Mic pricing plummeting

Tom Dowd had that kind of rep. He was a master at his craft and laid the groundwork that most of today's multitracking came out of. He was great!
 
Aloha Brudda!! kinda OT to your thread, but love Kalapana , C&K etc..Had to pop in a Kalapana "cassette" :D Hung out at Makaha w/ Kimo for a couple years.
BTW , don't know how long you've been on the da kind Island, but do you remember a pop band back in the 80's, 2 or 3 females fronting on vox called Tasmania or something like that? I knew one of the vocalists back then , and she turned on to Kapono. Actually did a project with Henry, any way long story short I left Oahu soon after and joined the ARMY :eek:

T
 
I've had plenty of high end guitars, some didn't do it for me, some were very nice. It was not a blanket statement. examples..

My 1973 Gibson Howard Roberts Jazz was a very nice guitar, should have kept it.
My 1958 ES125 w/dual P90s was a pile,, cheaply made.
Gibson 1985 Explorer,, nothing to write home about, solid but unimpressive sound.

I'll take my 1998 Korean Hamer Eclipse ($450) over all but the Howard Roberts (based on sound).

Actually, now what my ire has been raised, one the dumbest things I see here is people buying all this high end gear thinking it will make them something they're not.

It isn't that I can't afford a $2000 mic, it's that I WON'T, my talent level does not deseve it. Heck, I didn't even have a mixer until a few months ago and some of my recordings sound better than others I've heard with all the latest/greatest. All this shit people buy while ignoring the talent and passion that it takes to make good music, just a waste of money trying fufill their rockstar dreams. I've been around long enough to buy the gear used after the divorces.

I'm not slamming anyone who buys a $2000 mic or guitar, I'm sure it's awesome, but really, for a HOME recording person, isn't it overkill?



Hard2Hear said:
Thats the stupdist thing I have ever heard on this forum.

H2H
Click to expand...
 
I love mics.







Mics are frickin' awesome.

Only good ones though, crappy ones are not awesome unless the situation calls for it that one particular instance.... but that isn't now! and right now I only like good mics!


;)
 
I buy nice guitars and nice gear because I like them and can afford them, not because I need them or because I think they are going to make me something I'm not. This sweeping generalization regarding people who buy nice gear is asinine.

If you want to play a $500 guitar, then by all means, play a $500 guitar (I have two in this price range (BTW). I also have a $2,000 handmade Webber that brings a joy to my heart everytime I pick it up--and I pick it up often. Amortized over only ten years @ $200 per year ($1.83 per day) I consider that pretty inexpensive entertainment for something that brings literally thousands of hours of joy.
 
Birdhouse said:
I believe it's what you have as a musician/engineer first and foremost that will determine your success. :cool:
Click to expand...
An excellent point.

I'm not sure how Birdhouse's original post about the amazing quality of some of today's budget priced recording gear turned into a discussion about the relative merits of high end guitars versus cheaper guitars. However, I have noticed that there is a dramatic difference in many people's attitudes about recording equipment that is very different from how people look at guitars. Notice that, if somebody buys a new guitar, they instinctively understand that they are not automatically going to sound like Carlos Santana, even if the new guitar that they bought is the "Santana" model. People realize that it takes hours of practice and study to master an instrument such as the guitar.

And yet, somebody with absolutely no recording experience will buy a digital multitrack recorder and a few cheap mics, and will then seem surprised and disappointed that the first recordings that they make don't sound like their favorite recording artist. And then, rather than consider the possibility that the recording isn't as good as it should be because of the their own SKILL LEVEL, many people will just run out and buy more equipment (which they ALSO don't know how to use) and believe that this new equipment will make the difference. (i.e. "If I buy this expensive microphone/compressor/preamp/etc... then my recordings will sound "professional.") I've never really understood this.

I've made some pretty good quality recordings on analog 8-track recorders before. Compared to the kind of gear that I started with, a Boss multitrack recorder provides such miraculously pristine audio quality that it's sometimes difficult for me to believe that such a device even EXISTS, much less at a price point that any musician could afford! I'm positive that Bob Clearmountain or Narada Michael Walden could make awesome sounding recordings on one of these things. Similarly, Carlos Santana could pick up a cheap electric guitar and make it sound incredible. It's the same with guitars or recording equipment -- without the chops to use it properly, gear is just gear. None of it, by itself, will sound good.

