Some gear slut HERE and ALL the folks on recordinghacks.com said this CAD E100s was just incredible.


Finally got one, after much testing, i just ordered ANOTHER ONE.



Ive got a small pile of mics, 22 as I recall, tested many more. CAD E100S, you're the catz ass


my youtube video and review and audio sample:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlnQqAW_eog
http://www.kathodos.com/100s.wav


Made in the USA, it really IS built like a tank, sound is just stunning.

very hot mic, great side rejection. LOWEST self noise of any mic in its class.

AND in blind testing it beat the $2600 venerable Neumann U87




I also read beforehand on recordinghacks.com:

Then there was this very odd looking mic from the United States, an CAD Audio E100SE100S designed by Conneaut Audio Devices or CAD. Very few people in the room had even heard of the brand, let alone seen such a microphone. But when the day was over, several voice actors ended up ordering one. By the end of this review you’ll know why.

Its reputation had preceded itself. Prior to the shootout, this rectangular shaped CAD had beaten out the venerable Neumann U87 — regarded by many to be the ultimate voice-over microphone — in a blind test. Not bad for a mic you can buy for less than $400! [See current sale prices on the E100S. --Ed.]



Like a laser

CAD E100S Side ViewBecause of its tight pickup pattern, this is not a microphone for those who like to wobble and wiggle. If close miking is your thing, this CAD is king. Once you have found the sweet spot and you stay there, the mic will hear you loud and clear. It zooms in on your voice like a laser beam, with the accuracy and clarity of a shotgun. Although sonically different, this makes the E100S an alternative to the popular Sennheiser MKH-416, which costs more than twice as much.

Soundproofing a studio can set you back thousands of dollars. If that’s out of your range, the next best thing is to find a mic that’s not so sensitive to ambient noise. That’s another reason why this CAD makes an excellent voice-over investment. Off-axis sound spills are kept to a minimum, and yet this mic never sounds one-dimensional. Like a fine Bordeaux, it has a nice open and full body to it.

By engaging the high-pass filter, you can also minimize low frequency rumble from boilers, pumps, planes, trains and trucks. In other words, under less than ideal recording situations, the E100S can save the day.

Sometimes, outside noise is not the problem. Every microphone produces electrical noise, known as equivalent or intrinsic noise. It can be utterly annoying. As a narrator, I don’t want my softer reads to drown in microphone hiss. Of course noise reduction software can come to the rescue, but with this CAD you’re not going to need it. This is hands-down the quietest mic I have ever laid ears on.

Most supercardioids suffer from a more pronounced proximity effect, and with a wide open grille, this mic is no exception. But with a pop filter in place, this was easily remedied.
Conclusion

Like most reviewers, I do my very best to find fault with the products I’m evaluating. In that respect, this CAD gave me a hard time. There is one thing I struggle to understand, though.

In my opinion, the E100S has all the characteristics to become a voice-over’s secret weapon. Why then, is this microphone a virtual unknown in my line of work? Why do colleagues drool over Sennheisers and Neumanns, calling them “the industry standard,” while ignoring the silent quality of CAD craftsmanship from Ohio?

After reading every review ever written and testing it for months, it finally dawned upon me. The CAD E100S has one thing that’s both a strength and a weakness: this microphone is an everyman’s friend.

It can handle sounds as loud as the engine of an airplane and as soft as a woman’s whisper. It loves strings just as much as percussion. Whether it’s used to record the subtleties of Baroque music or the unrelenting power of Punk Rock, this uncompromising CAD can capture it all.

In terms of marketing, the more universal the product, the harder it is to come up with a unique selling proposition. Not everyone looking for a voice-over mic will find the label “all-purpose microphone” very appealing. Secondly, because this E100S is relatively affordable, it’s easy to equate low price with low quality. Perhaps my colleagues would take this mic more seriously if CAD would double the price.

Before that happens, I recommend you seriously consider this amazing American microphone.

After testing many makes and models, one of Holland’s most respected and experienced voice artists summarized it perfectly:

“The E100S is incredibly versatile. If I could only keep one mic in my locker, this one would be at the top of my list. I would gladly part with microphones costing more than eight thousand Euros in order to keep the CAD.”

Loving the E100S here also.

I do love my old CAD Equitek-II mic and I have heard good things about the E100S.

But as soon as I read things like 'blind shootout with a U87' and the like, I start backing out the door. It's not that I don't believe the E100S might well be better for a given task than a U87 -- but such statements seem to suggest that the party making them has a naive and limited view of the wide range of conditions and signals a given mic might have to work under.

