Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: RoganSarine on January 23, 2012, 03:36:21 PM
-
Do you have any tips for reducing muddiness?
I generally record rock shows, use anXY ORTF Mic Setup, keep the mics about 15 cm apart, boom the mic above everyones head, always use line-in and try to get as close to the equilateral triangle as possible. Unfortunately, I'm still running into a drowned out vocalist more frequently than I'd like.
Sony PCM settings:
Low Mic Sensitivity
LCF Off
4dB gain, with 9200 doing the rest
9200 has HPF off
Does using preamp gain instead of the M10's gain reduce the audiowaves detail in rock shows?
It's not like the venue sounds like garbage. I use stereophonic earplugs molded to my ear that reduce the spectrum by -20dB, and it sounds fine and balanced, but the mics rarely agree with me.
Is there a way to bring out the vocalists with my setup? Or can I do it in post? Recommendations?
The reason I ask is because my 11's got me way better recordings than my 14's
I have attached the waveforms I usually get. They look brickwalled, but I dunno.
-
- Stop using XY; try DIN or try pointing the mics at the stacks. IMHO other than ideal situations, XY just sounds bad. YMMV.
- be sure your position is optimal (centered, ideally forward of the board, etc.)
- Use cards instead of omnis
- Familiarize yourself with your DAW software and learn to post-process what you don't like.
Remember, it's easier to take out something that's there than to put in something that's not. "Muddiness" is in the eye of the beholder and the playback system; a better mic will pick up a wider range of sound. The CA-14 is superior to the CA-11 in every way, but especially in the amount of bass it picks up.
If you just hear a lot of undefined, muddy bass, what are you listening on? If you are using a modest playback system, it may not take full advantage of what the mics are getting. Case in point - listen to any raw recording made with my DPA or Schoeps (or any other HQ full frequency range mic) on iPhone headphones or another weak system - it will sound pretty bad, or at least "muddy". On a quality system, it sounds amazing.
I would suggest trying some mild EQ first, but again, keeping a very light touch. What to you sounds like mud may to others sound like gold :)))
-
My muddiness definition comes from the fact that ever since I switched to this setup, I've never got well-defined vocals. I just can't figure out why.
Like, I was wondering if it was a M10 setting problem (high/low mic sensitivity toggle, HPF toggle)
I'll switch back to DIN and try that, but I'm just so confused as I keep fiddling, but it only gets worse.
Curiously, if I uploaded a sample, do you think you could get a better idea of what Im messing up on or give recommendations on how I could "save" what's there? I've been hit and miss for 6 months since I got these CA-14's when I've never had a problem with the CA-11's.
Also, I realized I meant ORTF, not XY
-
Line-in is the way to go, as you're doing.
Again, what I think you are perceiving as "buried" vocals is just a fuller frequency range being picked up. Concerts have overwhelmingly high low end. If you run mics that chop that low end off, like CA-11s, you get "clearer" vocals because the mic is in effect ignoring that low end. With a fuller-range mic, you pick up all that other stuff you weren't getting before. On a good playback system, that should be fine.
That said, I also wouldn't recommend ORTF unless you are up REALLY close. It's a great setup for certain situations - I like it when I'm maybe 15-25 ft from stage in a smallish place, or outdoors - but as you can already figure out, having your mics pointed outward at 110 degrees is going to massively increase the reflections you get off of room walls and other surfaces. Again, with a mic that is fairly accurate, that equates to what a lot of people hear as "mud".
I would again recommend pointing your mics at the stacks or something tighter, and playing around with the EQ. I am pretty much 100% confident you do not have a problem with your deck settings, at least given what you describe.
-
I usually mix on z5500's and playback the final mix on KEFs. So, I'll play with it a little more when I get home.
I'll play around with the EQ a bit, but Im not entirely sure how I would, assuming it is the full spectrum, play with it to make it more appreciable for most devices (studio headphones). Would you have any tips on that?
I'll upload a clip when I get home in a couple hours just incase this is the issue and maybe get some pointers with these CA-14's. I might try to roll off some bass frequencies when I get home, but I wouldn't want to damage the overall dynamics if it was full spec.
There's a concert in June that I'm hoping to get a good tape of and I've gotten to the point where my experimentation has been hitting walls of disappointment.
