Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: bonghitwillie on February 21, 2014, 11:35:50 PM
-
freq response? how compare to dpa 406x for sensitivity? will they handle high SPL? how to power? what voltage do they need? church now has a website, but only pix and prices with no info. thank you in advance for any info.
-
I've used these over a few years. Not sure about the exact specs or your comparison question, but...
All church mics can handle high SPLs with a preamp. They can be powered any way you like that involves no more than 9V. This may actually be 12V, there's a thread where Chris addressed this at some point. I personally use a CA-UBB and the STC-9200 pre. I would recommend the pre over the UBB but either will do.
-
freq response? how compare to dpa 406x for sensitivity? will they handle high SPL? how to power? what voltage do they need? church now has a website, but only pix and prices with no info. thank you in advance for any info.
My experience was that their high SPL handling was inferior to the 4061s. At least one show I recorded came out very distorted. This is not the case AFAIK with other Church mics. They power off a 9V BB like his other mics.
Others use them more often. My bet would be the SPL handling specs of his other mics are superior to these.
-
I've used them with a battery box into a M10 stood 10 ft from a stack at a few pretty loud shows (Eg a Joy Formidable, Esben and the Witch) and not noticed any appreciable distortion. So they are pretty good at withstanding loudish shows, but these weren't mega loud shows.
-
I'd also say that the 4061's have a higher SPL rating although I've use the CAFS for a pretty loud and boomy bass-driven DJ set and that recording still shines to this day. I also used them for a bass-heavy '80s act where I was standing up at the front near the subs and that recording DID NOT distort (although it needed to be EQ'd to hell and back before it was listening) and this was with my body rattling the whole time. :)
If you're not worried about size, but more sound, look at CA-11 (series II) omnis that Chris has. They're decent sounding -- not quite as good as the 406x's -- but for about 1/6-1/7th the price but they are considerably larger. If your heart is set on DPA's for the size, go with the DPA's.
-
freq response? how compare to dpa 406x for sensitivity? will they handle high SPL? how to power? what voltage do they need? church now has a website, but only pix and prices with no info. thank you in advance for any info.
My experience was that their high SPL handling was inferior to the 4061s. At least one show I recorded came out very distorted. This is not the case AFAIK with other Church mics. They power off a 9V BB like his other mics.
Others use them more often. My bet would be the SPL handling specs of his other mics are superior to these.
The cafs actually are the same exact performance as all of my other mics.. I dont know why you had distortion. Could be an input overload? These mics are much hotter than my regular mics. By atleast 10 db.
-
I have used both pairs of mics and I actually prefer the sound of the cafs vs the DPA. The DPA recordings always required some EQ to the low end. The cafs sound great to my ears and require no EQ in post.
I recently taped Queens of the Stone age from the front row. My set up was cafs->SP battery box->dr2d(mic in). I set my mic in level @68 and recording came out great.No distortion. Smaller than the DPA. No problems >:D from the front row. The only thing that sucked was the fanboy that was standing behind me.
-
The only thing that sucked was the fanboy that was standing behind me.
QFT. No mics are gonna save you from one of those. EVER.
-
I tried a loaner pair of CAFS a few years ago, and I don't know if their guts have changed, but the ones I tried back then had very weak bass.
I don't remember where the lows started to cut out--80Hz? 100 Hz?
I was disappointed because their grain-of-rice size is just amazing. If they now have better bass response, I'd strongly consider them.
-
I use them with a Sound Pro battery box and love them. The only slight downside is having to use Mic In on my M10 as this combo barely registers using Line In.
-
I tried a loaner pair of CAFS a few years ago, and I don't know if their guts have changed, but the ones I tried back then had very weak bass.
I don't remember where the lows started to cut out--80Hz? 100 Hz?
I was disappointed because their grain-of-rice size is just amazing. If they now have better bass response, I'd strongly consider them.
Don't know about that... I ran them at a show with SUPER HEAVY BASS and had to roll off TONNES. How were you powering them?
-
CAFS--9vBB--Sony PCM-M10 Line-in.
I was actually comparing them to another pair of mics at an opening act I didn't care about, switching mic pairs from song to song. The CAFS sounded tinny to me, and I remember looking afterward at specs that confirmed the bass roll-off. I have a vague memory that the roll-off was under 100 Hz, which is a big loss for music.
But as I said, this was years ago and the capsules may have changed. I can't find CAFS specs now.
-
As far as I know it is a gentle roll-off, so the information is still there, albeit at a lower level. A little boost in editing will help. I use mine mainly for acoustic, where the roll-off actually helps a great deal. Used them last night - fiddle/guitar/pipes/whistles. There was a lot of unnecessary bass in the PA and the CAFS captured it pretty faithfully. I had to reduce it. Horses for courses.