How much one needs to spend on a microphone and interface for 'studio quality' sound

F

Faultlinespine

New member
I've been trying to research the most cost effective options for recording vocals at home to achieve a studio quality sound. There seems to be a bit of disagreement about how much one needs to spend on a microphone and sound interface to be able to record something for publication - a studio quality product.

Basically I need to have a setup that will allow me to record vocals that are of a high enough quality to be published on an EP or album for an unsigned indie/alternative pop band. The tracks will be mixed and mastered for publication on iTunes and sent to radio stations.

I'm considering buying the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 sound interface and a Rode NT2A condenser microphone.

https://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-2i2

RØDE Microphones - NT2-A

I only need one input for vocal recording and possibly some guitar recording which is why I think the Scarlett 2i2 will be suitable. My understanding is, this is a good option if you don't require many inputs. But they are only approx. $200 US which makes me wonder if it will be good enough!

I've read that the Rode NTA2 is very good for warmer, soulful vocals which is the style I'm hoping to record. Many have argued it's better than the Rode NTK which is about $550. Again, I am wondering if something this cheap (approx. $400) will be up to scratch.

I'm keen to see what people here think of these products for my purposes. Will this setup enable me to record industry standard 'studio quality' vocals if mixing is done right?
 
Well, the Focusrite and Rode are good starting points but it would cost more than that to get "studio quality" sound. You'd also need to take into consideration what kind of room you're recording in, distance from mic, gain staging and most importantly, the performance. You can get a studio quality sound from the gear you mentioned but the gear itself won't give you the sound. Nowadays, a 100 interface and 200 dollar mic can do so much if you know how to use them well.

Also just to help you when you start recording the vocals, make sure you get it right in the recording stage. Mixing is gonna be harder if you didn't record good takes in the first place. Can't wait to see what you choose to get!
 
What musicgeek saud above.

There's nothing wrong with either the focusrite or rode: they both can deliver 'studio quality'. But it takes more than just two pieces of equipment. As well as the other gear you will need, there is also the environment in which you record, and the skills, knowledge and experience you can bring to the recording project.
 
I see F'rite have done their marketing (aka brainwashing) well yet again! Ok! Bit harsh but there ARE other fekkin' AIs you know!

But yes that interface and that mic are easily capable of "studio" quality results, if by that you mean a clean sound, flat throughout the audio range and very low in noise and distortion. Capable in fact of vastly better results than the Beatles say could achieve in their heyday.

But! Sound recording is AS much about the "room" as it is about gear. All domestic spaces of even generous size are crap. You need to learn about acoustic treatment , at least in so far as to control the basic room reflections an (horrible) reverberation.

Then, quality sound starts at the OUTPUT! If you cannot listen with high fidelity (in the original meaning of the term) in a well treated room to your recordings you cannot make proper decisions about the quality.
You need some good quality monitor speakers and they will easily cost your entire budget so far. I generally say that peeps can get away with headphones when starting a recording hobby but if TOP sound quality is the eventual aim, good monitors and a treated room are essential. Yes, get some decent cans but only for convenience when tracking/overdubbing.

So, in fact you are right in a way! No, you cannot REALLY produce Abbey Road recordings for the price of that mic and AI (and I don't think you need a multipattern mic at this stage?) but even if you spent £10,000 on a mic and AI you would not do any better in a crap room with crap monitoring.

To paraphrase...."Garbage out = NO idea WTF is going in!"

Dave.
 
There is a ton to learn when recording and mixing yourself. Don't think that buying decent gear is all that is needed.
 
Thanks for your advice. I will be recording in a studio I've used before and I know where to best position the mic in that room. Point taken re. mixing, I'm going to learn as much as I can and attempt to mix myself, but it's very likely I will end up hiring a professional to mix the recording.

My understanding is that the main benefit of the more expensive mics is that mixing is easier because the mic is more optimised.
Given that I'm recording in a studio and I will hire a sound engineer to do the mixing if necessary, do you think the Focusrite 2i2 and Rode NTA2 will suffice? I realise there are a number of variables here, but providing the recording is done right (positioning, distance from mic, room acoustics etc) would equipment of this standard be sufficient? Or would it require more trouble then its worth in mixing to achieve an 'industry standard' compared with an expensive mic that wouldn't require as much tweaking in mixing?
 
