Papanate
Well-known member
The MXR-r40 is a better microphone in my ears - I have two - with overdriven guitar I doubt you would notice the difference though….
FrankD77
Active member
I could buy this one second hand
Have a marantz 3500 ribbon which i love on acoustic
For the cab i ordered a slate digital ml-2
Will come in this week
Ordered a slate digital lm2
Curious to see how that works
With the large condenser i keep getting a weird combing effect. Think my hushbox reflects too much back.
The sm57 clone sounds great. Wanted to get a real one but they offered the lm2 for 90,00 so had to try that one
Last edited:
D
drtechno
Active member
I'm not really into using those since half of the sound develops in the space. But I try to get a thick big sound then later tame it with an EQ so it will fit in the mix better. Also, because you like your tone doesn't mean its the correct tone to use in the song. Distance micing might have a better effect or even bending rules of stereo recording with off the wall mic positioning. But at the end of the day its how well it works in the song and not how well it was recording with a generic mic technique template.
FrankD77
Active member
100% agree.
That's what I love about today
I'm using the captor x with genome for most of the time. Clean and dirty leads can sound amazing over the cab with a bit of the mx300 lexicon reverb/delay. In genome you can move the mics around which also sounds great.
Maybe one day I'll build a real amp room but for now I just love to experiment.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
From first principles... most people are trying to emulate a particular guitar sound they have heard on record (if you are trying to construct a revolutionary guitar sound never heard so far in the history of the electric guitar then, DI and mangle but good luck with that!) It follows therefore that the 'tone' peeps are after is usually that from a micc'ed up cab? That throws up many variables. Even if you know the exact make, model and mark of amplifier/speaker* and similarly that of the guitar you are very unlikely to know the control settings used on the amp or guitar. You will also have no idea of the SPL of the cab in the room and the power an amp is working at and going into a speaker makes a huge difference to the tonal quality.
IMHO the best way, to start with anyway, to record e guitar is from a cab with a mic (unless you KNOW "they" did differently) at least then you are in with a slim chance of a "real" sound. Not bass G however. Even if you have a slurpy 600W valve amp and an 8x10 cab, you will set every mortal thing in your room rattling. You may not notice but..."sore thumb" on playback!
*No two guitar speakers sound the same either. Just because 'he' used a V30 or a Greenback does not mean it will work for you.
Dave.
IMHO the best way, to start with anyway, to record e guitar is from a cab with a mic (unless you KNOW "they" did differently) at least then you are in with a slim chance of a "real" sound. Not bass G however. Even if you have a slurpy 600W valve amp and an 8x10 cab, you will set every mortal thing in your room rattling. You may not notice but..."sore thumb" on playback!
*No two guitar speakers sound the same either. Just because 'he' used a V30 or a Greenback does not mean it will work for you.
Dave.
FrankD77
Active member
Correct
For me it's the fun of experimenting.
For me it's the fun of experimenting.
FrankD77
Active member
Did a quick test with the slate digital
Sounds great on its own.
Emulations can be run in real time within the daw. And although online they copy tracks you can very easily make a mix of several mics in the rack software.
Very impressed so far.
Sounds great on its own.
Emulations can be run in real time within the daw. And although online they copy tracks you can very easily make a mix of several mics in the rack software.
Very impressed so far.
rob aylestone
Moderator
There is a facebook forum popped up in my feed called home studio. and it's full of really strange people, all totally hyped up on formula, hype, limited experience, need for rules and plenty is either a bot/AI or kids at school. They demand adherence to written or youtube advice, and get really defensive when people ask them what it sounds like.
I know I'm old, and learned so much pre-internet because the only other solution was books, or getting some studio time with real pros (of the day, not modern pros - which if the criteria for being one is making money = pro, we are all doomed)
I really like bits here where somebody says they bought a cheap copy of a mic and it sounded OK. For me, that's pretty much how it ought to be. If it sounds OK, then who cares how you did it. It could be rubbish mic in the perfect place, or mega expensive mic in the wrong place. Guitar speakers were never hi-fi. People discovered that 30W into a excellent quality for the day speaker fried it, popped the coil out of the slot, or heated the coil so badly they got stuck. Rola Celestion, 40 miles away back then, started building speakers with wider former gaps, thicker wire and stiffer cones and sold them to guitarists because they didn't fail so often. They sounded, on music, terrible. No treble, very boomy - but if you bunged 4 in a cabinet, they were loud. I can remember when studios would stick a bit of tape on the grill of the 'best' speaker in a 4 x 12 Marshall! When we went into studios we could afford, mic choice was limited. The vocals got first pick. Bass came firmly last - whatever was left, up against the grill. The D12 AKG I remember well in the kick, was in the kick because it was frazzled and sounded awful on everything else, NOT because it was an excellent kick mic.
