firmware update.
-
That won't have any more bass. The SP-CMC-8 and the SP-CMC-4U, might have slightly better bass, but noth worth the upgrade IMO.
You got a nice set of mics there with the HLSC....
IMP, but CMC-4 seems to have better bass than CMC-8 and the HLSC. With phantom power you could get even better sound.
Here is my recording with CMC-4 > PS-2 >D100
http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=150928 (http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=150928)
that's what i call a huge huge recording sound !!! never got such a sound with the 853's... i don't have phantom's neither...
-
Hi,
Like most MM-HLSC-1 users, I love how they handle high SPL plus the clear and detailed sound, but I'd like to have a little more bass. The SP-CMC-9 seems to be a good mic choice. Any comments?
Thanks in advance ;D
I have a pair of sp-cmc-9's and have only used them a couple times in the past year. They're clean sounding but I was disappointed with the low end and had to add some in post. They're micro sized though...considerably smaller than the 943's. Work well when I need to be super stealth.
-
I just downloaded the "Sharon Jones" show from DIME...wow...never heard a better sounding cardioid recording.
Seems SP-CMC-9 cardioids sound great under certain circumstances.
http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=185035&hit=1
-
Hi everybody,
although this topic is old, I'd like to revive it. I've done a lot of reading here at TS in the last days in order to find the mics that fit best to what I want to do with them, and the SP-CMC-9's are on my short list.
So far, I've been using Sony ECM-719 > Sony MZ-RH 1 (stealth recording), and my latest update was buying a CA-9100 pre-amp and now I need new mics with "fuller sound" ;) I'm impressed by the small size of the SP-CMC-9 and SP sell them at a good price at the moment.
From shows I have listened to I like the sound of the SP-CMC-8 (with AT943 cardioids), so basically this was my first idea, but then I read about the SP-CMC-9 and thought they might be a better choice. According to the SP website (http://"http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-CMC-9") they utilize "a matched set of AT898 Audio Technica microphones" (cardioids) and when I looked up the specification of those mics at the AT website (http://"http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/c56cac8605404472/index.html"), I felt unconfident because of the frequency response of 200 - 15,000 Hz (compared to 30 - 20,000 Hz regarding the AT943/SP-CMC-8). Am I just intimidated by those numbers :P ? Would you recommend the AT898/SP-CMC-9 and why?
I should add that I'm not taping on a regular basis, only 3 - 6 shows a year, so I'm not good at testing different settings on the rig and also not able to invest a fortune. The shows I attend are Pop or Rock bands in different venues (from 2,000 capacity clubs to larger halls or arenas), not Metal-type super-loud shows, but still bands that play loud tracks within their show.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
-
The 853/943 are proven and less likely to disappoint you. At least you know what you are getting.
-
>The 853/943 are proven and less likely to disappoint you. At least you know what you are getting.
I agree. I don't know anyone running the CMC-9, although I've heard some pretty good shows done with them. However, I do know quite a few people that run the AT943's and I have heard some excellent shows from them.
A couple other pluses for the AT943's are you can switch out the elements for different mic patterns, not sure if that's an option for the CMC-9 line (at least I didn't see any other elements listed for them). Also, with the AT adapter, you can also place the larger 853 elements on the 943 bodies and run them that way as the AT933, which is what I have run for over 10 years now.
Not to say the CMC-9's wouldn't work fine for you and hopefully some tapers that are using them might be able to shed some more light on them, but I think there's more room to try different things to obtain the sound you want with the type of music/venues you are seeing as far as the AT943's.
-
I'd get these and opt for the low sensitivity mod:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=143254.0
-
Thank you very much for your replies, I find this board and its members to be very helpful :)
Belexes, thanks for the link, the SP-CMC-4U were sort of #3 on my list (because of their size), but the price drop is tempting me. After I saw pictures you posted here (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=101483.0), I think although they're bigger than the AT943/SP-CMC-8 or the AT898/SP-CMC-9, it would not be a big issue to use them for stealth recordings (regarding their diameter is about half the size of a Quarter).
(...) Not to say the CMC-9's wouldn't work fine for you and hopefully some tapers that are using them might be able to shed some more light on them, (...)