Faultlinespine said:
Thanks for your advice. I will be recording in a studio I've used before and I know where to best position the mic in that room. Point taken re. mixing, I'm going to learn as much as I can and attempt to mix myself, but it's very likely I will end up hiring a professional to mix the recording.

My understanding is that the main benefit of the more expensive mics is that mixing is easier because the mic is more optimised.
Given that I'm recording in a studio and I will hire a sound engineer to do the mixing if necessary, do you think the Focusrite 2i2 and Rode NTA2 will suffice? I realise there are a number of variables here, but providing the recording is done right (positioning, distance from mic, room acoustics etc) would equipment of this standard be sufficient? Or would it require more trouble then its worth in mixing to achieve an 'industry standard' compared with an expensive mic that wouldn't require as much tweaking in mixing?
Click to expand...

Doesn't the studio have its own mikes and interface?
 
gecko zzed said:
Doesn't the studio have its own mikes and interface?
Click to expand...

+1!

Another point occurs. If you are going to do this at home (eventually) there is an oft forgotten factor in making "professional" recordings..Consistency.

Once you have treated the room and have obtained a good sound (and have splendid monitoring!) FFS mark the mic's spot, height off floor and take pics of orientation. Mark and record the optimum distance of mic and cake hole.

Levels too need to be consistent take to take and day to day and although that can be tweaked post tracking it is good practice to keep voice at a consistent level if only because the timbre changes with loudness.

And, buy a Sound Level Meter (with a C weighting) and find out how to calibrate your monitors.

Dave.
 
More expensive mics aren't really "optimised", and if there were a perfect mic, there would only be one of them.

The trick to making mixing easier through mic choice is finding the right mic for the situation. Sometimes that's a $400 SM7B, sometimes it's a $8000 C12. That is why commercial studios have a large collection of mics.

So, in a small budget situation, you are just looking for a mic that doesn't screw you, which the Rode is such a mic.

As has been said, the room will be a bigger issue than the equipment you mentioned.
 
your best bet,
to answer the OP's question,
is to go into a professional studio.

my guess is, only a fraction of the folks here at this website,
have actually been in a pro studio.
(for the record, i've been in 4 pro studios, and about a dozen project studios, not counting my own humble basement studio dedicated to the task).....

point is,
once you've heard a nice high end microphone, into a nice high end preamp,
with maybe just one outboard fx in line (say, a high quality limiter).....once you've heard THIS,

you'll have your answer.

then, it's a simple matter of a/b'ing mics and preamps against this 'known' situation....
comparing sounds, timbres, quality of adda,
how in the world will you know a quality sound if you haven't experienced it in person?

'studio quality' sound is pretty objective, don't you think?
unless you're talking about 'home studio'.

my advice is always:

buy the best you can afford, and don't suffer, get on with it.
 
A lot of the differences between mics is the EQ curve (frequency response graph), and the pickup pattern. Plus noise floor, SPL tolerance, and other minor things. Also bear in mind that most of us are "trained" for certain mics. SM-58 for stage, SM7b, or EV RE-20 for Radio / Television. The better the mic, the more "sensitive" it is, which comes with other issues. Which will likely need shock mounts, wind screens, pop filters, and other things to counter-act their properties.
 
If you can get to listen to some BBC radio 3/4 speech that will give you an excellent benchmark to aim at.

You will also notice how low they keep their average levels compared to the commercial stations!

Dave.
 
Shadow_7 said:
A lot of the differences between mics is the EQ curve (frequency response graph), and the pickup pattern. Plus noise floor, SPL tolerance, and other minor things. Also bear in mind that most of us are "trained" for certain mics. SM-58 for stage, SM7b, or EV RE-20 for Radio / Television. The better the mic, the more "sensitive" it is, which comes with other issues. Which will likely need shock mounts, wind screens, pop filters, and other things to counter-act their properties.
Click to expand...

I know you put sensitive in " " Mr S but that is a specific parameter of a microphone and folks could get confused. The more so since the better dynamic mics at least are LESS sensitive than their cheaper brethren!

