Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: obaaron on September 30, 2012, 09:39:38 PM
-
Dumb question....I am rather green with this new hobby of mine and am hoping some other Blueline users can shed some light as to when to use the 10db pad on my mics? From what I understand it is for very high SPL scenarios does that apply to live concert taping, i.e Jambands, etc. I ran mine last night with my UA-5 and got good, but not great results and was not using the pad. My CA-14 > 9200 rig from the same stand sounds a lot better to my ears than the ck91>actives >UA5 pull. When is it a good idea to use the pad?
Aaron
-
Dumb question....I am rather green with this new hobby of mine and am hoping some other Blueline users can shed some light as to when to use the 10db pad on my mics? From what I understand it is for very high SPL scenarios does that apply to live concert taping, i.e Jambands, etc. I ran mine last night with my UA-5 and got good, but not great results and was not using the pad. My CA-14 > 9200 rig from the same stand sounds a lot better to my ears than the ck91>actives >UA5 pull. When is it a good idea to use the pad?
Aaron
The pads shouldn't change the sound, just reduce the signal so things don't overload. Sounds like your CAs were the better choice for location etc. The 9200 is pretty transparent, but I can't comment on the UA-5, but there's probably a sound difference.
-
Does the CA-14 pull sound "better" because it has less bass and/or is "clearer" or because the AKGs are distorted?
The AKGs will have a flatter response than the CAs, and will pick up a lot more of the lower frequencies - including the troublesome frequencies that make recordings sound "boomy". But they are also giving you a lot more (probably) than the -14s are capable of.
Much like people say Schoeps and DPAs are "boomy", any fuller-ranged mic will, without judicious use of EQ, sound worse, because it is not designed or intended to roll off a lot of low frequencies.
Some more impressions about what you liked/didn't like about the two recordings would give a better sense of how to answer your question. But unless the AKGs are distorted -which they should not be- the -10dB pad won't make much difference. That said, I prefer to pad at the pre stage.
-
Does the CA-14 pull sound "better" because it has less bass and/or is "clearer" or because the AKGs are distorted?
The AKGs will have a flatter response than the CAs, and will pick up a lot more of the lower frequencies - including the troublesome frequencies that make recordings sound "boomy". But they are also giving you a lot more (probably) than the -14s are capable of.
Much like people say Schoeps and DPAs are "boomy", any fuller-ranged mic will, without judicious use of EQ, sound worse, because it is not designed or intended to roll off a lot of low frequencies.
Some more impressions about what you liked/didn't like about the two recordings would give a better sense of how to answer your question. But unless the AKGs are distorted -which they should not be- the -10dB pad won't make much difference. That said, I prefer to pad at the pre stage.
Yes, the CA's are VERY clear and upfront sounding, while the AKG's are not nearly as clear on the high end and sounds a little distant (compared to the CA's). Don't get me wrong the AKG source sounds good just not as "clear" or "defined" as the CA's. I will be posting them both to etree in the next few days for comparison. I am going to run on my home stereo to see how it differs from the headphones.
-
What mod does the ua5 have?
Which recorder where you using with which mics/pre too?
IMO the zoom isn't anywhere near as good sounding as the Sony
Plus using the ua5 yo have the a > d > a conversion which isn't he best
-
When I used Bluelines I never used the pad!! I also ran them with a Sound devices MP-2 which sends a very hot signal. I never liked the CK91's indoors I would suggest running the 93's for indoor shows and you'll get better results.
-
Does the CA-14 pull sound "better" because it has less bass and/or is "clearer" or because the AKGs are distorted?
The AKGs will have a flatter response than the CAs, and will pick up a lot more of the lower frequencies - including the troublesome frequencies that make recordings sound "boomy". But they are also giving you a lot more (probably) than the -14s are capable of.
Much like people say Schoeps and DPAs are "boomy", any fuller-ranged mic will, without judicious use of EQ, sound worse, because it is not designed or intended to roll off a lot of low frequencies.
Some more impressions about what you liked/didn't like about the two recordings would give a better sense of how to answer your question. But unless the AKGs are distorted -which they should not be- the -10dB pad won't make much difference. That said, I prefer to pad at the pre stage.
