Topic: Church Audio cafs vs CA-11 omnis?

[andyle]

Hi all-- my first post on this forum... lots of knowledge here-- I'm a noob really.
Hoping you can help..

I currently have a small home studio with a Allen and Heath mixer, a Motu Traveler and a CAD M179, Avantone Ck-7, AKG C1000, Heil PR-40 and EV vocal mic. I have a Sony PCM-D50 I'm using for field recording.
I'm primarily using this kit to record myself and friends playing acoustic / semi acoustic music  and also out and about recording acoustic shows and  local bands. 

I'm looking to augment this with an ommi capability with jecklin disk or dummy head for room ambiance when tracking in the studio and also with my D50 when out and about.. I'm not stealth taping nor looking to record extremely loud stacks.. mostly acoustic or small venue PA.

I'm currently considering either
a)  CA-C11s with 9100 preamp
b)  CA-CAFs with 9100 preamp
c)   Naiant   X-W pair with Littlebox

Which would you folks recommend? Is there a significant difference in quality in these options? Are there better options in this price bracket I should consider?

Many thanks for any help you can give me.

[fmaderjr]

I love both the littlebox and the ST-9100, but obviously the ST-9100 would be easier to carry when "out and about". The littlebox has at least 12 dB more gain and many more options, but you can't put it in your pocket.

I think the CA-11 mics sound great, but the CAF's are supposed to be better. I never tried them because I have DPA 4060's.

I know nothing about Naiant mics and not many people here have posted about using them, but the littlebox is an incredible product.

[andyle]

Many thanks folks.

 

I love both the littlebox and the ST-9100, but obviously the ST-9100 would be easier to carry when "out and about". The littlebox has at least 12 dB more gain and many more options, but you can't put it in your pocket.

I think the CA-11 mics sound great, but the CAF's are supposed to be better. I never tried them because I have DPA 4060's.

I know nothing about Naiant mics and not many people here have posted about using them, but the littlebox is an incredible product.

Thanks for that- the portability is less of an issue for me.. like the fact that (I believe the littlebox) will power standard condensors not just the small capsule mics

[andyle]

The X-W wasn't designed for use on a Jecklin; it too was designed to enhance stereo reproduction, but by a different method.  The X-W's disc enhances the directional response quite a bit, about the same as a Jecklin (although the Jecklin will be effective at somewhat lower frequencies).  But with the X-W, you'll get HF rejection at both sides (and above/below), that is not true of traditional omnis and Jecklin, where the HF only gets attenuated when incident from the baffle side.  So I would consider such use experimental.

The X-M is well suited for a traditional Jecklin disc arrangement.

Many thanks for clarifying.. I had not appreciated that the X-W has  freq specific off axis rejection  and so if making a stereo recording you would typically use it in as spaced pair (or array) without a baffle..

If I were recording say acoustic or semi acoustic instruments in my home studio would I be better off with a pair of X-M and a jecklin disk (which I have) or a pair of X-W on their own would you say?

I notice that the X-W have a better s/n and although they won't handle as loud a source that should not be much of a factor in my case. Would there be any other differences to consider like mono-compatibility, holes in the sound field or fidelity of the recording ?

And am I correct that the X-M and X-W will power straight off a desk with 48v over a standard balanced connection?
Many thanks for your advice