Yes, please. I find it kind of disconcerting that although this topic was started 3 and a half year ago, no one except for willyp523 has used them and shared their opinion.
-
Just to get the nomenclature right:
SP-CMC-4U = AT 853. Bigger size, more bass response
SP-CMC-8 = AT 943. Smaller size, less bass response. To make it slightly more confusing, you can also get an adapter that lets you use the 853 caps with the smaller bodies, which I used to have.
The 853s are much better sounding cardiod mics than the 943 if you want to have much bass response. One of my favorite recordings of mine from ANY rig I have had was made with these mics - http://www.archive.org/details/mogwai2009-04-29.flac16_638
If you're mostly using omnis then the 853s are unnecessarily large and you're better off with the smaller mics. Or for that matter Church's CAFS-OMNI.
-
Go big or go home I always say. Anything can be stxxlthed. >:D
-
By now I should probably have moved to the SP-CMC-8 or SP-CMC-4U ?? (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=78298.0) topic. I hope it's OK though to continue the discussion here :-\
So besides the tininess there is no advantage for the SP-CMC-9, which made it move down on my shortlist. But now comes the difficult part:
Just to get the nomenclature right:
SP-CMC-4U = AT 853. Bigger size, more bass response
SP-CMC-8 = AT 943. Smaller size, less bass response. To make it slightly more confusing, you can also get an adapter that lets you use the 853 caps with the smaller bodies, which I used to have.
The 853s are much better sounding cardiod mics than the 943 if you want to have much bass response. One of my favorite recordings of mine from ANY rig I have had was made with these mics - http://www.archive.org/details/mogwai2009-04-29.flac16_638 (...)
As a start, I listened to some tracks of your Mogwai recording and it's excellent for sure. Then I looked up some of the info files of recordings I have listened to in the past and that I consider to be very good. These are all recordings of The Mars Volta, a band I also taped in the past. And a lot of the recordings had "SP-CMC-8" listed as the mics which were used, but along with a 2005 recording I got this information: "Matched Audio Technica AT853 Slimline Cardioid Stereo Model:SP-CMC-8"
So in the past it was SP-CMC-8 = AT 853 ??? (probably before the AT 853 U entered the market?)
So what about a recording of 2008 where the info file states "SP-CMC-8 Audio Technica mics (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57098)" or in the other case "Soundprofessionals CMC8", how would one know if these recordings were actually done with AT 943 or with the "old" AT 853? Or maybe with the adapter modification acidjack mentioned.
This is more than confusing and by listening to the recordings, I'm not able to say which one has more "bass response" (could have been altered by using a battery box or pre-amp with bass roll-off or even by editing afterwards, couldn't it?). If anyone of you feels like accepting a challenge, I can upload samples of the recordings (the torrents are already inactive), in the other case I'll probably accept Belexes' challenge and "go big" and try to get the discount on the SP-CMC-4U...
Any more advice from you helpful members?
-
>To make it slightly more confusing, you can also get an adapter that lets you use the 853 caps
>with the smaller bodies, which I used to have.
>If you're mostly using omnis then the 853s are unnecessarily large and you're better off with the smaller mics.
The AT933's are the ones with the adapter, I've been using them in the same rig for over 10 years and love them. The 853's are definitely st--lthable, but not really the way I was originally using them. That's where I think the 933's are the most versatile, they allow you to get the sound of the 853's as they use those larger elements, but the adapter>943 body gives them the smaller overall size which made my original technique work.
Plus to go even more low-profile you can always use the smaller 943 elements, so you have the benefit of various mic patterns with something you can use anywhere from super lo-pro all the way to open taping with the adapter.
Belexes also mentioned the low sensitivity mod which I have seen/heard in action, but if you are going to use a pre-amp I don't really think you would need the mod. I was considering running the mod in some circumstances, but I did not want it to be a "permanent" type of mod, so if I did that I would do it through a short modded cable (in my case a Y cable that has the mod in it).
With the CMC-9's, if you end up not really being totally happy with them you don't have much to go beyond that, but I think with the 943's you would be happy and even if they didn't blow you away, you would at least have the option to bump them up with the larger elements and even a little different flavor with different pattern elements.
