Author Topic: CA14 vs AT853 vs AT943 (comp) (Read 15112 times)

Belexes · « **on:** January 07, 2009, 09:57:20 PM »

I decided to do a comp of the CA14's, AT853's, and the AT943's. (all cardioids)

Loud music out of one home stereo speaker. X-Y mic config a few feet from a Klipsch Chorus II speaker. Not scientific in the least, but better than nothing.

Mics > 9100 > Sony D50

I strung them all together into one file.

24 bit:
http://www.2shared.com/file/4601423/1d7404a8/mic_comp.html

I'll post what was what in a few days, Samples 1, 2 and 3. Guesses are welcome.

Belexes · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2009, 10:09:56 PM »

16 bit file:
http://www.2shared.com/file/4601481/9958d0e/mic_comp_16bit.html

nameloc01 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2009, 11:10:16 PM »

How are the ATs wired?

gossling · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2009, 11:38:46 PM »

Thanks for the comparison!

I'm not gonna guess which is which, but the second one is clearly the weakest, to my ears. The first sounds sounds clearer to me than the third (especially the percussion), but the differences are subtle. Any chance you could upload the original source? Or do the same test with the D-50's internal microphones for further comparison?

Thanks again

Jeremy Lykins · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2009, 11:45:45 PM »

I agree that the second one is the weakest (please don't be the ca-14's). The first and third sounded a lot alike to me. I prefer the first source until the vocals start, but I like the third source better during the vocals.

willndmb · « **Reply #5 on:** January 08, 2009, 12:04:35 AM »

2nd is def the worst imo too
no where near enough listening to any of these mics to guess what might be what though

hypnotoad · « **Reply #6 on:** January 08, 2009, 01:57:33 AM »

I'll take a stab at it...

a. AT853
b. CA14
c. AT943

gossling · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2009, 02:14:34 AM »

OK, now I can't resist

:
1. AT943
2. CA-14
3. AT843

hypnotoad · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2009, 02:29:44 AM »

I'm thinking the first set of mics was the 853s. To my ears the bass was a tad more defined/deeper on the 1st set, and the overall sound was a bit more airy than the 3rd set of mics.

Well there it is. That's the limb I'm climbing out on.

Belexes · « **Reply #9 on:** January 08, 2009, 08:07:29 AM »

No one has gotten it right so far, but I do agree the 2nd is the weakest and there are only subtle differences between #1 and #3.

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #10 on:** January 08, 2009, 09:05:23 AM »

I agree sample 2 sounds notably different from the other two samples. It's also quieter. Average RMS values for each sample:

(1) Average RMS Power:   -22.69 dB   -22.42 dB
(2) Average RMS Power:   -26.41 dB   -26.33 dB
(3) Average RMS Power:   -22.7 dB   -22.45 dB

For my listening, I added +3.7/3.9 dB to sample 2's L/R channels to match the RMS with the other samples. Sounded closer in loudness to me after doing so.

Sample 2 sounds significantly brighter to my ears, which I found grating fairly quickly -- I just stopped listening. Dramatically different from the other samples. As for the other two...

Sample 1 sounded more balanced and a bit darker to my ears than sample 3. The HF seems a little more pronounced in sample 3 relative to sample 1 and to my ears shares a bit of the sample 2 character. Sample 3's midrage also stood out a bit more for me, for example, the guitar. I found sample 1's LF a bit looser and more robust, but not sloppy, while sample 3's was a little lighter and tighter. God hates a coward, so even though I'm not familiar with any of these mics, I'll give it a go:

(1) CA-14
(2) AT943
(3) AT853

All in all, I agree with others who found the differences between 1 and 3 subtle, and I'd be happy with either sample 1 or 3.

Liquid Drum · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2009, 12:10:41 PM »

Sample 1 is best to me. Sample 2 is much quieter but also is very trebly.

I am guessin' sample 2 is the 943's (although I hope not lol).

hypnotoad · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2009, 01:23:14 PM »

Quote from: Belexes on January 08, 2009, 08:07:29 AM

No one has gotten it right so far, but I do agree the 2nd is the weakest and there are only subtle differences between #1 and #3.

