Naiant Tinyhead vs. CA-Ugly (new samples)

[bryonsos]

So when do we find out which is which?

I'm going to open tape UM tonight and post some new samples. I'll do the reveal a couple days later.

Is there an option (aka splitting the mics' signal into 2 recorders or a 4 channel recorder) to record the exact same portions of songs simultaneously in order to make the comparison, instead of unplugging one amp and plugging the other one a couple of seconds later? It's obviously easier & fairer to compare them that way, although I suppose (and understand) you want to avoid the hassle

I'm going to do set 1 preamp 1, set 2 preamp 2. UM's sound guy is pretty consistent, so I'm hoping that the show in its entirety will have representative parts for both. Maybe not as even of a comparison song by song, but less of a hassle.

[acidjack]

As for microphone comps, is there an ideal instrument to record or should a verse be sang A cappella style?

If one is doing a comp for purposes of comparing a particular microphone's ability to record PA systems, shouldn't the comp be of the mic doing that?

It's kind of like Bean's recent "comp" of CA-14 vs. MK41, recording the same band from the same spot on the same stand.  It shows me pretty much nothing about the capabilities of either mic, as a whole, because it's a recording of a PA system at a distance. But it's hard to say it doesn't give some solid evidence of what each microphone sounds like recording a PA system from the taper section of the audience.  Saying one mic is "better" than the other based on that would be silly, but it certainly gives you some basis to make an informed judgment about using those particular mics for that particular purpose.  Recording PA systems at a distance is what most people on this board do.

[MIQ]

I listened to song 1 with Westone 4 IEM.  Like pre #2 better.  Seemed more natural.  Pre #1 sounds like it has the HF shelved down a bit or the upper mids were scooped out.  The vocals sound better in #2.

I like the comp despite the "not perfect" set up.  Looking forward to knowing which is which.   

-MIQ

[Gutbucket]

It's kind of like Bean's recent "comp" of CA-14 vs. MK41

Link?

[cd2go]

It's kind of like Bean's recent "comp" of CA-14 vs. MK41

Link?

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=160235.0

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I created a matrix of both sample 1 sources.  I really think it combines the best aspects of each.  It really sounds A+++++++++.

[acidjack]

I created a matrix of both sample 1 sources.  I really think it combines the best aspects of each.  It really sounds A+++++++++.

[F.O.Bean]

So when do we find out which is which?

I'm going to open tape UM tonight and post some new samples. I'll do the reveal a couple days later.

Is there an option (aka splitting the mics' signal into 2 recorders or a 4 channel recorder) to record the exact same portions of songs simultaneously in order to make the comparison, instead of unplugging one amp and plugging the other one a couple of seconds later? It's obviously easier & fairer to compare them that way, although I suppose (and understand) you want to avoid the hassle

I'm going to do set 1 preamp 1, set 2 preamp 2. UM's sound guy is pretty consistent, so I'm hoping that the show in its entirety will have representative parts for both. Maybe not as even of a comparison song by song, but less of a hassle.

Doing set 1 pre 1 and set 2 pre 2 tells me nothing tho I want to hear each pre with the SAME MUSIC PASSAGE

[adrianf74]

Doing set 1 pre 1 and set 2 pre 2 tells me nothing tho I want to hear each pre with the SAME MUSIC PASSAGE

The only way to really do this fairly is to have (2) of the same mics running within an inch or two of each other on the SAME stand running to the SAME recorder with each of the "contenders" in between.  Regardless of how good a sound tech is, running at separate times tells us nothing (as Bean kindly points out).  People standing in different spots or some slight EQ / instrument change in the mix is enough to throw off any other A/B comparison.

It has to be simply the same passage at the same time.

[bryonsos]

Doing set 1 pre 1 and set 2 pre 2 tells me nothing tho I want to hear each pre with the SAME MUSIC PASSAGE

The only way to really do this fairly is to have (2) of the same mics running within an inch or two of each other on the SAME stand running to the SAME recorder with each of the "contenders" in between.  Regardless of how good a sound tech is, running at separate times tells us nothing (as Bean kindly points out).  People standing in different spots or some slight EQ / instrument change in the mix is enough to throw off any other A/B comparison.