Yes, the CA's are VERY clear and upfront sounding, while the AKG's are not nearly as clear on the high end and sounds a little distant (compared to the CA's). Don't get me wrong the AKG source sounds good just not as "clear" or "defined" as the CA's. I will be posting them both to etree in the next few days for comparison. I am going to run on my home stereo to see how it differs from the headphones.
That's about what I thought. A lot of it has to do with (a) your playback system and (b) your ability/willingness to use EQ. I know there are people who just don't like the 91s; I used to have them and liked 'em just fine myself. They aren't a super-detailed mic, but IMHO they are better than CA-14s (and the price reflects that). None of these premium mic systems were designed to record PA systems; the CA-14s more or less were, and they also have smaller diaphragms and generally tend to pick up less low frequency information.
When things sound "clear" in the context of recording PA system it is not usually because of what's there, but what is not there. Try taking the AKG recording and running a parametric EQ on it, ideally one that lets you see what frequencies are peaking in real time (if you can get a copy of Izotope Ozone, the one it uses is excellent for this). I'd bet compared to the CA pull that the stuff at, say, 250Hz and below is peaking way above the midline, and starting at about 8000Hz, there is a big downward-sloping dropoff. If you use the parametric EQ to adjust down those low frequencies and adjust up the highs, I suspect the recording will magically become "clear" like the CA-14 pull - and it will overall possibly sound better. I don't know if Chris engineers the CA-14s to have a HF bump, but if he doesn't, then the reason they seem to have a clearer high-end is because they have much less low end.
As I mentioned, the DPA 402x and 401x series mics are the "clearest" sounding mics in the world - they record exactly what's there. But in an other-than-ideal room, I'd say most DPA recordings need a bit of EQ to get out some of the unwanted information. It's not because the mics are flawed - it's because they are excellent.
-
I've used the Blueline attenuators to feed my MixPre-D at loud shows since SD has designed this unit for unity without including pads or trims. It basically all depends on what you are recording and what you're feeding them into. Contrary to [jmbell] I have no issue with CK91's indoors running them in an ORTF configuration. A blanket comment claiming better results with CK93's is a purely subjective and generic statement, results will depend on the specific details. Don't be afraid to experiment and find out what works best for you.
-
Does the CA-14 pull sound "better" because it has less bass and/or is "clearer" or because the AKGs are distorted?
The AKGs will have a flatter response than the CAs, and will pick up a lot more of the lower frequencies - including the troublesome frequencies that make recordings sound "boomy". But they are also giving you a lot more (probably) than the -14s are capable of.
Much like people say Schoeps and DPAs are "boomy", any fuller-ranged mic will, without judicious use of EQ, sound worse, because it is not designed or intended to roll off a lot of low frequencies.
Some more impressions about what you liked/didn't like about the two recordings would give a better sense of how to answer your question. But unless the AKGs are distorted -which they should not be- the -10dB pad won't make much difference. That said, I prefer to pad at the pre stage.
Yes, the CA's are VERY clear and upfront sounding, while the AKG's are not nearly as clear on the high end and sounds a little distant (compared to the CA's). Don't get me wrong the AKG source sounds good just not as "clear" or "defined" as the CA's. I will be posting them both to etree in the next few days for comparison. I am going to run on my home stereo to see how it differs from the headphones.
That's about what I thought. A lot of it has to do with (a) your playback system and (b) your ability/willingness to use EQ. I know there are people who just don't like the 91s; I used to have them and liked 'em just fine myself. They aren't a super-detailed mic, but IMHO they are better than CA-14s (and the price reflects that). None of these premium mic systems were designed to record PA systems; the CA-14s more or less were, and they also have smaller diaphragms and generally tend to pick up less low frequency information.
When things sound "clear" in the context of recording PA system it is not usually because of what's there, but what is not there. Try taking the AKG recording and running a parametric EQ on it, ideally one that lets you see what frequencies are peaking in real time (if you can get a copy of Izotope Ozone, the one it uses is excellent for this). I'd bet compared to the CA pull that the stuff at, say, 250Hz and below is peaking way above the midline, and starting at about 8000Hz, there is a big downward-sloping dropoff. If you use the parametric EQ to adjust down those low frequencies and adjust up the highs, I suspect the recording will magically become "clear" like the CA-14 pull - and it will overall possibly sound better. I don't know if Chris engineers the CA-14s to have a HF bump, but if he doesn't, then the reason they seem to have a clearer high-end is because they have much less low end.