(for the newb? "Sensitivity" is the output voltage of a microphone for a specific Sound Pressure Level, now 1 Pascal (Pa) . Typical values for bog S dynamics, 2 to 4 millivolts, 1/1000 volts. For big side address capacitors, 20mV or more. Top line speech mics like the SM7b are only at about 1mV )

Dave (aka, pedantic, tekky old fart)
 
GONZO-X said:
point is,
once you've heard a nice high end microphone, into a nice high end preamp,
with maybe just one outboard fx in line (say, a high quality limiter).....once you've heard THIS,

you'll have your answer.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, because I kind of had the opposite experience. I've recorded at home for years with mostly pro-sumer grade stuff. I think the most expensive mic I've ever had was the C414, but mostly I've used condensers in the $300 range like the Studio Projects C1. I did perform this mod on the C1, which did make a noticeable difference in the high end for sure:
Studio Projects C1 Circuit Upgrade Kit – Microphone-Parts.com

I do now have an N72 mic pre from Seventh Circle Audio, and that's by far the most expensive mic pre (per channel) I've had. My home studio is treated a good amount, although there's certainly probably more I could do.

Anyway, to record my band's album several years ago, we went into a local studio studio that was decked out: vintage Neve console, classic compressors/limiters/etc., classic mics for days, etc. In short, it was loaded. I'd never been to a pro studio before, so one of the things I was most looking forward to was singing through a Neumann and a world-class signal chain.

When that time finally rolled around, I must admit, it was pretty underwhelming. I can't remember if it was a U87 or a U67, but there was definitely no parting-of-the-clouds-with-a-chorus-of-angels effect like I was half expecting. It just sounded exactly like me.

Now, maybe it was much easier for him to mix the song with that sound than if he'd used my SP C1, but there was definitely no revelation like "now THIS is a pro sound!"

I will say that there were a number of factors at play: first time recording on a 2-inch tape machine, first time singing in a treated vocal booth, etc. But it definitely wasn't a night and day difference like I was expecting.

As for the final product, it sounded better than what I can produce at home, but again .. it's hard to be objective about it because when I hear it, it just sounds like me.
 
GONZO-X said:
your best bet,
to answer the OP's question,
is to go into a professional studio.

my guess is, only a fraction of the folks here at this website,
have actually been in a pro studio.
Click to expand...

I have to agree.
Too much here is viewed and understood entirely from a singular home recording experience...and it sorta becomes that persons only reference point, and the "standard" of what is good enough for them.

"Studio quality" is a very wide, subjective consideration if you don't have a true high-end "studio" reference to judge against.

famous beagle said:
As for the final product, it sounded better than what I can produce at home, but again .. it's hard to be objective about it because when I hear it, it just sounds like me.
Click to expand...

So what was your expectation...that you would sound like someone else? :)
Yeah...it's hard to be objective when you are that close to it...and it's hard to be objective about quality if you only use your own situation as the reference.
I've seen many home rec guys go on about what a great mic or great amp this is...and then you find out that's the only mic or only amp they have. :D
So how the heck can they know then what is really "great" or what is "studio quality".
 
miroslav said:
I have to agree.
Too much here is viewed and understood entirely from a singular home recording experience...and it sorta becomes that persons only reference point, and the "standard" of what is good enough for them.

"Studio quality" is a very wide, subjective consideration if you don't have a true high-end "studio" reference to judge against.



So what was your expectation...that you would sound like someone else? :)
Yeah...it's hard to be objective when you are that close to it...and it's hard to be objective about quality if you only use your own situation as the reference.
I've seen many home rec guys go on about what a great mic or great amp this is...and then you find out that's the only mic or only amp they have. :D
So how the heck can they know then what is really "great" or what is "studio quality".
Click to expand...

Right ... people do like to go on about something when they have no expertise on anything else. It's funny that way.

I wasn't expecting to sound like someone else; I guess I was just expecting more of a WOW factor - more of an obvious quality difference. I was expecting to walk away thinking, "Damn ... I really DO need a Neumann mic." But I didn't have that experience at all.
 