A 'blind test' can only reveal the performance characteristics that the test signal/environment reveals. But, at least in smaller studios, mics must often be used in a variety of contexts. A single blind test with specific signal and conditions can only reveal to us the mic's performance in that context, not all the others it might be put to use in.

all of that is obvious and true.

and yet you miss the point that in VOICE OVER blind test, all conditions being equal, genuine PROS who were listening gave the WIN to the E100s




Ive played with some INSANE expensive mics that didnt impress me one bit

Does that mean they wont EXCELL where the other mic FAILS?
Obviously, ........I dont need the obvious stated. heh



I just bought a new Rolex, so its not a PRICE thing.

i have a pair of old CAD E100 mics from the 90's. great sounding mics.
i notice the grill is now curved. is there a comparison of what else changed over the years?

Yes. I saw that. And if the parameters of that test fit your circumstances, I can see why that would be all you'd need to know.

I certainly was not suggesting you needed to worry about the price.


Like I said, I like my CAD Equitek-II a lot. I've used it on a number of sessions and on a number of instruments, all of which was important to me in the period it was one of my most-used mics. I guess what I was trying to get at was that, for some, there can be so many different circumstances and use scenarios that such single parameter preference testing may be suggestive, but it may not tell one all one needs to know. For another recordist, if a given test matches his needs, then, of course, that's quite different.

good question, I hear there is a lot of diff.


but I never had my hands on one of the OLDER CADS to compare the two.

Not that the CAD is a bad mic, but I wouldn't be surprised if that 87 had sat through a few thousand voiceovers and was perhaps in need of some tlc???

I am not surprised the CAD could be that awesome. I also like the Rode more than the neumann. I have both. The is awesome, but in terms of SQ per $ is one of the worst purchases I have made, though one of my favorites at the same time :D. As for the room, I consistently pick the ragardless of vocals and room, except on vocalists that have a nasal tone. The doesn't work will with those vocalists. That Mic has also been picked over the U87 in blind tests. I had purchased it because I thought it would be a nice alternative, but did not expect it to be my most used mic. I may pick up one of these too

There are only so many ways you can make a MIC DIAPHRAGM

the rest is circuitry and a few other things

There isn't 10$ more spent on a Neuman mic diaphragm than an Audio Technica, or CAD etc etc etc.


ultimately its all about sound anyway. Ive heard plenty of $400 mics beat the ever loving piss out of $2000 mics.


Rode, bless their hearts, makes stunning shotgun mics,....... but their LDC mics SUCK!!!


Audio Technica, bless their hearts, makes STUNNING LDC,.......but their shotgun mics SUCK!!!


If blind tests confirm the CAD beat the Neumans ass, Ill stick by it.

Is the Neuman likely better overall for many other things? To be sure.



Recording hacks, and professional voice over artists however said the CAD E100s is a "secret" gem amazing and stunning-arse mic.

Turns out they're right.

Uhhhm, you left out the IMPORTANT PART


The ******** is awesome



fill in the ******

Wow, I created so much tension by leaving out the details

I mean the U87. The U87 is awesome but money to SQ ratio one of my worst purchases. Not saying I don't love it though. But I almost always pick the Rode k2 for the areas where the U87 is supposed to be best at. This is the case regardless of room, or vocalist. Other than nasal sounding singers which are rare, in areas where the K2 is not my best mic, it is usually some other type of mic I end up using. Like guitars for example always go to my Royer, and nowadays I'd even pick the e906 before the Neumann (or k2 in this instance). The Neumann however, is the best mic when I do have a nasal sounding vocalist. It colors the sound in a way that tames this.

interesting


You like the K2? I call it the SNAKE MIC, because every S comes out as SSSSSSsssssSSSSSSSS on the K2

I found another example of that here too on the K2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS18hqLV_NQ


SsssssssssssSSSSSSSS


I understand and agree with everything on the U87, I had one for a while as a loner, I both love it but it didnt impress me one bit.


It was like a GOLD ROLEX that didnt keep good time ROFL !!!!!!

Are you sure you are not thinking of the NT2A, or NT2. Those are harsh mics. It could also be that I have high quality telefunken tubes on mine. It sounds sounds like crispness moving through like soft air. The neumanns sound similarly but less crisp. The NT2's though sound like the K2 was ran through an exciter with emphasis on the upper mids hehe.

I love electro harmonix. More than half my guitar pedals are EHX. But when it comes to tubes, gotta love telefunken. Warm, and clear as hell.

they are harsh yes, but I was referring to the K2

I can't take any of this seriously.

mic in one hand, your words in the other.



Im going with the mic

You and me both and I really like my CAD.

But it's just a mic like other mics -- with particular characteristics that make it good for some stuff and less good for other stuff.

Honestly, while there are a few mics I really wouldn't mind having (in a perfect world, I'd have a lot of mics; I like mics), I've never got this whole mic A vs mic B thing. They each have their own character. Some prove widely useful. Some less so. I can see agonizing over what to buy. I can't see arguing over which is intrinsically better. Better for what?