-
I usually mix on z5500's and playback the final mix on KEFs. So, I'll play with it a little more when I get home.
I'll play around with the EQ a bit, but Im not entirely sure how I would, assuming it is the full spectrum, play with it to make it more appreciable for most devices (studio headphones). Would you have any tips on that?
I'll upload a clip when I get home in a couple hours just incase this is the issue and maybe get some pointers with these CA-14's. I might try to roll off some bass frequencies when I get home, but I wouldn't want to damage the overall dynamics if it was full spec.
There's a concert in June that I'm hoping to get a good tape of and I've gotten to the point where my experimentation has been hitting walls of disappointment.
Yes! We all have different playback rigs, so what sounds muddy on yours may sound like gold on another's.
If your next "important" show isn't until June, why not practice a few times at shows you don't care as much about?
-
Yes! We all have different playback rigs, so what sounds muddy on yours may sound like gold on another's.
If your next "important" show isn't until June, why not practice a few times at shows you don't care as much about?
My main reason I don't think practicing will be the best is because I have trying to practice for 6 months. I feel like Im constantly just fighting my CA-14's unlike my CA-11's. It's gotten to the point where I feel I need some direction instead of continuing to bash my head against a wall.
So, Im wondering... here's a sample as promised:
[removed]
As you may or may not be able to see, it's very "muddy" - the vocals get constantly drowned out despite not being so in the venue. Can this track be "saved" through EQ? If so, any recommendations?
I've tried on countless tracks, but I just can't "get" it. If it's any consolidation, the wave form is also very flat and compressed, unlike before (which would, theoretically, be explained by a larger spectrum again... but how can I "fix" this so it can be listened to more pleasurably?)
-
I just listened to this with iPad -> Sony 7506 headphones, so nothing fancy. First off, this sounds pretty darn good to me! Good dynamic range, and the vocals didn't sound muddy to my ears. Two observations, there were points where it did sound a bit "saturated" at times, but I'm guessing that's the mix, not your recording. To be safe, where were your levels peaking? On my M10, I get good results in the -12 to -6 range with the deck levels set at 4.5 and the pre doing the work (like you). Also, there seems to be some phasing, were you near a vent or fan? If not, I'd blame the mix again. Secondly, are you using some sort of bass boost on your playback system? If so, turn it off and listen again. Bass boost is often a tape killer! Hope that helps!
-
I just listened to this with iPad -> Sony 7506 headphones, so nothing fancy. First off, this sounds pretty darn good to me! Good dynamic range, and the vocals didn't sound muddy to my ears. Two observations, there were points where it did sound a bit "saturated" at times, but I'm guessing that's the mix, not your recording. To be safe, where were your levels peaking? On my M10, I get good results in the -12 to -6 range with the deck levels set at 4.5 and the pre doing the work (like you). Also, there seems to be some phasing, were you near a vent or fan? If not, I'd blame the mix again. Secondly, are you using some sort of bass boost on your playback system? If so, turn it off and listen again. Bass boost is often a tape killer! Hope that helps!
I havn't done any post processing. There was no vent or fan. There was nothing blocking the mics from the speakers.
Now, my curiousity is peaked because my friend can't understand anything because it sounds like noise, I can hear the vocals... but I have to stress to understand them, and you hear it fine.
Is there anyway to keep consistency with this? I like uploading these tapes to YouTube, so if you need a very specific setup to hear, that would be unofortunate. Like, I love the instrumentals. I think they sound amazing, but I can never hear the singer with any clarity or consistency.
I guess I could try for getting a SBD vocal feed and mic with the CA-14's, but that'd run me another M10.
-
Did you by chance have the "rec level" on the M10 set to "auto" by mistake instead of "manual?" It's the switch behind the power switch. Not actually sure how that would affect it but definitely not something you want on "auto."
I agree with pretty much everything acidjack said. There's really no reason the -14s should be giving you so much trouble when it sounds like your -11s were a breeze to use. Try a narrower pattern. I used the CA14s for a year and pretty much never ran anything but DIN unless way off to the side so had them pointed at the stacks, and almost never got a recording I wasn't happy with.