Really? Interesting. If that's the case I might have to raise #2 like Brian and re listen to everything. I never thought of changing the audio.

Edit - raised/relistened/and thought the sound of #2 ended up being closer to the others.

EarlyMorningRain · « **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2009, 01:32:07 PM »

if no one is correct yet, then I'll guess this

(1) AT853
(2) AT943
(3) CA-14

Jeremy Lykins · « **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2009, 02:32:28 PM »

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on January 08, 2009, 09:05:23 AM

Sample 1 sounded more balanced and a bit darker to my ears than sample 3. The HF seems a little more pronounced in sample 3 relative to sample 1 and to my ears shares a bit of the sample 2 character. Sample 3's midrage also stood out a bit more for me, for example, the guitar. I found sample 1's LF a bit looser and more robust, but not sloppy, while sample 3's was a little lighter and tighter.

That's exactly what I thought, but I didn't know how to say it.

Belexes · « **Reply #15 on:** January 09, 2009, 09:26:36 AM »

The samples were:

1. AT853
2. AT943
3. CA-14

Good analysis by Brian and I would think either the 853's or the CA-14's are very acceptable and comparable. Oh those 943's

I didn't like what I heard from them to my ears.

If someone was just entering the market and interchangable caps wasn't an issue, CA-14's would be a good pick. Need caps? 853's without question. Anyone with the slim 943 bodies could get the adapters and 853 caps, would be a nice upgrade.

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #16 on:** January 09, 2009, 09:33:03 AM »

I am very supprised by these results. The 933/943 (Engineered Sound Line) are a contractor exclusive line of installation mics, the 853 (UniLine) are held in less regaurd by AT.... Kinda strange... It must just be the capsules, because I can tell no difference between the 853 capsules on either set of bodies...

Church-Audio · « **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2009, 10:59:31 AM »

Quote from: Belexes on January 09, 2009, 09:26:36 AM

The samples were:

1. AT853
2. AT943
3. CA-14

Good analysis by Brian and I would think either the 853's or the CA-14's are very acceptable and comparable. Oh those 943's I didn't like what I heard from them to my ears.

If someone was just entering the market and interchangable caps wasn't an issue, CA-14's would be a good pick. Need caps? 853's without question. Anyone with the slim 943 bodies could get the adapters and 853 caps, would be a nice upgrade.

I will sell anyone that wants to buy a pair of omni ca-14 and card ca-14 at the same time a low price of $189.99 Still much cheaper then 853

Jeremy Lykins · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2009, 12:42:19 PM »

Quote from: Belexes on January 09, 2009, 09:26:36 AM

The samples were:

1. AT853
2. AT943
3. CA-14

Interesting...I thought that Brian was right. I can't wait 'til my CA-14's get here!

taperwheeler · « **Reply #19 on:** January 09, 2009, 12:57:26 PM »

Out of curiousity, were the AT mics lows sens modded?

Can't believe how much better the 853 caps sound over the 943's. I assume that the 933's would likely sound similar. Wish I'd heard this years ago when I picked up my 933's

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #20 on:** January 09, 2009, 01:06:39 PM »

Today, the 933 and 943 are identical. (943 has a groove to attach a lav clip, 933 does not....)

In the past the 933 used the 853 capsules with an adpter. Now the 933/943 have their own small caps....

taperwheeler · « **Reply #21 on:** January 09, 2009, 01:16:08 PM »

Quote from: Javier Cinakowski on January 09, 2009, 01:06:39 PM

Today, the 933 and 943 are identical. (943 has a groove to attach a lav clip, 933 does not....)

In the past the 933 used the 853 capsules with an adpter. Now the 933/943 have their own small caps....