Brad
 
different twist

Good post… here is how I put it for a buddy thinking about getting into digital recording and how good his results might be.

The people who go out and buy all the fancy gear with little knowledge or skill are just like the kids who badger their parents to go out and buy them the latest (and usually most expensive) Nike Air Jordan’s. Anyone in their right mind knows buying a pair of sneakers won’t guarantee your going to average a double double and dunk from the foul line.

However the kids usually have pride in their gear. It gives them a little more confidence to go out and play. They may spend more time practicing their skills and playing which in turn will make them a better player. Not Jordan, but better then they were.

Same philosophy sticks with me. I know no piece of equipment is going to make my recordings sound like the 2nd coming of Mutt Lang (or Clubber Lang for that matter) But it seems every time I’ve bought a new piece of equipment it has inspired me to work a little harder, read a little bit more, study and compare recordings, experiment with recording techniques and spend more time carefully examining my mixes. Did the new mic help my recordings sound better or was it the time and effort that made it better? Most of you already know the answer.

So if a person out there wants to drop $2000.00 on a new guitar, $1000.00 on a new mic or invest in better gear (and won’t go into the poor house or dog house) why not? As long as the expectations are managed and they know that the guy busting his hump with a Behringer B-1 just might have better quality material than the guy who lets his AT4060 sit around unused for months at a time while he debates who should get voted off American Idol next.
 
Bassman Brad said:
An excellent point.

I'm not sure how Birdhouse's original post about the amazing quality of some of today's budget priced recording gear turned into a discussion about the relative merits of high end guitars versus cheaper guitars. However, I have noticed that there is a dramatic difference in many people's attitudes about recording equipment that is very different from how people look at guitars. Notice that, if somebody buys a new guitar, they instinctively understand that they are not automatically going to sound like Carlos Santana, even if the new guitar that they bought is the "Santana" model. People realize that it takes hours of practice and study to master an instrument such as the guitar.

And yet, somebody with absolutely no recording experience will buy a digital multitrack recorder and a few cheap mics, and will then seem surprised and disappointed that the first recordings that they make don't sound like their favorite recording artist. And then, rather than consider the possibility that the recording isn't as good as it should be because of the their own SKILL LEVEL, many people will just run out and buy more equipment (which they ALSO don't know how to use) and believe that this new equipment will make the difference. (i.e. "If I buy this expensive microphone/compressor/preamp/etc... then my recordings will sound "professional.") I've never really understood this.

I've made some pretty good quality recordings on analog 8-track recorders before. Compared to the kind of gear that I started with, a Boss multitrack recorder provides such miraculously pristine audio quality that it's sometimes difficult for me to believe that such a device even EXISTS, much less at a price point that any musician could afford! I'm positive that Bob Clearmountain or Narada Michael Walden could make awesome sounding recordings on one of these things. Similarly, Carlos Santana could pick up a cheap electric guitar and make it sound incredible. It's the same with guitars or recording equipment -- without the chops to use it properly, gear is just gear. None of it, by itself, will sound good.

Brad
Click to expand...

Good points, particularly about the inherent understanding of skill needed in playing a guitar versus skill needed in using recording equipment. Perhaps it's a TV mentality. Turn it on, it works, I have control over the thing because I can move the knobs and it doesn't take any athletic ability (like it does for playing musical instruments).
 
traveen said:
I'm not slamming anyone who buys a $2000 mic or guitar, I'm sure it's awesome, but really, for a HOME recording person, isn't it overkill?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?! We're all making Grammy-winning/multi-platinum albums from our bedrooms, garages and home offices! We deserve the best!!
 
sdelsolray said:
Good points, particularly about the inherent understanding of skill needed in playing a guitar versus skill needed in using recording equipment. Perhaps it's a TV mentality. Turn it on, it works, I have control over the thing because I can move the knobs and it doesn't take any athletic ability (like it does for playing musical instruments).
Click to expand...