Unfortunately as relatively great as they are, they're still inexpensive mics, so I have noticed that they are not incredibly detailed when listening critically. I haven't heard the -11s and can't seem to play your sample, but like acidjack pointed out you might just be getting a fuller bass from the wider spectrum the -14s pick up and since you're playback is relatively good it accentuates the lack of accuracy inexpensive mics have.
Also, especially using inexpensive mics I would definitely look into another recorder to get SBD patches if they are available to you.
If you want to compare some sources see how different (better/worse) here are some of mine with just the CA14 > 9100 I've made:
http://www.archive.org/details/RMB2010-11-06.flac16 (not too loud but probably pretty similar situation you record in)
http://www.archive.org/details/stereof2011-03-31.CA14.flac16 (same situation as above)
http://www.archive.org/details/hotclubofcowtown2010-11-30 (seated show so the crowd was very good)
http://www.archive.org/details/GPN2011-05-19.CA14.flac16 (outdoors)
http://www.archive.org/details/phunclesam2011-08-04.CA14.flac16 (onstage XY)
http://www.archive.org/details/jcm2011-08-07.CA14.flac16 (onstage XY jazz quartet, not probably too similar recording situation but I really like this recording)
-
The most obvious thing from the sample is it is hard limited to -6dB, which probably means you have the Limiter on in the M10.
The response is pretty flat with a pronounced peak at 76Hz. Reduce that a little to hear the vocals. That's where I'd start.
-
The most obvious thing from the sample is it is hard limited to -6dB, which probably means you have the Limiter on in the M10.
I didn't look at the waveform. This is almost certainly the "saturation" I heard. If you have been using the limiter, try turning it off and setting levels as I described above. With 24 bit, it's much better to have lower levels and bring things up in post.
Now, my curiousity is peaked because my friend can't understand anything because it sounds like noise, I can hear the vocals... but I have to stress to understand them, and you hear it fine.
Is there anyway to keep consistency with this?
The playback question is hard to grapple. I use headphones while I do editing, others use studio monitors etc. Whichever is used for editing, it's a safe bet that for most people who download it, they will just want mp3s or stream it on their computer (aka not high fidelity). It's then a question of figuring out what sounds good in both scenarios. When you figure that out, let me know, I could use some pointers :)
I havn't done any post processing.
When I asked about bass boost, I was asking about playback on your stereo, not post processing. Bass boost introduces "mud" IMHO, so if yours is turned on, try listening with it turned off.
-
I run CA-14 (c) > 9100 > M10 most of the time and I do use a bit of EQ in post to bring up the high frequencies. The CA-14's are great mics, but I think they need a little help in post to bring out the best in them.
-
The most obvious thing from the sample is it is hard limited to -6dB, which probably means you have the Limiter on in the M10.
The response is pretty flat with a pronounced peak at 76Hz. Reduce that a little to hear the vocals. That's where I'd start.
That's the thing - I've never recorded with a limiter since I've gotten my CA-11's. The waveform, for whatever reason with my CA-14's, just turns out flat like that - like it WAS limited. To me, the waveform looks off because of how flat it is dynamically.
I have attached an example of the wave forms I normally get. The left is zoomed out, and the right is zoomed in. I always set my average sound to -12dB, and try to make it peak at around -6dB. I also use 24Bit 96kHz wav.
Does the picture look off to what should be gotten? Every sample I see from others has vocals that cut through and sound great like I had with my CA-11's... but never with my CA-14's.
For example, this is a tape I did over a year ago with my CA-11's: [removed]
I think I might try a SBD vocal feed and see if I can mix that into the mix well.
When I asked about bass boost, I was asking about playback on your stereo, not post processing. Bass boost introduces "mud" IMHO, so if yours is turned on, try listening with it turned off.
Sorry, I meant that. There is no effects set on my computer, and I generally mix with sennheiser HD595's.
-
Just thinking (sort of) laterally for a moment - if you prefer the sound of the CA-11s, why not stick with them?
We've all got different preferences and perhaps you just prefer that particular sound.
-
Just thinking (sort of) laterally for a moment - if you prefer the sound of the CA-11s, why not stick with them?
We've all got different preferences and perhaps you just prefer that particular sound.
