Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Battery Boxes, Preamps, Mixers, ADCs, and Processors => Topic started by: Deanq4 on April 21, 2008, 12:37:43 AM

Title: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: Deanq4 on April 21, 2008, 12:37:43 AM
Ok, so i am looking to get my first good set-up.  I am trying to figure out the benefits of a pre-amp over a battery box.  Is it worth the extra money it will cost?  I plan on using a H120 and church audio cards.  Will the pre-amp make that much of a difference over a battery box?

Thanks
Deanq4
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: lordbelial on April 21, 2008, 01:40:34 AM
Ok, so i am looking to get my first good set-up.  I am trying to figure out the benefits of a pre-amp over a battery box.  Is it worth the extra money it will cost?  I plan on using a H120 and church audio cards.  Will the pre-amp make that much of a difference over a battery box?

Thanks
Deanq4

Quite simple.
Battery box: Power
Preamp: Power + Gain

If your recordings tend to go low in gain, then a preamp is the best choice.
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: boojum on April 21, 2008, 01:41:08 AM
A battery box merely supplies the necessary power to the electret mics.  The pre-amp does this and also amplifies the sound.  You will need a pre-amp if your recording device has no pre-amps in it.   
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: illconditioned on April 21, 2008, 01:43:40 AM
Ok, so i am looking to get my first good set-up.  I am trying to figure out the benefits of a pre-amp over a battery box.  Is it worth the extra money it will cost?  I plan on using a H120 and church audio cards.  Will the pre-amp make that much of a difference over a battery box?

Thanks
Deanq4

Recommend preamp here, since the gain in the H120 is quite poor.  Should work OK if you supply an amplified signal, though.
As far as preamps, Church Audio is pretty good and competitively priced.

Myself, I advocate using mics directly into recorder (less in signal chain, less to worry about failing), but you need a good analog stage for that.  Minidisc or Edirol R09 are great choices here, depending on the sound levels and mics used.

  Richard
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: HarpDoc on April 21, 2008, 11:59:11 PM
I have an H120, battery box that I made, CA-11 mics, and CA-9100 pre. If you're recording very loud rock, you honestly won't notice much, if any, difference. If the band is quieter, the H120 will introduce a little noise as you crank the gain and you'll have a cleaner recording with a decent pre. The CA-9100 is quite nice, but if you're poor you can get by fine with a battery box for rock & roll.
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: Will_S on April 22, 2008, 12:26:27 AM
I agree with the above.  I think people tend to lump the iRiver and JB3 together as having poor analog in performance because of some shared parts, but the final product sounds better in the iRiver IMO.

Here's an imperfect comparison (same mics, recorder switched at setbreak) between the R09 and iRiver, direct in to both (no preamp or even BB):

http://www.archive.org/details/gat2007-12-05.at853uec.flac16f
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: Deanq4 on April 22, 2008, 12:33:11 AM
thanks for the tips, will likely go with the pre-amp and CA-11's.  Luckily I'm not poor, just married :P I like the idea of the iriver so I can carry it is as an "MP3" player to the venues that don't allow them.  I should be ablet o sneak in the rest in the false bottom of my wifes purse or if have to, crotch it.

will report back when I tape a show, should be able to compare it to a cmc-8, batt box to an edirol 09.

thanks for the tips. great info here.

Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: Sunday Driver on April 22, 2008, 01:29:21 AM
I agree with the above.  I think people tend to lump the iRiver and JB3 together as having poor analog in performance because of some shared parts, but the final product sounds better in the iRiver IMO.

Here's an imperfect comparison (same mics, recorder switched at setbreak) between the R09 and iRiver, direct in to both (no preamp or even BB):

http://www.archive.org/details/gat2007-12-05.at853uec.flac16f


Wow, thanks for that comparison. Not much a difference in sound quality at all. In fact, on a blind test I could not make out any differnce in sound quality.
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: Church-Audio on April 22, 2008, 08:56:20 AM
thanks for the tips, will likely go with the pre-amp and CA-11's.  Luckily I'm not poor, just married :P I like the idea of the iriver so I can carry it is as an "MP3" player to the venues that don't allow them.  I should be ablet o sneak in the rest in the false bottom of my wifes purse or if have to, crotch it.

will report back when I tape a show, should be able to compare it to a cmc-8, batt box to an edirol 09.

thanks for the tips. great info here.



Just a friendly reminder CROTCHED GEAR = VOID warranty   :P
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: Deanq4 on April 22, 2008, 12:44:57 PM
Just a friendly reminder CROTCHED GEAR = VOID warranty   :P

lol, ok will try to remember that one.
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: boojum on April 22, 2008, 11:04:18 PM
Just a friendly reminder CROTCHED GEAR = VOID warranty   :P

lol, ok will try to remember that one.

Just another use for condoms.  We always practice safe stealthing.   8)
Title: Re: Battery box vs pre-amp
Post by: johnnyb on May 01, 2008, 01:35:39 AM
thanks for the tips, will likely go with the pre-amp and CA-11's.  Luckily I'm not poor, just married :P I like the idea of the iriver so I can carry it is as an "MP3" player to the venues that don't allow them.  I should be ablet o sneak in the rest in the false bottom of my wifes purse or if have to, crotch it.

will report back when I tape a show, should be able to compare it to a cmc-8, batt box to an edirol 09.

thanks for the tips. great info here.



Just a friendly reminder CROTCHED GEAR = VOID warranty   :P           


does that include gear stuffed in tube sock in crotch also? :'(