Thanks for that very useful info. I'll hafta check my mics tonight and see if they have the adapter. I bought them somewhere between 8-9 years ago and have only been really using the past year. Unfortunately, I don't think they have the adapter and 853 caps.

nameloc01 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 09, 2009, 03:24:25 PM »

These results aren't too surprising. The 853s and CAs' typically will sound very similiar, and while the 943s are good mics -and I've listened to tons of shows with the ATs- more often than not, the 853s will sound better than the 943s (the 943s always seem to sound "thinner" to me)

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #23 on:** January 09, 2009, 03:29:30 PM »

Quote from: nameloc01 on January 09, 2009, 03:24:25 PM

These results aren't too surprising. The 853s and CAs' typically will sound very similiar, and while the 943s are good mics -and I've listened to tons of shows with the ATs- more often than not, the 853s will sound better than the 943s (the 943s always seem to sound "thinner" to me)

Yep, the 853 are certainly warmer. We agree on something!

I bet most choir directors arn't that concerned about the low end, so i guess the 943 does just fine for them. Perhaps the "thinner" sounds translates to more "clarity" for those folks....

Ironically the shotgun caps for the both the 943 and 853 have remarkable low end. The frequency graphs for these caps look more like an omni than the omni!
I have some 943 shotgun recordings that have too much low end to play in my car....

nameloc01 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 09, 2009, 03:50:36 PM »

I concur.

Speaking of AT mics...these are gonna be my next purchase:

http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-BMC-10

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #25 on:** January 09, 2009, 06:11:42 PM »

Those look like a terrific alternative to the DPA's.... I wonder if the premium price compared to the 853's is warranted because of the smaller size and/or better sound. I hope both....

Sunday Driver · « **Reply #26 on:** January 09, 2009, 08:11:43 PM »

Quote from: nameloc01 on January 09, 2009, 03:50:36 PM

I concur.

Speaking of AT mics...these are gonna be my next purchase:

http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-BMC-10

Wow, for that amount of money, skip that and pick up some Sennheiser mke2 omnis. Best sounding omins to my ears. Have you heard any tapes made with them, nameloc?

nameloc01 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 09, 2009, 08:14:21 PM »

Maybe, not sure of those exact mics, but all of the other Sennheiser stuff I've heard is real nice.

Sunday Driver · « **Reply #28 on:** January 09, 2009, 08:43:23 PM »

Quote from: nameloc01 on January 09, 2009, 08:14:21 PM

Maybe, not sure of those exact mics, but all of the other Sennheiser stuff I've heard is real nice.

Don't know if you can download torrents or not, but check this tape out if you can as a sample:
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=516267

/hijack over

Church-Audio · « **Reply #29 on:** January 09, 2009, 09:07:35 PM »

Quote from: Javier Cinakowski on January 09, 2009, 06:11:42 PM

Those look like a terrific alternative to the DPA's.... I wonder if the premium price compared to the 853's is warranted because of the smaller size and/or better sound. I hope both....

I had an actor overload one of these mics with his voice, Not sure how well they would be suited for live recordings.

nameloc01 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2009, 10:40:52 PM »

That's crazy. Seems like they would be fine for what we do. The U853s w/ phantom are rated 138db (I've never even came close to clipping mine), while these are rated at 125db, a little less capabilty, but I wouldn't think too low?
Something else I saw, they raised the price of putting the mini xlrs back on the mics and adding the adaptors..from $80.00 to $160.00, so that would put them well over $400.00.

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #31 on:** January 10, 2009, 09:15:56 AM »

Quote from: Church-Audio on January 09, 2009, 09:07:35 PM

Quote from: Javier Cinakowski on January 09, 2009, 06:11:42 PM
Those look like a terrific alternative to the DPA's.... I wonder if the premium price compared to the 853's is warranted because of the smaller size and/or better sound. I hope both....
I had an actor overload one of these mics with his voice, Not sure how well they would be suited for live recordings.

Ouch! that 125spec would make me nervous.....

Liquid Drum · « **Reply #32 on:** January 10, 2009, 10:16:11 AM »

How would one run the AT853's on Phantom? And still use my R-09...

