Can I get a good enough sound? Plus a long rant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Meb
  • Start date Start date
M

Meb

New member
Hello.......
I'm kinda frustrated. To be honest, it's just because I'm too insecure, I know, but anyway........
I've been a singer songwriter for about 12 years and have always wanted to be able to record my own albums at home that will not be laughed at as far as sound quality goes. The limitation of course, is that I don't have a lot of money. But I got a second job and started saving up money and began buying equipment to go after my dream. Anyway, I started reading any book I could get my hands on about recording etc., and started to record my first album completely by myself,(I have recorded 3 solo albums in other peoples studios before). One of the things that I've been recently doing is looking at forums like this one for advice. There are definitely some wise people who sometimes hang out here. But, here's my problem. Because I have some insecurity issues:), this forum is causing me to stress out a little. People here can be so opinionated. I'll buy something that I've heard good things about and then I see someone post something on here like "That's a piece of CRAP" and then my confidence in using that product goes to the floor and I'll feel like I can't record more until I get something better. Here's what I'm using: (by the way, I'm mainly concerned with getting a good vocal sound) I have a Rode NT1 plugged into a good quality Monster Cable going into a Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro mixer and into a Layla 20 bit soundcard. I'm using Cubase 5/32. I also own Waves Native Power Pack and Renaissance Collection 3.0. I feel like I'm getting a good sound, but in the back of my mind, I worry about all those recording engineers laughing at my work, although I don't think they would. I hear so many conflicting points of view on this forum and others, so I know I'm asking for it, but can I get a reasonably proffessional sound with this equipment, or will recording engineers scoff at my attempt? Let's assume that I've done my homework and am getting the best sound that I can out of my equipment. Would most recording engineers still be able to tell quickly what mike I was using and with what preamp? If I didn't tell them? Without having a back to back comparison, could most engineers, really be able to tell what mike I was using, even with my voice surrounded by other instruments in a mix? And could the average consumer even slightly tell the difference, especially without a back to back comparison? I like the sound that I'm getting from my Mackie Pro mixer and Rode NT1, but I have to admit, I have not had anything else to compare them to in a back to back test. If I get a better microphone, will I be able to tell the difference using my Mackie preamps, or would I have to upgrade my preamps also? I was thinking of getting the Sure Ksm44 or the AT4050. Would that be a waste of time with the Mackie preamps? Would I not here a difference? I've heard that the new XDR Mackie preamps are really quite good for the money. Do some people sometimes bag on Mackie preamps and other less expensive products, just because they just bought $100,000.00 worth of equipment and they really want to feel that it was worth it, and so they put down less expensive products? It's just so hard to find out the truth. I mean, like I said, I was thinking about getting the Shure Ksm44, but, then I read on some forum that you probably wouldn't hear a difference between my NT1 without a high quality preamp, and I didn't know if my preamp was good enough. I also know that I probably don't have enough money to buy both a better microphone and a new preamp. Then of course, I read a review in a major magazine about the Shure Ksm44 that said that you could easily tell the difference between it and a Neuman U87 and that the U87 was much more open and 3 dimensional. Don't you think that that statement is probably a little bit of an overstatement? Much more open and much more 3 dimensional? I can definitely imagine that the Shure is not quite as good, but MUCH more open?
Okay, fine....I've got some issues I know. But, I just want to enjoy making my album and have more confidence in my equipment. Any advise on how to take criticism would also be appreciated:)
 
Not to worry...

Cause the NT1 and Mackie SUCKS!!! ;)

If you gear is making you happy, then fine. It is at the point where you start asking stuff like "I have a NT1 and a Mackie, and my vocals don't have that sound that (insert big named band here....) get's. What am I doing wrong?". I would probably tell you to get another mic and another preamp because bignameband insertedhere does not use a NT1 and Mackie to record with except in very very rare cases.