Whenever I work with others mixing - studio or live, I always look at the EQ on their screens. Everything is anything other than a flat line. I firmly believe that mics are way too subtle to make their frequency response vital. Those people extolling an X because it has a tiny peak at 4.6K and a little dip at 3.5K - making vocals really pop. Rubbish! ten minutes later the vocal channel has all sorts of weird EQ applied to craft the sound - those little peaks and dips wiped out.
I have been collecting mics for years and one of my boxes of naked mics are the ones I never, ever use - because there's no point. Others to hand will be fine. Giving the piano a tune, sticking some fresh strings on an acoustic guitar, new read in the sax, and turning a drum key a few times really make differences. Mics just don't, because we now have infinite EQ. If my first mixer with low, hi and a sweepable mid could not do what I needed, I'd try a different mic. There's no point now.
There are so few awful mics nowadays. Some cheap condensers might be noisy with rubbish electronics, but cheap dynamic and condenser capsule are now all really good. I read, open mouthed sometimes, the DIY mic fraternity arguing about if swapping that 1K resistor to a metal film 1.2K is worth doing for the enhanced sound it creates? I have no idea what planet they live on? It isn't mine. The trouble with this kind of 'hi-fi' mentality is that swapping a resistor takes two minutes, then you reassemble and test. Do they ever take it out again and then replace it? Nope. They just relax in the knowledge it made so much difference.
Jaded? Maybe. Honest? Absolutely.
I know I'm old, and learned so much pre-internet because the only other solution was books, or getting some studio time with real pros (of the day, not modern pros - which if the criteria for being one is making money = pro, we are all doomed)
I really like bits here where somebody says they bought a cheap copy of a mic and it sounded OK. For me, that's pretty much how it ought to be. If it sounds OK, then who cares how you did it. It could be rubbish mic in the perfect place, or mega expensive mic in the wrong place. Guitar speakers were never hi-fi. People discovered that 30W into a excellent quality for the day speaker fried it, popped the coil out of the slot, or heated the coil so badly they got stuck. Rola Celestion, 40 miles away back then, started building speakers with wider former gaps, thicker wire and stiffer cones and sold them to guitarists because they didn't fail so often. They sounded, on music, terrible. No treble, very boomy - but if you bunged 4 in a cabinet, they were loud. I can remember when studios would stick a bit of tape on the grill of the 'best' speaker in a 4 x 12 Marshall! When we went into studios we could afford, mic choice was limited. The vocals got first pick. Bass came firmly last - whatever was left, up against the grill. The D12 AKG I remember well in the kick, was in the kick because it was frazzled and sounded awful on everything else, NOT because it was an excellent kick mic.
Whenever I work with others mixing - studio or live, I always look at the EQ on their screens. Everything is anything other than a flat line. I firmly believe that mics are way too subtle to make their frequency response vital. Those people extolling an X because it has a tiny peak at 4.6K and a little dip at 3.5K - making vocals really pop. Rubbish! ten minutes later the vocal channel has all sorts of weird EQ applied to craft the sound - those little peaks and dips wiped out.
I have been collecting mics for years and one of my boxes of naked mics are the ones I never, ever use - because there's no point. Others to hand will be fine. Giving the piano a tune, sticking some fresh strings on an acoustic guitar, new read in the sax, and turning a drum key a few times really make differences. Mics just don't, because we now have infinite EQ. If my first mixer with low, hi and a sweepable mid could not do what I needed, I'd try a different mic. There's no point now.
There are so few awful mics nowadays. Some cheap condensers might be noisy with rubbish electronics, but cheap dynamic and condenser capsule are now all really good. I read, open mouthed sometimes, the DIY mic fraternity arguing about if swapping that 1K resistor to a metal film 1.2K is worth doing for the enhanced sound it creates? I have no idea what planet they live on? It isn't mine. The trouble with this kind of 'hi-fi' mentality is that swapping a resistor takes two minutes, then you reassemble and test. Do they ever take it out again and then replace it? Nope. They just relax in the knowledge it made so much difference.
Jaded? Maybe. Honest? Absolutely.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
I too Rob find the "night and day" claims of (mostly) guitarists tiresome and SO lacking in rigour.