As I mentioned, the DPA 402x and 401x series mics are the "clearest" sounding mics in the world - they record exactly what's there. But in an other-than-ideal room, I'd say most DPA recordings need a bit of EQ to get out some of the unwanted information. It's not because the mics are flawed - it's because they are excellent.
Interesting. I guess the next step is to learn post precessing techniques to clean these up. I have Soundforge 9.0 which does have a Parametric EQ I'll try playing around with it.
-
Wow. What a difference! Boosted the highs and made an adjustment to the low end sounds much better! Im sure it could be better in more trained hands but its sounds great now.
Thanks for the lesson acidjack and everyone for the feedback!
-
Wow. What a difference! Boosted the highs and made an adjustment to the low end sounds much better! Im sure it could be better in more trained hands but its sounds great now.
Thanks for the lesson acidjack and everyone for the feedback!
Sure thing - glad that helped!
Lots of great recordings can be made with lots of kinds of mics at all price levels - don't get me wrong. But when, as in your case, someone owns some nice mics, it's certainly worth it to spend some time getting the best out of them!
-
In general, don't use a pad unless you have to. If you pad the mics by 10db, then crank the gain on the preamp by an extra 10db, you reduce your signal to noise ratio by some amount (I'm not sure it's a straight 10db, but it's some). It shouldn't change or improve the flavor, so don't do it unless you need it.
The case where it's useful/necessary is this... when the output of the mics is running a hot for your preamp/recorder. For instance, running hot mics into a PS2/AD20 combo. At a loud show I had the gains turned all the way down, and it was still clipping. Flip the pad switches, now I'm not afraid of clipping, and I can dial in the gain a little.
I've run UA-5's quite a bit and generally I had the gain cranked up pretty well, the gain knobs around 2 or 3 o'clock. With a pad I'd probably have to crank the gain to max, which is probably not a sonic improvement.
-
You should use the -10db pad when the SPLs are really, really high. And that is the biggest problem with those microphones, IMHO. Which concerts put out sound of that volume that will affect the ability of the microphones to handle such high SPLs? When listening to loud rock concerts, I don't have the ability to judge whether a particular act plays so loudly that they will overload the microphones.
It's a trade-off. Applying the -10db filter can reduce the quality of the recording, but if you don't apply it, you can have a brickwalled recording because the microphone capsules can't handle SPLs above a certain volume. When you place your microphones on a stand 12 feet in the air, it's hard to apply these adjustments to the amplifier bodies on the fly during a show. The only way to really address this problem is to purchase microphones that can handle higher SPLs without the pad. It's one of the main reasons why I eventually sold my Bluelines. They sounded great, but could not handle the high SPLs of some of the shows that I was taping (Oysterhead and the Black Crowes, for example) with the pad off, and I was not about to lower my stand in the middle of a show to apply the pad.
Congratulations on the microphones, however. I really liked the Bluelines a lot. Some tips, as others have said, are to use the ck93 capsules for indoor shows and the ck91 caps for outdoor shows or indoor shows in really nice-sounding places. No, they aren't the most revealing mics in the world, but this can actually work in your favor when taping shows in poor-sounding environments. Also, they're small and have a bunch of capsule options so that's always good.
-
You should use the -10db pad when the SPLs are really, really high.
When you place your microphones on a stand 12 feet in the air, it's hard to apply these adjustments to the amplifier bodies on the fly during a show.
This is another reason the active cables for bluelines are great to have because the bodies are where you can access them even on 12 ft stand. Now that is if you can get your hands on a pair of them since they've been discontinued. The bluelines are underrated mics but nice mics just the same (imho). The ck93 hypers would be good for PAS but it's better to use the ck91's for traditional stereo cardiod configurations like ORTF.
-
The ck93 hypers would be good for PAS but it's better to use the ck91's for traditional stereo cardiod configurations like ORTF.
I never use the PAS method; I think that stereo configurations give better results. I almost always configured the ck93 capsules to DINa. I really didn't use the ck91 capsules too much but when I did, I would use ORTF or sometimes XY if I was in a bad room.
-
Info noted....thanks all! Looking forward to next weekend and the Joshua Tree Festival so I can test all kinds of different configs