You get what you pay for friend. If doing demo work is all you are after with this gear, then it will suffice. If a big time sound is what you are after, well, that starts with a great voice going into a great mic going into a great mic preamp going into a great recording medium (2" analog with dolbySR or high end 20 bit or higher A/D converters) with feed a great mixer going into a competent pair of monitors which are housed in a nice acoustically tuned space. You get what I am saying?

You can get reasonable results with what you have, but that will depend greatly too on how experienced you are with your monitors (something that takes a bit of time to get down, like a few years maybe....).

Good Day!
 
I like your question Meb...I think it is right on point for a lot of us newbies.

I have played bass for a lot of years. I enjoy reading all the various reviews and bulletin boards but I think a lot of the stuff written about equipment is BS. Some folks judge everything by the specs of the equipment, others judge by what equipment their hero uses, etc. All that matters in bass equipment is what works reliably and provides a tone that floats YOUR boat.

So here I am looking at buying some recording equipment and I don't have the years of experience to fall back on. I have a MAckie 1604 that I have used into an 8 track tascam syncassette. I want to upgrade to something that will provide a quality demo sound assuming I can utilize the equipment up to its potential.

There is a law of diminishing returns in sound quality...it may cost x dollars to get equipment that can get 90% as good as a commercial release...but that last 10% costs a fortune and is what seperates the real engineers and real studios from us newbies and hobbyists. I am trying to get the best possible sound without the big bucks kicking in.

So...will a mic upgrade from a cheap condensor mic to the shure or AT mics listed by Meb be wasted if I'm using a 1604? If I get something like a yamaha AW4416 and a good mic will I be hopelessly constrained by the mackie preamp? or by the quality of the A/D converters?

To put it in pespective, there a guys who swear you couldn't play a gig without taking 4 basses and playing through a tri-amped bass rig with a rack full of effects and compressors...but I know that a good player can play any gig with a semi pro bass and amp. The equipment is not the constraint, its the players skill.

I believe the point we are looking for is where our skill is the limiting factor, not the gear. Sorry for the long post but Meb struck a chord. This bulletin board is great...I have learned a lot.
 
c7sus hit the nail on the head...."what monitoring setup are you using?". If what you are getting sounds great and compares with "pro" stuff, then you are there. Your equipment is NOT necessarily the limiting factor here. Even though it is not very costly as compared to the "big boys", it is still capable of fine sounding stuff. But.....and a BIG BUTT.....it depends on how, what, who, and genre of music you are recording. Looking to accurately capture a Bosendorfer or the subtle nuances of a highly skilled singer, etc...you need "EARS" to know if it is captured "correctly.".....not to mention a little experience to get to the "end of the road." Your Layla is fine and the software is "Killer", so don't let that get you down. Remember, if your acoustic guitar sounds like shit on the speakers....what did it sound like going in?>>>>.....give it a critical listen before it hits the mic. An Apollo set of drums with duct tape all over them will never sound like ______(insert your fav drummer here). If everyone could record a KILLER SOUNDING CD, there would be no one that stands out....but it aint always that easy. Pick any professional field...from sports atheletes to stock brokers....it takes talent and expertise to rise to the top.
 
Thank you for your replies. I'm using Alesis M1's for my monitors. I have them on good stands and placed pretty well. I had been using some used Monitor One's , but then I took my amplifier out of my little studio setup and put it in my live rig and therefore got some Active M1's and sold the Monitor Ones. I stuck with Alesis because I had gotten pretty used to them and the M1's sounded similar with more low end. I also have some kinda average computer speakers with one of those cheap subwoofers that I use to check the low end and see if there's too much going on down there. I know a lot of people are listenning on their computers, so I think that's important. But, really, the most important thing I do to monitor, is to listen on as many different stereos as I can and then make adjustments.
How about my question regarding possibly getting a better microphone like the Shure Ksm44 or AT4050, and whether the XDR's in my Mackie are gonna stop me from noticing much of a difference? I really do appreciate your replies. Thanks so much.
Meb
 
I'm out of my depth here...