Not microphones for me (though they have a part to play. Laters) my beef is with the claims made for differences claimed between the various makes of valves. In most of this I mean pre amp valves, mainly double Triodes.
These loonies will pay through the nose for a "NOS" or "Cryo" 12AX7 then claim the sound is "warmer" "thicker" "clearer" or in some other magical "night and day better" than the bottle it replaced.
Do we ever get a before/after voltage table (the original might have aged out of specc')? We do not.
Do we ever get a smudge of the TMB setting if they were tweaked or the gains or master VC? We do not.
Do we ever get an SPL reading so that is consistent, easy enough with a phone these days? We do not.
Do they call in a third party to give a sort of "blind" test? Mate, significant other? They do not
Do they ever post a consistently made recording of the two amplifier conditions? They do not.
I am sure I have posted this before but. Some years ago I was asked to build a rig which could instantly compare two double Triodes of different brands. This device used relays to switch anode, cathode and grid from the stage in an amplifier to a second valve. Thus the signal was in every way the same, amp settings, bias, load resistors etc save a different valve, in this case the ECC83/X7.
Resuilts? Yes, some very experienced players could detect minor differences between brand, more so when driven into distortion but the changes were tiny and hard to pin down and there was no agreement, or even strong preference as to which brand was "best".
The object of the exercise was not to test valves for sonic "quality" but to see if a particular brand would elicit complaints from customers as not sounding "right" The testers concluded that the differences were so small nobody was ever likely to hear a difference and no one ever did!
There is perhaps a greater sonic difference between power valves. EL34 v 6L6 say but since you cannot 'hot swap' them as above due to differences in optimum load, hard to say. IMHO power valves only start to make a difference at absolute max power.
Dave.
Not microphones for me (though they have a part to play. Laters) my beef is with the claims made for differences claimed between the various makes of valves. In most of this I mean pre amp valves, mainly double Triodes.
These loonies will pay through the nose for a "NOS" or "Cryo" 12AX7 then claim the sound is "warmer" "thicker" "clearer" or in some other magical "night and day better" than the bottle it replaced.
Do we ever get a before/after voltage table (the original might have aged out of specc')? We do not.
Do we ever get a smudge of the TMB setting if they were tweaked or the gains or master VC? We do not.
Do we ever get an SPL reading so that is consistent, easy enough with a phone these days? We do not.
Do they call in a third party to give a sort of "blind" test? Mate, significant other? They do not
Do they ever post a consistently made recording of the two amplifier conditions? They do not.
I am sure I have posted this before but. Some years ago I was asked to build a rig which could instantly compare two double Triodes of different brands. This device used relays to switch anode, cathode and grid from the stage in an amplifier to a second valve. Thus the signal was in every way the same, amp settings, bias, load resistors etc save a different valve, in this case the ECC83/X7.
Resuilts? Yes, some very experienced players could detect minor differences between brand, more so when driven into distortion but the changes were tiny and hard to pin down and there was no agreement, or even strong preference as to which brand was "best".
The object of the exercise was not to test valves for sonic "quality" but to see if a particular brand would elicit complaints from customers as not sounding "right" The testers concluded that the differences were so small nobody was ever likely to hear a difference and no one ever did!
There is perhaps a greater sonic difference between power valves. EL34 v 6L6 say but since you cannot 'hot swap' them as above due to differences in optimum load, hard to say. IMHO power valves only start to make a difference at absolute max power.
Dave.
FrankD77
Active member
Amen.
Musicians are ok with this.
Don't even start about done audiophiles.
With growing surprise I've followed discussions where people spend 1k on network switches claiming their wife came in, didn't know and immediately noticed....yeah sure
I believe in good quality gear but not going to spend money on things that are pure marketing
I always loved playing with gear in ways it was not designed for which led to a photography product with my name on it
When i read about queen and what they did in the studio it was clear... Experimenting is fun and you can learn a lot.
In all honesty i was never 100% satisfied with my tone. Probably due to my hushbox and i did not have a proper mic that I could use very close by. I went for the slate exactly for what you mention.
It's a nice mic without the software and the software gives me enough options to create a great sound.
As a hobbyist it's more fun than just throwing a 4k mic in front of a cab
Marketing is getting insane.
When i bought my VG88 they told me it was almost better than tubes...now a days they still claim it with every release and people spend thousands. I love my tube amps but also use plugins and a ge300 (still have my VG88) and like them all. In the mix you hardly can tell them apart.
