Topic: CA-14 vs CSB deathmatch

[nulldogmas]

So after several years of recording exclusively with CSBs, I got tired of audience-noise-heavy recordings at outdoor shows and room-echo-heavy recordings at venues like the Bell House, and decided I needed some decent cardioids. Since I wasn't crazy about the Core Sound cards, and everyone hear raves about Chris Church's stuff, I ordered a couple of CA-14 cards in his most recent sale.

They arrived promptly (thanks, Chris!) and I've tried them out for two shows, one a small-venue gig at Hank's Saloon featuring Sue Garner and Rick Brown's Two Mule Team and my friends Jesse Jarnow and Ariella Stok's band Sloppy Heads, the other the first of a two-night Superchunk run at the Bowery Ballroom. For each night I ran both the CA-14s (aimed at the stacks) and the binaurals (aimed straight L/R with a buffer in between), each to their own iRiver 320. At Hank's I was about 10-12 feet back of the stage, dead center; at the Bowery I was in the left balcony, maybe 20 feet back from the left speaker stack.

Here's a sample of Two Mule Team:

CSBs: http://demause.net/ts/TMT-CSB.mp3
CA-14s: http://demause.net/ts/TMT-CA.mp3
MTX: http://demause.net/ts/TMT-mtx.mp3

And here's a sample of Superchunk:

CSBs: http://demause.net/ts/Superchunk-CSB.mp3
CA-14s: http://demause.net/ts/Superchunk-CA.mp3
MTX: http://demause.net/ts/Superchunk-mtx.mp3

As you can hear, the results are just as you'd expect: The CA-14 cards are crisper and more direct, while the CSBs are warmer and have better stereo separation and room ambience. I love the sound of mixing the two, especially for the Hank's show. (For Superchunk I found that a little CA-14 went a long way, likely because of my position in the room; I'm sure it would have been different on the floor.)

As far as comparing the sound of the two mics in isolation, though, I find that I strongly prefer the CSBs. The CA-14 cards have a decent bass response, certainly compared to my old Core Sound cards, but there's still something harsh and almost tinny about the high end to my ears. It's almost like listening to a straight SBD - I like what they add to a mix, but if given the choice between listening to one of the straight CA-14 card recordings or one of the straight CSB recordings, I'd take the CSBs every time so far, room echo and crowd noise be damned.

Of course, it's possible I'm missing something I could be doing, either in mic positioning or post-processing EQ, that would make the CA-14s sound incredible on their own. Or maybe I just don't like the sound of cards (at least, not cards in my price range), in which case I'm probably going to need to start reading that "Recommend me a cheap 4-track recorder" thread more seriously.

Any thoughts/advice?

[Church-Audio]

To be very fair you cant really compare a card to an omni. If you were to use my ca-14 omni and compare it to the other mics you have you might find a very different result. My ca-14 mics need to be aimed at the sound source.

[nulldogmas]

To be very fair you cant really compare a card to an omni. If you were to use my ca-14 omni and compare it to the other mics you have you might find a very different result. My ca-14 mics need to be aimed at the sound source.

Yeah, I'm not criticizing your mics at all, Chris — they did a great job for what they were intended to do. And at worst they're going to be a great complement to my existing omnis.

I guess I'm asking a bigger question of the group: If I'm bugged by the sound I've gotten from these CA-14 cards on their lonesome, should I just resign myself to always using omnis, either by themselves or in combination? Or is there (cue that Yes "Owner of a Lonely Heart" video) ... another way?

[Church-Audio]

To be very fair you cant really compare a card to an omni. If you were to use my ca-14 omni and compare it to the other mics you have you might find a very different result. My ca-14 mics need to be aimed at the sound source.

Yeah, I'm not criticizing your mics at all, Chris — they did a great job for what they were intended to do. And at worst they're going to be a great complement to my existing omnis.

I guess I'm asking a bigger question of the group: If I'm bugged by the sound I've gotten from these CA-14 cards on their lonesome, should I just resign myself to always using omnis, either by themselves or in combination? Or is there (cue that Yes "Owner of a Lonely Heart" video) ... another way?

I did not take it as a criticism. You were asking for opinions. My mics need to be high up on your body. They need to be pointed at the source. Do not judge them from one show. Omnis are way less MORE forgiving as to placement in the room for recording. Cards need to be in the sweet spot. You might be better off with omni mics if you like more room sound. I prefer omni mics my self. I would be more than happy to take back the cards you have and swap them out for omni mics so you can try them.

[earmonger]

Chris, you of course mean that omnis are MORE forgiving.

[Church-Audio]

Chris, you of course mean that omnis are MORE forgiving.

Yes thats what I mean...  thanks for pointing that out lol lack of sleep. So many orders to build so little time

[nulldogmas]

I would be more than happy to take back the cards you have and swap them out for omni mics so you can try them.