... but as they keep saying in the guitar forums, "It's not what you got, it's how you use it."

I read a thread over there today in which someone said that a Name Band had showed up at his gig, were invited onto the stage, and played through his humble, don't-quit-your-day-job equipment... and sounded like the Name Band would with their own equipment. The lesson? It's not the tool, it's the craftsman.

Human nature dictates that an artist can never be satisfied with "good enough." Advertisers, marketers, and credit banks prey on that insecurity! It's easy to get fetishistic about the quality of your gear. But at some point fiscal realities step in, and you have to work with the tools you can afford.

C7's right. Modern "prosumer" equipment is amazingly good by historical standards. Consider that many hit albums of years past were made on equipment that would be considered frighteningly primitive today. And yet some listeners worship the sound on those old tracks. Those musicians and engineers made the most of what they had.

Four things made that possible: (1) the musical performance; (2) knowing the limitations of the gear; (3) skill in working within those limits; and (4) creativity in thinking outside the box, knowing how to work around those limits to get the sound that's in the artist's head.

Sure, some golden-eared engineer or producer will be able to identify the gear you used. That isn't what you should worry about. What you should worry about is his next thought: will it be "... and he sure gets a great sound with it!" or "... and someone should teach him how to use it"?

Polish your skills, not your credit cards. Keep your ears open, and try to learn from everything you hear. Find a mentor, and/or seek out opinions from people whose work you respect. Be open to new ways of doing things, even when they violate every rule you know.

And most of all, don't be dismayed by criticism. Learn what you can from constructive criticism. And when it's not constructive, remember that in a cutthroat business populated with insecure people, criticism can be a sign that the critic feels threatened by your work.

Last, keep in mind that the music business pro isn't your ultimate audience! You may have to get his attention to get to a mass audience, but the music-listening public is your ultimate judge, and they don't give a rat's ass whether you made your CD with Neumanns or tin cans and string.

But you can be sure that if you record a hit, the wannabes will want the exact equipment you used, no matter how humble!! :D
 
Check out this thread, the guy who did this stuff was using affordable equipment and produced a product that a reputable audio equipment manufacturer considered to be good enough to showcase their product.

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=24734

What soundCracker says is true, you wont get that million dollar sound until you actually have a million dollars worth of equipment, and since that is probably not going to happen you should just stop worrying about it and have fun making music that is only 90% perfect but still quite good enough for most occasions.
 
dear frustrated!

Dear frustrated friend:
I am new on this forum but at the ripe old age of 52, I have been around this stuff and done many, many demos thru the years. I have been where you are and I have to fight it everyday still. Music is such a subjective hobby/business. If you let yourself get caught up in all of these opinions on equipment out there, you will never get any recording done. I'll bet you have enough god given skills and talent to put down your music the way you want it to sound. You need to find a way to be satisfied with what you turn out. You are your own worst critic so it will never be 100% like you want it. But there are ways to get it back into perspective. I love the Beatles. They did "Pepper" on a 4 track machine and most of "Abbey Road" the same way. Those albums were done over 30 years ago. I would venture to say that you could "buy" their sound today fo little or nothing. You probably have more tracks and quiter because of digital than they ever had. They had to bounce tracks like crazy back then and splice tape. Now they did have access to the best mics in the world but even today with better s/n ratios of digital equipment, you can get good mike sounds rather cheap. So whatever you now use is probably close to the quality of the greatest rock band ever. A lot of alternative groups still try to emulate that old sound. I think it is more challenging to take lesser gear and use my creativity to make it sound real good than to take elaborate gear and come up short of my expectations. Just be a realist. There are new bells and whistles out there everyday that I want but will never have. Next week there will be a new mess of them. I still think that most of these people pushing their new gear could not even do what you and I do with what we now have. They just want our money. Use your creativity and have some fun. it will make you more positive. Make your own Abbey Road. Good luck.
 
hey meb,

I feel everything you are saying.