It's like, if I may be indulged a guitar simile, what's better, a Strat or a Les Paul. Or maybe what's better, a 4x4 king cab or a Lamborghini.

Horses for courses. The right tool for the right task.

I started using the E100 on toms on a lark, uh basically the only thing left in the cabinet during a big session, and I've never looked back. Great rejection, great sounds. I love 'em...

Agreed! And I own two E100Ses.

Obviously that IS the case, thats why I have a pile of mics.


for what the CAD E100S does, I cannot find better.



Its FLAT freq. response

its #1 mic in its class in low self noise

Its got a shotgun like pattern for HIGH peripheral rejection ( thats a BIG dahmn plus).....especially if your not running in a $10,000 padded room

Its sensitive as hell

Its USA made, but BUILT like some anal Germans made it.

Its a $350 mic that comes off, in its class, as a $1000 mic.



ALL of that is why recordinghacks.com gave it what i call the "holy sh*t award"


I agree, just ordered another one.



I CANNOT SPEND $1000 MORE and even get what the $350 E100S already does

This is absolutely untrue and a disservice to unexperienced members of the forum who might read it and think it is the truth.


The PROCESS of making the capsule is where the magic is. Have you ever tried two of the same type of capsules from different manufacturers in a microphone? Because I have and can tell you there is a huge difference. Even more importantly, I had a Neumann capsule reskinned by one of the most well know places, then put in a new one straight from Neumann, made all the difference in the world. It had that classic midrange character completely missing in the reskinned one. Also in the same mic (vintage 87) I had two different tube circuits in it, which also made a huge difference.


So please for new members reading this, there is a huge difference between capsules from different manufacturers. Also, it is more than "circuitry and a few other things". From the quality of the power supply to the wire and the caps, etc etc.


Good mics can be had cheap. Amazing ones can't.

I have a 1977 U87 and an early 90s CAD Equitek E-100. Both are great mics, workhorses, and I wouldn't want to give up either.

You didnt even read what i said......I said :

There isn't 10$ more spent on a Neuman mic diaphragm than an Audio Technica


and this is TRUE.



That is a pile bull cookies. 100%


Ive had MORE THAN a few $1000+ ~ 1500+ CRAP mics

and had MORE THAN a few $400 or so AMAZING MICS



I have money,........ you cant play me.......... and dont try to 'play the TRUTH'.

Hyperbole never makes a convincing case.

And I do like the e100s.

Regarding the $10 comment, how would you know? Really, have you been to both manufacturers and checked out the machines they use to get the diaphragms tensioned correctly?

Oh, and I am pretty sure the wages are higher in Germany that in the plant in Asia where they make AT capsules. So, you are wrong. The Neumann costs substantially more to make.


Please, you make yourself look bad posting such silly things. We get it, you like the mic.


P.S. I am talking mics in the $3-$5k region, that is where you really start to notice the difference.

Completely agreed.

There seems to be a strain of people here at GS who seem hard pressed to couch their observations in realistic terms and contexts. Whatever their latest enthusiasm is is 'amazing,' 'extraordinary,' or 'unbelievable,' and the like.

And, from me, they get all the credulity such obvious, unqualified exaggerations would seem to warrant: something close to zero.

Asia is one thing, JAPAN IS ANOTHER . Japanese labor costs are HIGHER THAN GERMAN COSTS, in fact.

So, your absurd working premise is that ANY and ALL mic makers dont have the right diaphragm tensioner???? DO TELL



Please dont make yourself look bad by posting nonsense and expensive mic worship.

Most here have never used an expensive Neuman and other such pricey mics, so they CHERISH OWNING one.

I have used and owned such mics,

SOME are impressive in certain situations,

MOST however are not,

and MANY IN FACT ARE INFERIOR in sound and use in multiple situations they are rated to be "BEST FOR X"





I LOVE high quality expensive sh*t better than anyone. I have a small Rolex collection, and love my BMW


FACT IS however, people cannot SEE IF YOU RECORDED THAT STUFF on a $400 MIC,...........or a $3000 MIC.



its about the OUTPUT



People dont give a flying dahm if that sweet sound was made by some Ohio buckeyes (CAD mics, made in Ohio), or some tight-arse Germans (hey, Im half German).

People EAT THE OUTPUT, the SOUND, they dont give a hoot in hell if it was a Neuman or a CAD mic or $500 Audio Technica.




Notice WHAT difference? I both owned and used these mics. Depends on the situation.

Will they last longer? NO

Do they have a high resale value? YES (which has nothing to do with the sound)

Do blind tests confirm some $400 mics outclass some $3000 mics? ABSOLUTELY 100% YES.




Pretty sure the folks at recordinghacks.com have more "CRED" in the arena of mics than you (or me to be sure).


I know how to "MINE" accurate information.

Its how i retired at age 32 and do what I want.

No.... no they are not

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_194843.pdf



Damn those facts.....