Thanks, but I'm very happy with the CSBs for now as far as omnis. My goal was to get some cards for times when cards are preferable, and yours had an excellent rep and price.

I think I'd been hoping that they would be so excellent, in fact, that I could use them for almost all occasions and leave the omnis packed up, which clearly was an unrealistic goal. What I'm trying to figure out now is whether my best solution is to keep using the cards in tandem with the omnis (which isn't a bad solution at all sound-wise, though I do end up looking a bit like Locutus of Borg), or if and when I'd be happy with card-only recordings. I'll keep trying both out in different scenarios, but as I don't have any shows coming up the next few weeks, I'm eager to hear what others' experiences have been.

[Gutbucket]

This basically boils down to the fundamental differences between cardioids and omnis, I think.

One important variable to play around with is the angle/spacing relationship of the cardioids.  If using them on their own, you might try to get an appropriate angle between the mics which approximates a standard near-spaced cardioid microphone setup, rather than simply having them more or less parallel to each other and pointing directly at the source.  You don't want them angled so far apart that the sources are overly far off-axis, but enough to get the appropriate stereo seperation and better room ambience.  That will produce a recording which is probably less direct and upfront, but with improved stereo image and ambience, so less like a sterile SBD.  It's something of a tradeoff. 

However, if you plan to mix the omnis and cards, then doing that may not be the best stratedgy.   In that situation you can optimize each pair for it's specific contribution, perhaps mounting the cardioids as high as you can and pointing them directly at the source for the clearest direct sound, and mounting the omnis so as to optimize the low frequency width and sense of room ambience.   That strategy optimizes the two pairs in combination rather than either one on its own in isolation.

Regarless of whether your mix the two or not, before you get too deep into all that stuff, play around with eq'ing each seperately.  Careful eq goes a long way towards correcting basic sound inbalances and is one of our most powerful tools.

[SparkE!]

As Chris points out, positioning within the room really matters with cardioid mics.  From the recording positions I have had available to me, I obtained the most consistently good results with cards in the ORTF configuration (17 cm spacing and 110 degrees angular separation between mics).  The result for me has been a recording that is equally listenable on headphones or through speakers and which has much less bar chatter than what I get with omnis.

[nulldogmas]

SparkE: The Superchunk samples above were actually recorded in very close to ORTF configuration. I'll have to test more to see whether the sound coloring is any different when recording from the floor.

Gutbucket: Yeah, if I know I'm going to be mixing two sources in the future, I think I'll just point the cards at the nearest stack and let the omnis collect the stereo information. And good suggestion on the EQ — I spent some time last night staring at frequency analysis reports and futzing with the graphic EQ, and got some pretty decent results by placing a major notch in the 1-5 kHz range, peaking (valleying?) at -8 dB at 4 kHz. I still think I prefer the mix of cards and omnis by a fair bit (in this one case anyway), but if nothing else it gives me a better starting point for the mix.

[Gutbucket]

Playing around with a graphic EQ to identify frequency regions of interest and then experimenting with adjusting neighboring bands to approximate broad, smooth transitions before further tweaking small incremental specific band adjustments is worth it's weight in gold, IMO.  A graphic EQ is easier to experiment and get a feel for that I think than jumping straight to a parametric EQ.  Parametrics are great once you have a good firm working understanding of what you need and what works where and when, but it's easier to develop that knowledge and intuition with a graphic EQ.

You're on the right track.  Getting a coarse eq correction in place for each pair alone before mixing them, as opposed to simply eq'ing the resulting mix of the raw files, pays off in both easier eq-ing and also getting a more optimal level balance between the two.  You can eq the resulting mix to refine things further as necessary, and that too becomes easier if most of the basic correction is done to the individual raw pairs first. 

Often after EQing two seperate pairs in isolation to correct them on their own, the resulting subjective differences between them becomes much smaller than I suspected they would.

[Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)]

You'll find that the CSBs, being small omnis, have a really flat frequency response, both on-axis and off.

So provided that the room and the sound system are not influencing things too badly, I'd put the EQ effort into matching the cards to the omnis, rather than other way around.

[Gutbucket]

It can be very informative in learning about two different pairs of microphones to EQ one to match the other- to see how close you can get them and to see how 'eq-able' each pair is (some mics seem to have a much broader range of eq-able correction than others).  I do that when I'm comparing a new pair of mics to a pair I know well. 

However, if the goal is mixing the two, I find it easiest and most productive to simply shoot for eq-ing each pair to sound "right" on it's own to your ear as a first step (given the limitations of your playback environment), rather than trying to match one pair to the other frequency-wise. 

If you then want to go deeper into optimizing the specific EQ of each pair, consider the roll each plays in the resulting mix.   For instance, I might further EQ the cardioids to correct a problem I hear in the direct PA sound, and/or further EQ the omnis for optimizing the diffuse room sound.

[edit- just a note to clarify that I haven't listened to the samples, I'm posting this simply for helping to chart a general course]