Before I go on, check out this site and see if you like his quality.

www.mp3.com/codyyoung/

he used to be on this board. So do you like it?
He used a layla 20 card to do that, and he used an Alesis mixer(studio 24), which is not as good as your Mackie. he used a $400 joemeek vc6q pre and an Audio Technica AT4033 mic for the vocals

Before I go on, check out

www.mp3.com/spillingpoetry/
and listen to their songs, especially stumbling.

They used sm58 for vocals, and tracked everything through a mackie 1604

So do you like their work?

If you do , then you are in good shape. You have good equipment that can produce great results so don't worry about it.

I have to say though, that I totally hate the rode nt1. I am sure that I can tell a rode nt1 recorded vocal if it has not been overly equalised. It sounds rough, and harsh in the mids

According to a recording book i have, and I totally agree, the two pieces of equipment that you should get first are : reverb AND compressor. A compressor makes the sound more pro and a reverb makes it even more so. They don't have to be expensive. $200 for each piece will suffice.

Back to the rode nt1. The difference btw the rode and a more expensive mic is like night and day. The 4033 is an awesome mic for $300.


I have to agree with you about differing opinions. One thing I have learnt on the internet is to get at least 20-30 opinions before you do anything.

If a thread starts out by dissing a product, the first fifteen people will diss it, and then somebody will come along and disagree, and the next fifteen will say that its a good product.

Also, if you read that the mackie hr824 are the best monitors, somebody will come along and say that the genelec 1032s are the best, and then somebody will come along and say that the meyer hd-1s beat the genelecs hand down, and somebody will say that the quested are better than the meyers and it goes on and on and on.
very sad
 
I just want to illusrate a point here. Take a listen to the cody young MP3 posted by CyanJag. The overall sound is very solid for the genre... I would have taken the vocals down in a couple spots, especially in the beginning where the music is not as present. But it does the job for the typical consumer ear. Again, while its not flawless- if you A/B it with major label country you will be able to find some subtle flaws as far as recording quality but overall its not gonna stop people from buying the record.

However, the most significant weakness to my ears is not in the recording but in the way he flattens the bends on his transient notes in his singing. This is VERY characteristic of demo quality material. Aside from a performance that is not tight which is not a problem with the cody young band and most serious bands out there, one of the biggest hurdles in getting "pro sound" is getting the same professionalism in the vocals ...(while also being expressive and not coming off stale and preplanned.) That means going over every millesecond of the vocals with a high resolution microscope and redoing stuff thats not where it needs to be. I think this is one of the most significant differences between engineers and producers at the top and people at the bottom. And this is much MUCH more significant to the professionalism of your total product than your preamps. Thats possibly why you can still go back and listen to albums from the 70s and 80s and still dig the music. Bec the writing and performing is totally there even if the snare sounds like cardboard.
 
Thank you all so much

I just wanted to say thank you to all of you. Especially some of you who have really put a lot of thought and heart into your responses. Your replies have really kind of sparked a renewed vigor in me musically. I was sort of getting lost in a big haze of self doubt. Anyway, thank you all again so much.
Of course, on a much shallower topic,:) I am still thinking of getting a better vocal mike, and am in quite the quandry about which one. I should probably post this on the microphone thread, but since I'm here:)... I really just need a good(less than $700.00 please) VOCAL mike that is warm sounding. I like the look of the Shure KSM44 a lot, but really wonder for what I do, whether I will need all the extra polar patterns and such that it offers etc. I just want a mike that sounds realistic, warm and intimate(don't we all)on voice. I've recently been leaning toward the AT4047 just for what I think it would sound like on vocals. Especially on my voice, which can have a slight edge to it in the midrange, and at times can be troublesome with my current mike, the NT1. Any thoughts would really be appreciated.
And again, on a deeper note, thank you all for the inspiring thoughts and statements you have posted here. I have read some of them several times. Thank you!
 