It has to be simply the same passage at the same time.

Unfortunately I only have 1 set of B3s, and I don't know of anyone local to borrow some from. I might be able to borrow a couple sets of CA-14s though...

I intended to open tape UM last night at the Ritz in Raleigh. I forgot what a terrible steel and cement barn it is, and opted to leave the comp in the bag. As much of an omni freak as I am, even I had to concede that spread omnis would've been ruinous. Plus, I ended up taking the taper GL spot, so I didn't want to be monkeying around with things and potentially screw up the primary recording.

SCR is playing tonight, but I'm not 100% on going. Either way, I'll get another set of samples ASAP.

[Church-Audio]

So when do we find out which is which?

I'm going to open tape UM tonight and post some new samples. I'll do the reveal a couple days later.

Is there an option (aka splitting the mics' signal into 2 recorders or a 4 channel recorder) to record the exact same portions of songs simultaneously in order to make the comparison, instead of unplugging one amp and plugging the other one a couple of seconds later? It's obviously easier & fairer to compare them that way, although I suppose (and understand) you want to avoid the hassle

I'm going to do set 1 preamp 1, set 2 preamp 2. UM's sound guy is pretty consistent, so I'm hoping that the show in its entirety will have representative parts for both. Maybe not as even of a comparison song by song, but less of a hassle.

Doing set 1 pre 1 and set 2 pre 2 tells me nothing tho I want to hear each pre with the SAME MUSIC PASSAGE

Its so fucking funny that I suggest the same thing and people piss all over me lol you suggest it and it seems like a good idea. Wow makes me feel real welcome around here.

[bryonsos]

So when do we find out which is which?

I'm going to open tape UM tonight and post some new samples. I'll do the reveal a couple days later.

Is there an option (aka splitting the mics' signal into 2 recorders or a 4 channel recorder) to record the exact same portions of songs simultaneously in order to make the comparison, instead of unplugging one amp and plugging the other one a couple of seconds later? It's obviously easier & fairer to compare them that way, although I suppose (and understand) you want to avoid the hassle

I'm going to do set 1 preamp 1, set 2 preamp 2. UM's sound guy is pretty consistent, so I'm hoping that the show in its entirety will have representative parts for both. Maybe not as even of a comparison song by song, but less of a hassle.

Doing set 1 pre 1 and set 2 pre 2 tells me nothing tho I want to hear each pre with the SAME MUSIC PASSAGE

Its so fucking funny that I suggest the same thing and people piss all over me lol you suggest it and it seems like a good idea. Wow makes me feel real welcome around here.

It's a great idea, and ideally that's exactly what I would be doing. Unfortunately I only have 1 set of B3s. Like I said, I might be able to get my hands on 2 sets of CA-14s, which would be interesting as I imagine cards would have a different flavor than omnis.

[acidjack]

Its so fucking funny that I suggest the same thing and people piss all over me lol you suggest it and it seems like a good idea. Wow makes me feel real welcome around here.

Who was "pissing all over you"?  I think the only point, generally, about people coming in and saying "this is an invalid comp" is that it's kind of a BS not-helpful comment. Bryon said exactly how he did the "comp" here. He didn't say he used the world's most scientific methods. He's just trying to help out by offering up what he did.  Maybe it's useful, maybe it isn't. He's not an idiot - he and everyone else knows that more controlled variables would make it better.  I completely agree with you that this is not a scientifically accurate, GS-style comp. I don't think it was represented as such.

Most people don't bother to post any comps at all. They just run around saying this or that gear is awesome, usually with the only reasoning behind the comment being that it happens to be what gear the person owns. I for one would rather hear imperfect comps than more of that.

[bryonsos]

"He's not an idiot -" : Hang on there, let's not get carried away 

[Marshall7]

...this or that gear is awesome, usually with the only reasoning behind the comment being that it happens to be what gear the person owns.

  Classic