-
>This is more than confusing
True, it can be quite confusing. That's why I always use the AT nomenclature as I bought my mics as AT 933 with omni caps and then I bought the cardioid caps to use 99.9% of the time. The AT 933 is like a hybrid model AT sold, I believe the 933's are discontinued, but you can still make them using the AT 943 bodies and the 853 elements and adding the adapter inbetween.
If you're on DIME I think there's a few shows I recorded on there with some samples, probably in the style of venues you'd be going to, maybe not the same bands, but maybe the same genre.
-
As a start, I listened to some tracks of your Mogwai recording and it's excellent for sure. Then I looked up some of the info files of recordings I have listened to in the past and that I consider to be very good. These are all recordings of The Mars Volta, a band I also taped in the past. And a lot of the recordings had "SP-CMC-8" listed as the mics which were used, but along with a 2005 recording I got this information: "Matched Audio Technica AT853 Slimline Cardioid Stereo Model:SP-CMC-8"
So in the past it was SP-CMC-8 = AT 853 ??? (probably before the AT 853 U entered the market?)
So what about a recording of 2008 where the info file states "SP-CMC-8 Audio Technica mics (http://"http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57098")" or in the other case "Soundprofessionals CMC8", how would one know if these recordings were actu
ally done with AT 943 or with the "old" AT 853? Or maybe with the adapter modification acidjack mentioned.
I think that person's lineage is just wrong then... To boil it down, if you buy it from Sound Pros, "CMC-8" equals the smaller mics, "CMC-4" equals the larger but (generally) better mics.
-
Belexes also mentioned the low sensitivity mod which I have seen/heard in action, but if you are going to use a pre-amp I don't really think you would need the mod.
The pre has really nothing to do with it. The 853's at the element will overload in high SPL situations. I know as I recorded two shows with terrible results. One with my omni caps and another with my cards. The 4.7k mod will prevent this from happening.
I think Chris Church may build this in as a switch in his pre's? But I just had the mod done at the mic stage as I think I would forget to flip the switch! My 9100 has a HPF switch in it. (which I never use)
-
Thanks for all your help, guys :) Decision is made, I just placed an order to buy the AT 943 aka SP-CMC-8 (cardioids).
Actually these were #1 on my shortlist from the beginning, but the discussion of all kind of relevant things here helped me a lot and I already learnt some things. One of the pro's that convinced me was the flexibility for future upgrades regarding using an adapter and 853 elements, if the sound was not what I expected it to be (less bass response). And of course some recordings made with these mics, which sound very good to me (also regarding the low end).
Once I'll get them, I know I have to make some tests before using them in an important show. The CA-9100 pre-amp I got, does not have the 4.7k mod, but has the high pass filter. One opinion I read here was that it's not important to use it, another opinon I got in a PM was to always turn it on, so testing different settings seems to be appropriate. I did not order the low sensitivity mod for the mics, because from what I read here at TS this is more applicable for the AT 853 U (SP-CMC-4U). Let's see if this is correct :-\ And let's see what the additional tax will be for Germany ::)
-
If you record loud shows exclusively then IMHO the preamp is not really necessary and the improvement will be nominal. I'd rather have small battery box. I'd spend money on different caps for my mics before I spent money on that. I WOULD however say you MUST buy the low sensitivity mod for the mics, or they will not work for you at all (for loud shows). It's a selectable option during checkout.
-
>The pre has really nothing to do with it. The 853's at the element will overload in high SPL situations.
>I know as I recorded two shows with terrible results. One with my omni caps and another with my cards. The 4.7k mod will prevent >this from happening.
I don't have the mod and I run the AT power modules for my 933's with the 853 elements and I have been literally inside a stack at some shows and had no issues. Maybe it depends what you're running after the mics.
-
>I did not order the low sensitivity mod for the mics, because from what I read here at TS this is more applicable for the AT 853 U >(SP-CMC-4U).
Using the mod on the 943's does allow to use plug-in power into an R-09, I know someone who runs their rig that way. There's many variables that warrant running the mod or not running the mod.