Well it's kinda funny, but I had an opposite effect in my own studio one day.
I was recording some band demos, and the bass player went up to the vocal mic I had set up for the singer, and he tried it out...and he was like "Damn, how much is this mic?"...and I told him it was about a $2k mic list, but I only paid a little over a thousand for it...and he said, "I knew it, a thousand dollar mic!" (It's an ADK TT/CE tube mic).

So I think people can be surprised in different ways.

I'm certainly not a fantastic singer...I can sing in pitch, and I know my limitations...but nothing really super great.
That said...I've tried at least a dozen mics on my voice...and yet, when I break out that same "thousand dollar mic"...it just sounds the best, and I've compared it to my other $100 mics and my other several hundred dollar mics...so your experience with the Neumann was maybe more about expectations because of the name, but frankly, my voice through a U87 sounds like shit...it just doesn't complement my tone, whereas my ADK TT/CE fits it just right and supports my vocal tone, while at the same time helping to tame the undesirable frequencies of my voice. The other mics sound like me...but nothing more.

At one point I had sent that ADK TT/CE back for a capsule upgrade to ADK. I was buying a couple of other used/refurbished mics from them, and the tech and I got to talking, and he mentioned that they had these new capsules and could retrofit most of their earlier mics with any one of them. They had four different flavors based on some "name" mics.
So I figured I would give it a shot. After discussing my prefs...we settled on one of the capsules. When I got the mic, 30 seconds out of the box...I hated the sound. So I asked him to give me a different capsule, and he just sent it to me, and I swapped them out myself...and it was better than the first...but for my voice, that stock ADK capsule just sounded much better.
Anyway...I told him I was going to put back the stock capsule, and I even spoke to the owner/founder of ADK mics...and he said it just works out that way for some people.
As it turned out...a few weeks later, someone was selling a broken ADK mic, but it wasn't the same model as mine...it was a FET based mic..so since I had this new, leftover capsule, I asked ADK if it would work in this broken mic, they said yeah. :)
I got the broken mic for like $25...put in the capsule...and man, it sounded fantastic in that FET mic...but I didn't like it in my TT/CE tube mic. I ended up with another good mic for the price of the capsule.

So yeah...small shit...big difference in sound quality perception.
 
famous beagle said:
Right ... people do like to go on about something when they have no expertise on anything else. It's funny that way.

I wasn't expecting to sound like someone else; I guess I was just expecting more of a WOW factor - more of an obvious quality difference. I was expecting to walk away thinking, "Damn ... I really DO need a Neumann mic." But I didn't have that experience at all.
Click to expand...

Me neither. I only recorded in two studios, but for example, one of the guys put a U87 on me and I sounded terrible. I prefer an Re-11 that was $50 on my voice. But he seemed to go to that mic as the defacto just because "it's the best" and didn't spend much time figuring out the nuances. That was the overall thing in the studio. The engineer was generic and just doing what he does for every band, like a factory in a way. He drenched the entire mix in reverb even though it wasn't appropriate for the genre, etc. At home I can take a lot more time to do things. I actually prefer the recordings I do at home to the studio recordings I've done, and so do my bandmates. So if someone is going into the studio, they need to know engineering and the exact sound they want. Maybe then they can get a good result. But if you go in clueless and expect a polished album you're going to be disappointed unless you get lucky and get a good/unknown engineer (these are rare) who also acts as a producer for you or at least sees and shares your vision (rare).
 
I'm not for a second saying a u87 sucks or whatever, but there's a reason different types of mic exist and certain ones are better suited to certain applications.

I remember when I was studying the uni had one u87 plus a whole locker of other mics.
Almost literally every student in the dept. was in a waiting list for the u87, to the extent that some of the studios were actually vacant most of the time because the u87 was in use elsewhere.

I did my whole final (lots of VO) with my own sm7b in their mastering room and I took my sweet time doing it too. :p
I've no idea how the u87 would have sounded but I definitely don't give a shit. ;)

Shadow_7 said:
The better the mic, the more "sensitive" it is, which comes with other issues.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. It depends what you're doing and what you want.
In home recording, particularly in undesirable acoustic environments, the least sensitive mic is often the best choice because you can have it much closer to the source and widen that ratio between source and ambience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top