Am I right if I was to grab them with the Power Adapters and then use a cable that goes from the adapters to my line-in...?

nameloc01 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 10, 2009, 11:39:56 AM »

Simon,
Each mic would be terminated to its own mini xlr connector...each would go into a phantom adaptor ( the adaptors transition the mini xlr to full size xlr and also step down the 48v to a smaller,useable voltage) those then go into a phantom power box/pre, the box then would go into your deck.

Liquid Drum · « **Reply #34 on:** January 10, 2009, 11:47:26 AM »

Quote from: nameloc01 on January 10, 2009, 11:39:56 AM

Simon,
Each mic would be terminated to its own mini xlr connector...each would go into a phantom adaptor ( the adaptors transition the mini xlr to full size xlr and also step down the 48v to a smaller,useable voltage) those then go into a phantom power box/pre, the box then would go into your deck.

Is there any easier way? I didn't really want both the chunky adapters AND a chunky box/pre. Is there a nice compact box/pre that has XLR inputs and powers with Phantom, with then a possibility to get into the R-09 without needing another piece of kit...?

Cheers.

Belexes · « **Reply #35 on:** January 10, 2009, 11:53:28 AM »

The 943's did give me some fairly good recordings and I liked them over the CSB's I had used prior.

Here's a sample of one of my better recordings with them. A sample from the Carl Palmer Band (of ELP fame):

http://www.2shared.com/file/4619230/613f19be/SP-CMC-8_sample.html

nameloc01 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 10, 2009, 12:08:15 PM »

Simon,
Yeah, there are boxes and pre's that supply phantom, but, regardless, you must have the adaptors otherwise the 48v will fry your mics (and the xlr transition has to be made)
They do sell the AT modules ( a physically smaller route)that supply power and step the voltage down, but IMO they don't sound all that great...I've only used mine once.
Pm me your email addy...ill send you a few photos

nameloc01 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 10, 2009, 12:49:47 PM »

Carl Palmer kicks. The only time I ever managed to pull a front row seat for a show was to see Jethro Tull and ELP..the latter threw down pretty hard.

Church-Audio · « **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2009, 03:36:11 PM »

Quote from: Liquid Drum on January 10, 2009, 10:16:11 AM

How would one run the AT853's on Phantom? And still use my R-09...

Am I right if I was to grab them with the Power Adapters and then use a cable that goes from the adapters to my line-in...?

Don't waste your time you not going to gain anything by using phantom except more gear to lug around. If you want small 853 + MY MOD + Bat box.... into line input or mic input on a R-09HR.

nameloc01 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2009, 04:28:13 PM »

I'm fairly certain that was he's running and he's not happy with it.

nameloc01 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2009, 04:30:48 PM »

Change that..I believe he's running 943s modded> your preamp> recorder and he's not happy with it.

Church-Audio · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2009, 06:24:01 PM »

Quote from: nameloc01 on January 10, 2009, 04:30:48 PM

Change that..I believe he's running 943s modded> your preamp> recorder and he's not happy with it.

The problem is not the preamp... I tried to explain this to him. But again with out seeing his gear its hard to say where the issue is. I did however offer to look at it for free and see what I can determine. The 943 does have a problem with overloading at the capsule not at the fet.

Liquid Drum · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2009, 06:41:44 PM »

There's no problem with my rig. It works flawlessly and provides excellent results (thats including stack taping rock/metal bands). I'm just very curious about 853's and Phantom power and if it'll give a bit more low-end that sounds more natural.

Church-Audio · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2009, 07:23:03 PM »

Quote from: Liquid Drum on January 10, 2009, 06:41:44 PM

There's no problem with my rig. It works flawlessly and provides excellent results (thats including stack taping rock/metal bands). I'm just very curious about 853's and Phantom power and if it'll give a bit more low-end that sounds more natural.

Chances are the phantom adaptor you will use will have a bass roll off on it. Most of these do because the original application for this mic was a choir mic.. You dont want anything below 75 hz so most of the AT phantom adaptors will actually roll bass off below 75 the opposite if what your trying to achieve.