Well most companies make technology so easy to use that they’re really isn’t any thought to “how” it works and “why.” Only that it does work. Most consumers don’t care and don’t want to know. On my DVR I don’t understand how it records or skips commercials with the flick of a button, only that I don’t have to watch commercials unless I want to anymore and I don’t have to stay up past 11 to watch Family Guy.

Music is different and it’s not just how to boost volume, add FX or EQ a track, but “why” your doing it to fit into a mix that’s important. If we’re being honest most musicians who are finding that home recording is becoming more affordable and convenient didn’t know much about recording to start with. I thought I knew enough because I worked with a 4-track a few years ago but truth was I didn’t know jack. I’ve learned a lot over the last year but Blue Bear has probably forgotten more than I’ll learn over the next 5 years.

A lot of musicians who recorded at studios or even on 4 tracks probably didn’t get into the details of what makes a good recording and what makes a great recording. The focus is more on song structure, melodies and keeping the guitar player from playing a 15 minute solo. Most people who used 4-tracks usually had a build in excuse. Most could see they aren’t going to compete with the most modern equipment even thought The Beatles recorded their best work on 4-track machines.

But now with software programs coming out with 48 plus tracks and built in FX the expectations of the results are higher. Maybe one day there will be a Bruce Fairbain, Mutt Lang, George Martin or Bob Ezrin button to hit that will make your tracks sound more professional. Wishful thinking but the truth is that is how most people see it when they first make the transition from musician to recording engineer (to use the term loosely)

I tell musicians who are thinking about getting into home recording to expect to spent the first 6 months reading (manuals and how to guides), experimenting and studying (both your recorded tracks and others) before you’ll have anything that will resemble something you’ll want played in public. Bottom line: just because you know how turn on a stove and buy the best pots and pans doesn’t mean you should be opening up your own place next to Emeril.

Then again when it comes to quality of gear and quality of tracks, some people are going to get it and some people never will. When my former band recorded at a locally owned studio the drummer kept asking the engineers what was the difference between the $1500.00 demo we made and a $150,000.00 recording. I didn’t have the exact answer at the time but I knew better not to let the guy within 10 feet of a record button on an answering machine.
 
sorry for the rant but...

Let's face it, even in the music industry no one wants to pay dues and work for it anymore. They want to go on American Idol and be discovered or they want Daddy (Simpson) get them a recording contract. No one wants to play to half empty clubs, no one wants to write and re-write lyrics. No one wants to get dirty, unless that means your choreography.

I don’t think there is a person out there who didn’t pick up an interment or start singing and think “I could do this, I could be a star.” Most figure out there is more to it then just writing and playing. There are people out there as talented if not more and most of the audience just wants a humable tune while they salivate over the models in your video.

Cynical, sure. But the thinking trickles down to recording. You start out thinking, I can do this. But you really listen and you figure out you have a lot to learn. Yeah, it sucks when you read, study, experiment, spend hours tracking, retracking and mixing and your tracks don’t even sound as good as your dog howling at the moon. But that’s life. Nothing good (usually) comes easy and people are always going to look for short cuts or the quickest path. But for musicians and artist, there is no easy path.

And the music industry is going to capitalize on it. Their going to sell that their interment, mic or plug-in is the magic bullet or that you too can have make professional sounding recordings on their software. There not going to tell you “buyer will spend hours putting out crap unless they really know what their doing.”

Most savvy people will realize this is the same reason they don’t show fat people in diet coke or light beer commercials or why they don’t show the poor out of shape guy gasping for air in the newest running shoes. It’s the illusion of what could be instead of what probably is that gets people in the store and forking out their credit card.