Only with rack gear i have to say the dimension it adds to my sound is just a bit more to my liking than the plugins. But if i would have to start over ill probably just get a fractal for the FX. But as long as it works it's Rack gear for fx
But it's not night and day. Just enough.
Hype only bloats prices.
Musicians are ok with this.
Don't even start about done audiophiles.
With growing surprise I've followed discussions where people spend 1k on network switches claiming their wife came in, didn't know and immediately noticed....yeah sure
I believe in good quality gear but not going to spend money on things that are pure marketing
I always loved playing with gear in ways it was not designed for which led to a photography product with my name on it
When i read about queen and what they did in the studio it was clear... Experimenting is fun and you can learn a lot.
In all honesty i was never 100% satisfied with my tone. Probably due to my hushbox and i did not have a proper mic that I could use very close by. I went for the slate exactly for what you mention.
It's a nice mic without the software and the software gives me enough options to create a great sound.
As a hobbyist it's more fun than just throwing a 4k mic in front of a cab
Marketing is getting insane.
When i bought my VG88 they told me it was almost better than tubes...now a days they still claim it with every release and people spend thousands. I love my tube amps but also use plugins and a ge300 (still have my VG88) and like them all. In the mix you hardly can tell them apart.
Only with rack gear i have to say the dimension it adds to my sound is just a bit more to my liking than the plugins. But if i would have to start over ill probably just get a fractal for the FX. But as long as it works it's Rack gear for fx
But it's not night and day. Just enough.
Hype only bloats prices.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
I did not continue about microphones? (caught short! Old, male, meds!)
On the extremely rare occasion that a "valve swapper" does record the event we never get a detailed modus operandus of the recording setup.
Some gash mic is sat Gdalone knows how far from the cab and the interface rarely specified. Whether that distance and positioning is kept precisely the same for all the tests is never mentioned.
The mic is often a dynamic and whilst there is nothing wrong with that from a MUSICAL point of view, the frequency response of the SM57 say is hardly flat! I also have no idea how tightly that response is maintained sample to sample? Shure are probably very good in this regard but any given sample could be 30 years old and battered or fresh from the box OR! even a knockoff! Even the very cheap Behringer C2 has a flatter response (if you believe their plot!) at least to 10kHz which is in any case above the limit for most guitar speakers.
And again, what is the SPL at the mic and is it the same all the time? The guitar signal really should be the same every time I.E. "re amped".
Dave.
On the extremely rare occasion that a "valve swapper" does record the event we never get a detailed modus operandus of the recording setup.
Some gash mic is sat Gdalone knows how far from the cab and the interface rarely specified. Whether that distance and positioning is kept precisely the same for all the tests is never mentioned.
The mic is often a dynamic and whilst there is nothing wrong with that from a MUSICAL point of view, the frequency response of the SM57 say is hardly flat! I also have no idea how tightly that response is maintained sample to sample? Shure are probably very good in this regard but any given sample could be 30 years old and battered or fresh from the box OR! even a knockoff! Even the very cheap Behringer C2 has a flatter response (if you believe their plot!) at least to 10kHz which is in any case above the limit for most guitar speakers.
And again, what is the SPL at the mic and is it the same all the time? The guitar signal really should be the same every time I.E. "re amped".
Dave.
FrankD77
Active member
As far as I know mics often vary indeed.
In the end if you can find your sound it's great.
I think it's fascinating to see how a $150 mic with some (eq ? And wizardy) can even fool the experts.
Modern times gives us all the tools we need for next to nothing. In the past a good mic was an investment, we had some expensive ones in the studio now you can achieve a lot with emulations.
It's great to be able to experiment
Did some recording today and it's now very easy with double tracked guitars to get totally different sounds without changing anything about the signal chain.
I like cab emulations but a mic in front of a cab for me is still more fun. But also a commit to "tape" being able to change the whole feel and sound with some mic emulations opens up a lot of creativity
In the end if you can find your sound it's great.
I think it's fascinating to see how a $150 mic with some (eq ? And wizardy) can even fool the experts.
Modern times gives us all the tools we need for next to nothing. In the past a good mic was an investment, we had some expensive ones in the studio
now you can achieve a lot with emulations. It's great to be able to experiment
Did some recording today and it's now very easy with double tracked guitars to get totally different sounds without changing anything about the signal chain.
I like cab emulations but a mic in front of a cab for me is still more fun. But also a commit to "tape" being able to change the whole feel and sound with some mic emulations opens up a lot of creativity
Similar threads