Chris

nameloc01 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 10, 2009, 07:35:49 PM »

The Nadys are better than the ATs. I don't even use my AT modules, as they sound inferior to the ps2.

nameloc01 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2009, 07:57:08 PM »

A few more 853 samples..I think the ass end is pretty decent on these...there're the only samples I can give.

http://www.collectiveunconscious.org/07arena0605.html

http://www.collectiveunconscious.org/07arena0701b.html

http://www.collectiveunconscious.org/07arena0703c.html

hypnotoad · « **Reply #46 on:** January 10, 2009, 08:44:57 PM »

Quote from: Belexes on January 09, 2009, 09:26:36 AM

The samples were:

1. AT853
2. AT943
3. CA-14

Good analysis by Brian and I would think either the 853's or the CA-14's are very acceptable and comparable. Oh those 943's I didn't like what I heard from them to my ears.

If someone was just entering the market and interchangable caps wasn't an issue, CA-14's would be a good pick. Need caps? 853's without question. Anyone with the slim 943 bodies could get the adapters and 853 caps, would be a nice upgrade.

I'm really surprised that #2 (943's) sound was so far lower than the other two. That's what threw me off when I listened the first time. When I've taped with the 853/943 mic caps back to back I've never had my 943s give off sound so much more down the scale.

In fact, I taped a two night show awhile back using the 853s for the first night, and then the 943s for the second night. I ended up liking my first night tape better, as it had some deeper lows/bass on it. Night #2 came out great too, but not enough on the deep in for my liking.

Church-Audio · « **Reply #47 on:** January 11, 2009, 12:20:19 PM »

One thing we all have to remember generally speaking the smaller the diaphragm the less bass a mic usually will have this rule especially applies to Cardioid mics.

taperwheeler · « **Reply #48 on:** January 11, 2009, 07:17:14 PM »

So I checked and my sp-cmc-8 mics have the at933 bodies with the adapters and the 853 card caps. Out of curiosity, would anyone have any input as to a comparison b/w the 853 and 943 omni's?

Belexes · « **Reply #49 on:** January 11, 2009, 07:26:44 PM »

^I don't have the 853 omnis, otherwise I could do the comparison.

Sunday Driver · « **Reply #50 on:** January 11, 2009, 07:49:28 PM »

Quote from: Church-Audio on January 10, 2009, 07:23:03 PM

Chances are the phantom adaptor you will use will have a bass roll off on it.

I've never seen an Audio Technica phantom power module that had bass roll off and couldn't be turned off with a switch. Maybe that's a new product by Audio Technica.

The Nady CBM-40T has no bass roll off and is even cheaper. In fact, sometimes I get too much bass to my liking with mine.

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #51 on:** January 11, 2009, 07:59:57 PM »

I doubt the nady is better than the AT phantom adapter. I have read the AT's use really nice tranformers in those adapters....

Sunday Driver · « **Reply #52 on:** January 11, 2009, 08:06:13 PM »

Quote from: Javier Cinakowski on January 11, 2009, 07:59:57 PM

I doubt the nady is better than the AT phantom adapter. I have read the AT's use really nice tranformers in those adapters....

Their AT8531 "box" module is a POS- I'd be the first to admit that. The transformer inside looks similar to the ones you can get from digikey for about $2. When you use them on batter power, it changes the sound- the signal is more noisy and "flatter".

nameloc01 · « **Reply #53 on:** January 11, 2009, 08:24:07 PM »

I have the 8532 phantom power modules/adaptors and the Nady cbm40s(used with a ps2). While the AT boxes do give you about 145 db of spl handling ability,yes..that much, they do not sound *nearly* as good as the Nadys/Denecke ,those giving you about 138db to work with. They do have a R/O, and it is switchable.
Like described above, they sound *extremely* flat.

nameloc01 · « **Reply #54 on:** January 11, 2009, 08:28:43 PM »

My point was that the Nadys sound a 1000% better.