It actually is an odd battle of the instrumentals sound way better on the CA-14's due to the more dynamic range, but it seems like the CA-11's have better high-end cut through without all the low end frequencies.
This thread was started as a curiosity if I was doing anything wrong, which it seems I might start DIN'ing again.
As an interesting curiousity, I'm getting the track mastered to see if the information is indeed there in the mix down, but if it just needs to be heavily or lightly tweaked. I'll post the results here when all is said and done as some random food for thought. I'll also see if I can convince them to give me tips or a work flow they did since bryonsos asked.
I think it'll be interesting for everyone to hear the before and after anyway, incase this question ever arises in the future.
-
Do you have any tips for reducing muddiness?
Is there any gaffer tape on the cables?
If not, maybe try adding some.
If there already is, maybe try removing it.
-
No, that waveform you posted doesn't look even remotely correct.
It looks pretty bricked.
Something else is going on here and it's not your set-up IMO
-
No, that waveform you posted doesn't look even remotely correct.
It looks pretty bricked.
Something else is going on here and it's not your set-up IMO
Considering the venue and music, could it be that the sound tech compressed everything way too much? Granted, my wave forms have been like that since I've gotten my CA-14's, regardless of the venue.
-
I guess I should have stated that differently.
It's not HOW you set up, it seems to be your set up itself.
-
Do you have any tips for reducing muddiness?
Is there any gaffer tape on the cables?
If not, maybe try adding some.
If there already is, maybe try removing it.
LOL. That made me spill some of my late-nite tea over the keyboard and desk. No kidding.
Regarding the original topic of discussion, I have absolutely no idea of why do your vocals come out that muffled, but I'm taping my first show tomorrow with the CA-14's (at a small, 450-in-attendance thatre) and I'll be sure to share my results with you, RoganSarine. Let's hope you're eventually able to get rid of the muddiness :)
-
I guess I should have stated that differently.
It's not HOW you set up, it seems to be your set up itself.
I haven't heard the sample or examined the waveform, but I agree. Something seems awry.
-
I guess I should have stated that differently.
It's not HOW you set up, it seems to be your set up itself.
I haven't heard the sample or examined the waveform, but I agree. Something seems awry.
Any theories on what I could check would be great. Honestly, the only thing I can think of is a hardware issue, but I dunno - you don't find many rock/metal tapers to compare too.
http://www.overmined.com/downloads/DCS.wav
-
I notice frequent distortion that can be heard pretty clearly starting about 14 seconds in. It does seem there is something brickwalling, or limiting. But I don't have any experience with those mics.
-
Also, there seems to be some phasing, were you near a vent or fan? If not, I'd blame the mix again.
According to the audio technician I sent it off too, the issue he thinks is coming from inexperienced sound technicians in our city. He says, like Bryonsos suggested, "there is an issue with phasing from the original engineer; they seem out of phase with each other". So, it seems that by having sound techs who suck in my city, we're potentially getting a lot of wave cancellation/destruction with our audio.
Would there be any microphone positioning tricks to combat this, such as getting closer to the stacks?
Also, as an aside, is it better to record at 96.00 kHz or 48.00 kHz in a live setting? Is 96kHz just wasted space?
-
Yes, IMO, if recording PA systems, 96kHz is wasted space, however acoustic/acapella sets should be recorded at 96kHz, AT LEAST IMO. YMMV
I strictly stick to 24/48 since I rarely record anything thats not Amplified!
-
According to the audio technician I sent it off too, the issue he thinks is coming from inexperienced sound technicians in our city. He says, like Bryonsos suggested, "there is an issue with phasing from the original engineer; they seem out of phase with each other". So, it seems that by having sound techs who suck in my city, we're potentially getting a lot of wave cancellation/destruction with our audio.
But you said you actually DO hear the vocals clearly while you're at the shows, didn't you? Well, if vocals come up crystal clear while being there, but they turn out muddy in your recording, I think the reason is obviously a fault in your gear. If you've extensively used the M10 before without any noticeable problem, and you've also used the ST-9200 without fault... the problem might be in your CA-14's. The might be faulty or damaged in any way. Did you get them used or new?
Also, do you have the option of running two rigs (one with CA-14's and the other with CA-11's) at the same show with the same configuration (recorder, preamp, settings, mic placement)?? That'd be helpful. If vocals come up equally muffled, it's the venue/engineers fault... But if vocals come up clearer/much clearer on the CA-11's... You know.