Thank you all so much

I just wanted to say thank you to all of you. Especially some of you who have really put a lot of thought and heart into your responses. Your replies have really kind of sparked a renewed vigor in me musically. I was sort of getting lost in a big haze of self doubt. Anyway, thank you all again so much.
Of course, on a much shallower topic,:) I am still thinking of getting a better vocal mike, and am in quite the quandry about which one. I should probably post this on the microphone thread, but since I'm here:)... I really just need a good(less than $700.00 please) VOCAL mike that is warm sounding. I like the look of the Shure KSM44 a lot, but really wonder for what I do, whether I will need all the extra polar patterns and such that it offers etc. I just want a mike that sounds realistic, warm and intimate(don't we all)on voice. I've recently been leaning toward the AT4047 just for what I think it would sound like on vocals. Especially on my voice, which can have a slight edge to it in the midrange, and at times can be troublesome with my current mike, the NT1. Any thoughts would really be appreciated.
And again, on a deeper note, thank you all for the inspiring thoughts and statements you have posted here. I have read some of them several times. Thank you!
 
I want to respond to Cyan Jaguar's post. I checked out spilling poetry and really, really, liked the tunes, especially "stumbling". I liked "Freeway" a lot too. I downloaded both of them. I am also looking into the AT 4033 mike. I like the price and have never gone wrong with AT. I thhink you reinforced what I was trying to get Meb to realize about this crazy hobby we are all into. It is just so subjective. We all have to live with whatever we create and enjoy the effort, no matter what equipment was used to get it down. I also think there is a huge difference between a demo and a final product but it is easy to mix up the two. When I send a demo out to Taxi, I work as hard as I can to make it the best, most presentable demo that I can. But I know that if there is any interest in the demo, it is going to be re-recorded and rearranged. It may be sung by someone of the opposite sex in a different key. There is a post by someone that suggests the vocals really are the most critical part of the tune and I agree. However, I think that crosses the line of demo/final product. There is a time factor and burnout factor for me. I cannot sing the tune but so many times. I can sing it 4-5 times and get it close enough for me and let the interested party do the next demo. That is my method. I am tempted to continue re-doing the tune for months because I am never satisfied. But somewhere along the way, I have to let it go.
 
Meb. your setup is good.

here's a few things I'd like to add. Do your instruments sound good? and does your room sound good? Sometimes it's not the mics, the pre's, the medium... some instruments just record better than others and some spaces sound bad. (just another thing for you to torture youself over.

for the gear issue. If vocals are your main focus, then, eventually, you'll need another mic than the NT-1. I have one that I have a love hate realtionship with. It's always good to have a few choices. Does it sound good on your voice?? that's the biggest question. Try out a few mics and see if there is something better for YPU out there that you can possibly afford. The Mackie pre's aren't going to keep a better mic from sounding better, they are pretty damn good. that said check out a few things. You can get a M-audio DmP2 for less than $100. I've heard enough goodthings about this 2-channel pre to consider getting one. Concentrate on your front end (vocal mic, pre) then upgrade your sound card to a 24 bit one. I'm sort of doing the opposite, but, my focus right now seems on getting really good drum sounds, so I'm building around that, just picked up another sound card with more inputs than have pre's for... those pre's are next for me, then better overheads than that friggin NT-1, Then vocal mic then my "Gold" channel...

-jhe
 
hi James HE,

please tell me where I can get the dmp2 for less than $100 and I will be right on it.

from the reviews I read, that is one piece of work that I want now.

thanks
 
I have the omni which has the DMP2 on it along with other goodies and all the hype is true. The lowest Ive seen for the DMP2 is $189 at sweetwater. Its not as popular as it should be and alot of online stores dont sell it.
I would spring for the omni which is only $40 more and you get the preamps plus a ton of routing capacity (and is easier to find).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top