Church-Audio · « **Reply #55 on:** January 11, 2009, 09:30:48 PM »

Quote from: Sunday Driver on January 11, 2009, 07:49:28 PM

Quote from: Church-Audio on January 10, 2009, 07:23:03 PM
Chances are the phantom adaptor you will use will have a bass roll off on it.

I've never seen an Audio Technica phantom power module that had bass roll off and couldn't be turned off with a switch. Maybe that's a new product by Audio Technica.
The Nady CBM-40T has no bass roll off and is even cheaper. In fact, sometimes I get too much bass to my liking with mine.

I would be willing to test a Nady vs an AT module if someone wants to send me them.

Chris

nameloc01 · « **Reply #56 on:** January 11, 2009, 09:38:50 PM »

I'm half tempted to just have you rebuild both boxes. They sound like ass as is, but the casings are sweet as hell.

69mako · « **Reply #57 on:** January 11, 2009, 11:27:27 PM »

Belexes,
Thanks for the comp. It's good to hear the sound of mics side-by-side.

Mako

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #58 on:** January 12, 2009, 08:09:56 AM »

oh, were talking about the AT phantom/bat boxes than run on battery too? I was thinking of the barrel shaped phantom adapters...

nameloc01 · « **Reply #59 on:** January 12, 2009, 09:18:39 AM »

I don't know about the other type, I can only comment on the boxes, 8532s ( which will also serve as adaptors to an outside power source if need be). Crapola.

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #60 on:** January 12, 2009, 11:35:20 AM »

That sucks, I almost bought a pair of those when Sound Pro's first put them on sale....

nameloc01 · « **Reply #61 on:** January 12, 2009, 11:43:09 AM »

That's the only reason I bought them...they got marked down from like $180.00 each to $55.00 each.

sunjan · « **Reply #62 on:** January 13, 2009, 04:59:41 PM »

Am I the only one getting confused when reading the last posts?

My understanding until now was that the AT "flat boxes" (AT8531/8532, called "PHANTOM POWER/BATTERY BELT PACK" on the SoundPro site) are lousy.

But the barrel shaped AT8533/8538 ("PHANTOM POWER ADAPTER") are supposed to be just as good as any third party phantom adapters - Samsom PM6, Nady-CBM-40T or the others listed here: http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/category/560

nameloc01 · « **Reply #63 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:52:57 PM »

I was referring to the 8532 boxes/belt packs/phantom power modules (they can also be used as an adaptor to an outside phantom source,I have not used them this way yet) ...yes, those specific boxes sound like *crap*. I don't own,nor ever have used the in-line adaptors.
I did say the Nadys sound MUCH,MUCH,MUCH better.
Someone else (Mr.Driver?) have the in-line style? I'm kinda curious about them myself.

mpmks · « **Reply #64 on:** January 13, 2009, 08:04:17 PM »

Quote from: sunjan on January 13, 2009, 04:59:41 PM

Am I the only one getting confused when reading the last posts?

My understanding until now was that the AT "flat boxes" (AT8531/8532, called "PHANTOM POWER/BATTERY BELT PACK" on the SoundPro site) are lousy.

But the barrel shaped AT8533/8538 ("PHANTOM POWER ADAPTER") are supposed to be just as good as any third party phantom adapters - Samsom PM6, Nady-CBM-40T or the others listed here: http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/category/560

i use my at853 > at8531 > r09 with good results
never a quality issue
but i have seen numerous posts when discussing teh at853 mics that end up
knocking the at8531 battery packs, i have never agreed with any of them based
upon my own results

Sunday Driver · « **Reply #65 on:** January 13, 2009, 11:23:41 PM »

Quote from: nameloc01 on January 13, 2009, 06:52:57 PM

Someone else (Mr.Driver?) have the in-line style? I'm kinda curious about them myself.

No, I use the Nady CBM-40T too. There's a picture over at thetradersden.org And in fact, I have no problem with the results I'm getting with them. The tapes sound crisp and clean. The only thing I really need is a preamp, as the PS-2 doesn't cut it when going line in on my Edirol for quieter stuff (I max out typically at -12db). No surprise there though.