Just a newbie's $0'02 though.
-
Do you have any tips for reducing muddiness?
Is there any gaffer tape on the cables?
If not, maybe try adding some.
If there already is, maybe try removing it.
LOL smart ass !
-
- Stop using XY; try DIN or try pointing the mics at the stacks. IMHO other than ideal situations, XY just sounds bad. YMMV.
- be sure your position is optimal (centered, ideally forward of the board, etc.)
- Use cards instead of omnis
- Familiarize yourself with your DAW software and learn to post-process what you don't like.
Remember, it's easier to take out something that's there than to put in something that's not. "Muddiness" is in the eye of the beholder and the playback system; a better mic will pick up a wider range of sound. The CA-14 is superior to the CA-11 in every way, but especially in the amount of bass it picks up.
If you just hear a lot of undefined, muddy bass, what are you listening on? If you are using a modest playback system, it may not take full advantage of what the mics are getting. Case in point - listen to any raw recording made with my DPA or Schoeps (or any other HQ full frequency range mic) on iPhone headphones or another weak system - it will sound pretty bad, or at least "muddy". On a quality system, it sounds amazing.
I would suggest trying some mild EQ first, but again, keeping a very light touch. What to you sounds like mud may to others sound like gold :)))
I agree with this post 100% stop using XY these mics sound best on ether side of a boundary pointed at the source. Period. if you dont want all that low end simply turn on the high pass filter on the mics. Placement and where you are in the venue has a bigger impact on sound than anything else. I like these on ether side of a head under a sound transparent cap.
-
Do you have any tips for reducing muddiness?
I generally record rock shows, use anXY ORTF Mic Setup, keep the mics about 15 cm apart, boom the mic above everyones head, always use line-in and try to get as close to the equilateral triangle as possible. Unfortunately, I'm still running into a drowned out vocalist more frequently than I'd like.
Sony PCM settings:
Low Mic Sensitivity
LCF Off
4dB gain, with 9200 doing the rest
9200 has HPF off
Does using preamp gain instead of the M10's gain reduce the audiowaves detail in rock shows?
It's not like the venue sounds like garbage. I use stereophonic earplugs molded to my ear that reduce the spectrum by -20dB, and it sounds fine and balanced, but the mics rarely agree with me.
Is there a way to bring out the vocalists with my setup? Or can I do it in post? Recommendations?
The reason I ask is because my 11's got me way better recordings than my 14's
I have attached the waveforms I usually get. They look brickwalled, but I dunno.
Are you going mic in or line in on the recorder?
-
Also, as an aside, is it better to record at 96.00 kHz or 48.00 kHz in a live setting? Is 96kHz just wasted space?
If don't have good dithering plugins for downsampling 48 > 44.1, use 24/44 on the recording.
when i used my ca14 and the music i recorded i had to add a bit highshelf filter to bring out the highs a bit. lets see how the Ca11 wil handle that, i think i don't have to do this with them.
And before that question appears: use no bass rolloff on the preamp / bbox when using the ca14s. better do that in post if desired.
-
If don't have good dithering plugins for downsampling 48 > 44.1, use 24/44 on the recording.
Dithering is necessary for the 24 to 16 bit conversion, but is not a part of the downsampling process (that I know of).
Sometimes you can't hear phasing when in the room because our brains compensate for stuff like that. I did compare peaks in the left and right channels to check for outright cable phasing issues and did not see any.
What about the distortion on the loud peaks? I heard that throughout the recording. Could you hear that in the venue? If so, it would have been a very crunchy PA.
It might be useful for you to set your rig up exactly as you ran it and yell into the mics from very close (3") to see whether you can get your levels to clip as they should, with no brick wall, and no distortion.
-
Do you have any tips for reducing muddiness?
I generally record rock shows, use anXY ORTF Mic Setup, keep the mics about 15 cm apart, boom the mic above everyones head, always use line-in and try to get as close to the equilateral triangle as possible. Unfortunately, I'm still running into a drowned out vocalist more frequently than I'd like.