Not to say you can’t buy the latest running shoes and run a marathon. But most people don’t want to know about the 3 hours in the sun running with shin splints to get there. That is why I respect most of the established posters here. They’ve done their miles and they can tell me how to run mine most effectively.
 
sdelsolray said:
David Webber's guitars are indeed wonderful instruments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I went in to Buffalo Brothers to trade up my Larrivee D-05E and was set on either a Santa Cruz PW or a C. Fox. I played dozens of other guitars as well that day, but every time I played one up against this little Webber OM, the other guitar ended up back on the rack. Finally, there were no contenders left, and I was forced to buy it. :D
 
the comment about desktop publishing is sort of closing in on the place in time of the current home recording market. peter montessi of a designs calls it the desktop recording market. maybe he's been seeing the parallel as well.
 
ozraves said:
the comment about desktop publishing is sort of closing in on the place in time of the current home recording market. peter montessi of a designs calls it the desktop recording market. maybe he's been seeing the parallel as well.
Click to expand...

During and afterwards, the traditional publishing industry changed radically.
 
I think it comes down to is this. If you come from the analog "old school" of recording, you'll enter digital recording with a greater understanding of the dynamics that digital attempts to only emulate. Digital sound is only a representation of an analog signal made up of little steps on a curve. The more steps, the closer it sounds to the original analog signal.

I guess this is my point. Some noobies aren't aware of analog recording theroy at all. This is where that old school knowledge crosses over and helps the next generation build a better mousetrap. :cool:
 
Birdhouse said:
I think it comes down to is this. If you come from the analog "old school" of recording, you'll enter digital recording with a greater understanding of the dynamics that digital attempts to only emulate. Digital sound is only a representation of an analog signal made up of little steps on a curve. The more steps, the closer it sounds to the original analog signal.

I guess this is my point. Some noobies aren't aware of analog recording theroy at all. This is where that old school knowledge crosses over and helps the next generation build a better mousetrap. :cool:
Click to expand...
A very interesting point, Birdhouse. However, I'm not sure that I agree that the knowledge that comes from understanding analog recording is somehow "superior" to the knowledge that comes from understanding digital recording. It's just different, not necessarily "better."

Let's take myself, for example. I'm definitely from the "old school" of analog recording. When I was spending lots of time in a recording studio, it was the early to mid 1980's. Furthermore, I had the great fortune of training under a guy who was an absolute genius when it came to recording music. He had a college degree as an electrical engineer, was an active member in the AES, and was always doing cool stuff like writing his own software program to analyze the reverb characteristics of the recording room at different frequencies (back when the Apple IIc was a state of the art computer!). He also was gracious enough to take the time to actually teach me things, rather than just act frustrated that I didn't already know everything. Because of this, I feel that I picked up a very thorough understanding of the basics of recording theory.

Nevertheless, now that I'm trying to put together my own little home recording studio (using DIGITAL technology), I find myself rather intimidated by my lack of experience with the digital side of things. For example, the fact that there is no noise floor to speak of really freaks me out, especially when I'm going to be recording in my home, which was never designed to have proper acoustic isolation. Does this lack of noise floor mean that I'll have to worry about the self-noise ratings of the mics causing problems during the recordings? The fact that digital recording is absolutely intolerant of exceeding "zero" worries me a bit, too. I don't suppose it will be that hard to train myself to watch levels closely and remember that it won't just "compress a little bit" if I go over. But, still, the whole digital recording thing is a totally alien way of thinking, for me. And a little bit intimidating to me.

There are guys on this board in their teens and twenties who know more about how digital recording works than I do. Of course, it's also possible that I might have picked up a trick or two from the analog world that THEY might find useful, especially considering the fact that there is still a lot of analog gear being used to make modern digital recordings. So, as I see it, there are two different knowledge bases. (Well, three, actually. There is an understanding about how analog recorders work. There is an understanding about how DIGITAL recorders work. Then there is an understanding of basic recording techniques, which applies equally to both of the previous two.) But a knowledge of analog recording is not in any way superior to the other. In fact, they seem complimentary to me, especially when analog and digital gear is being mixed together, as is often the case today.

p.s. And that makes 100 posts for me!!! Wooo hoo! :D
Brad
 
Good for you!

ummm I said..

"If you come from the analog "old school" of recording, you'll enter digital recording with a greater understanding of the dynamics that digital attempts to only emulate."

Where did I say analog knowledge was superior? ;)

I said greater understanding of the dynamics... you read it as superior.

I agree with you by the way. It's a two way street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top