If I were to ever run the mod I would just have the mod portion in a Y or short extension cable.
-
>The pre has really nothing to do with it. The 853's at the element will overload in high SPL situations.
>I know as I recorded two shows with terrible results. One with my omni caps and another with my cards. The 4.7k mod will prevent >this from happening.
I don't have the mod and I run the AT power modules for my 933's with the 853 elements and I have been literally inside a stack at some shows and had no issues. Maybe it depends what you're running after the mics.
That's not the same as using the SP-CMC-4U's as I posted. I do know the AT943's do not overload. Only the 853's need the mod.
-
I'd just like to add my 2 cents here.
I have a CMC-08 rig, and LOVE it.
The mics can handle most anything w/o distortion.
IMO - The key to a good recording with them is a CA-9100 w/ the HPF filter on.
(or something comparable in function)
WHY ? because all the energy/voltage coming in is in the low Freq's.
When you put a 'leash' on the low end...when there is too much bass.
then the HPF filter normalizes the low end of the recording,
and you don't overload your line in.
--------------------------------------------------------
I just saw (recorded) Monster Magnet.
It was SO RETARDED LOUD that my ears rang HARD for 3 days and are still ringing a bit now.
I was 20' - 25' in front of the right stage array.
Show was 2-20-11. One off US show / Tour opener, they're in Australia now.
It was at Starland Ballroom, that has one of the loudest PA's I've ever heard.
and they crank the shit out of it !!!
and...
The recording came out great.
My levels on the CA-9100 and the recorder were way low, but no issues.
RIG : SP-CMC-08>CA-9100(HPF on)>VR-10(@16bit)
Want to Judge for yourself ?
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0K1C2IOR
(RAR compression - 16bit wave recording, my pics, a review and recording info)
Let me know what you think. Enjoy.
(PLAY IT LOUD !!!)
-
>That's not the same as using the SP-CMC-4U's as I posted. I do know the AT943's do not overload. Only the 853's need the mod.
How were you running the 853's when there were issues at the shows you mentioned? Just curious as to what lineage the mod is needed with on the full body version 853's.
-
>IMO - The key to a good recording with them is a CA-9100 w/ the HPF filter on.
>(or something comparable in function)
>WHY ? because all the energy/voltage coming in is in the low Freq's.
>When you put a 'leash' on the low end...when there is too much bass.
>then the HPF filter normalizes the low end of the recording,
>and you don't overload your line in.
That's could be the way to go with the 943's, sounds like you've got it working fine. I found the opposite using the 933's. When I first started taping I would run with the bass filter on on my power modules and the recordings did come out nice. But then at one show one of them got switched to flat response and wala, the difference could be heard! From then on I've run everything flat response and the recordings are that much better, they have that feel that the previous ones didn't.
Not to say this is the way every rig should be done as there's many variances with rigs, PA, soundguys, venues, etc, but in some cases I think the filter can take some away from what you'd have gotten at flat response. It does take some experimenting, and maybe even a little help from a switch gone awry ;)
-
>That's not the same as using the SP-CMC-4U's as I posted. I do know the AT943's do not overload. Only the 853's need the mod.
How were you running the 853's when there were issues at the shows you mentioned? Just curious as to what lineage the mod is needed with on the full body version 853's.
SP-CMC-4U > 9100 > and either a M10 or D50 Line in.
9100 was not clipping.
I disagree with the post in regards to using the HPF. I do all editing of the recording in post on an audio editor and never use the HPF.
-
I disagree with the post in regards to using the HPF. I do all editing of the recording in post on an audio editor and never use the HPF.
There are obviously advantages to doing filter work in post, however there are some advantages that make using the HPF at the mic or preamp advantageous.
When you use the HPF at the mic/preamp you are allowing more room for the other frequencies in your bit depth. this would be more important when using a 16bit recorder. The second benefit is that the rolled off frequencies are no longer able to mask or distort the good frequencies. You often end up with a cleaner recording if you roll off at the mic/preamp than if you would in post. If the recording is boomy, distorts or you capture a bunch of standing bass waves, it is nearly impossible to remove completely in post... You can do a drastic roll-off in post and still hear artifacts of the distortion...