Sony PCM settings:
Low Mic Sensitivity
LCF Off
4dB gain, with 9200 doing the rest
9200 has HPF off
Does using preamp gain instead of the M10's gain reduce the audiowaves detail in rock shows?
It's not like the venue sounds like garbage. I use stereophonic earplugs molded to my ear that reduce the spectrum by -20dB, and it sounds fine and balanced, but the mics rarely agree with me.
Is there a way to bring out the vocalists with my setup? Or can I do it in post? Recommendations?
The reason I ask is because my 11's got me way better recordings than my 14's
I have attached the waveforms I usually get. They look brickwalled, but I dunno.
Are you going mic in or line in on the recorder?
I always use line in.
What do you mean by "I like these on ether side of a head under a sound transparent cap"?
-
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
-
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
-
I've been using my CA-14 (omni) with CA-bbox and m10 for a year and I like them very much (thanks, Chris!). Never needed EQ or anything. I use bass roll-off - off and limiter - on. On my sennheiser HD215 or CX300 headphones it sounds exactly as I heard it live.
Here's one my recordings:
http://www.archive.org/details/nma2011-07-29.ca14.flac16
I was sitting very far from stage, but the sound IMHO isn't muddy even with onmi mics.
Just my own little experience...
-
I've been using my CA-14 (omni) with CA-bbox and m10 for a year and I like them very much (thanks, Chris!). Never needed EQ or anything. I use bass roll-off - off and limiter - on. On my sennheiser HD215 or CX300 headphones it sounds exactly as I heard it live.
Here's one my recordings:
http://www.archive.org/details/nma2011-07-29.ca14.flac16
I was sitting very far from stage, but the sound IMHO isn't muddy even with onmi mics.
Just my own little experience...
NMAS in Moscow. Very cool.
-
Is it possible you need a new 9V battery in the preamp?
-
I've been using my CA-14 (omni) with CA-bbox and m10 for a year and I like them very much (thanks, Chris!). Never needed EQ or anything. I use bass roll-off - off and limiter - on. On my sennheiser HD215 or CX300 headphones it sounds exactly as I heard it live.
Here's one my recordings:
http://www.archive.org/details/nma2011-07-29.ca14.flac16
I was sitting very far from stage, but the sound IMHO isn't muddy even with onmi mics.
Just my own little experience...
NMAS in Moscow. Very cool.
Yeah. The show was great. Sort of a little trip to Mississippi. Pretty rare for Moscow.
-
Moscow, I thought Vanark would go far to see NMA but that's a little ridiculous!
-
I've been using my CA-14 (omni) with CA-bbox and m10 for a year and I like them very much (thanks, Chris!). Never needed EQ or anything. I use bass roll-off - off and limiter - on. On my sennheiser HD215 or CX300 headphones it sounds exactly as I heard it live.
Here's one my recordings:
http://www.archive.org/details/nma2011-07-29.ca14.flac16
I was sitting very far from stage, but the sound IMHO isn't muddy even with onmi mics.
Just my own little experience...
Nice pull. Must be a pretty good sounding venue. I'd consider not using the limiter, though, as I'm hearing some strange-sounding stuff on the deep bass notes, which I'm guessing is that limiter kicking in.
-
Moscow, I thought Vanark would go far to see NMA but that's a little ridiculous!
I've been to Mississippi to see the Allstars and to the Netherlands to see Van Morrison. ;D
-
I've been using my CA-14 (omni) with CA-bbox and m10 for a year and I like them very much (thanks, Chris!). Never needed EQ or anything. I use bass roll-off - off and limiter - on. On my sennheiser HD215 or CX300 headphones it sounds exactly as I heard it live.
Here's one my recordings:
http://www.archive.org/details/nma2011-07-29.ca14.flac16
I was sitting very far from stage, but the sound IMHO isn't muddy even with onmi mics.
Just my own little experience...
Nice pull. Must be a pretty good sounding venue. I'd consider not using the limiter, though, as I'm hearing some strange-sounding stuff on the deep bass notes, which I'm guessing is that limiter kicking in.
Yes, it is a new place, opened in 2009 (one of the best in Moscow for now). I think I'll try 24 bit and without limiter next time. I didn't know it could affect the sound so much... You must be right about limiter. Thanks for suggestion.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.