Help! I'm Confused as Heck.

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheRoz
  • Start date Start date
T

TheRoz

New member
Here's my situation: I am basically new to home recording, although I've had a Tascam Porta 5 for years. I have used it maybe 12-15 times with only fair results at best. My only piece of outboard gear is a tiny Zoom 9002 effects processor which I hate. I have lots of guitar stuff including vintage amps, etc, but no decent recording gear (except a Shure SM-57).

I am new to this forum, and I have been reading posts like crazy over the last few days trying to figure out what to do next. My main short-term goal is to start recording my Martin D-28 in such a way that I capture the clarity and chimey aspects of this guitar. My budget for a pre is limited to $200-300 at present or $600-700 if I wait a few months. Now I am really confused and perplexed.

First, I bought an AT Pro-37 condenser for 100 bucks. I have not used it because I do not have a phantom power supply or any piece of gear which has phantom power. Next, based on reading in this forum, I decided to get a mic preamp. This is the crux of my confusion. I'll admit right up front that my question is probably naive, if not stupid. Also, I know this subject has been discussed ad nauseum here, but I can't understand why some people love certain equipment that others just hate. I know that is human nature, and its all relative to what you can afford, but here's my angle on this...

Several posters to this forum have an Aphex 107 and really like it. But another said that it muddies up his acoustic sound, even when using expensive AT and Neumann condensers! Based on the favorable comments (before I saw this critique) I bid on an Aphex 107 on Ebay. Now I read that you get muddy acoustic tones using the 107, even with really expensive microphones!!

Of course, I am not happy. How could anybody like the 107 if you can't get reasonably clear acoustic tones? I know it's all relative, but now I'm just sick about having bid on that unit! My entire goal was to record the great ringing tone of my Martin. Several individuals have said that the pres on the 107 blow away those of the Mackie boards. But, if the 107 muddies up acoustics, then the Mackies must really suck. Boy am I confused.

I'm guessing that the 107 (which I anticipate winning on ebay) will sound only marginally better than if i just ran right into my Porta 5 using a dedicated phantom power unit (no preamp). I could buy a Presonus MP-20 from 8th Street Music for $440.00. If that just blows away the Aphex 107, then why would I want to buy an Aphex 107 for just $240 less!!!!! If I could wait a month and get a much better unit, that's what I would prefer to do. If the Presonus would muddy up acoustic tracks too, than it would obviously be a bid waste of money.

But here's the most confusing part: some have described mic pre shootouts as demonstrating that there is very little reason to spend between 200 and 2000 dollars on a mic pre. Does that mean you get muddy acoustic tone if you can't shell out 2000??? What about little known pro units like a Sescom unit I saw recently on Ebay?

Oh, I know of no stores around here where I can try out such things.

Thanks for your help and patience.
 
Welcome to the fun world of home recording! Yes, people disagree. Gee, what's the best music? Slayer? Barry Manilow? Don't worry, we're all confused. Rule #1- Almost any pre is better than no pre. #2-Whatever you buy, it won't be the last one. #3- Nothing works perfectly for everything. For an entry level pre, consider ART dual MP, Presonus blue tube, Joemeek MQ3. Others here will recommend others. Here's a cool tip.- Check which heavy posters here live near you, and find out if you can arrange a visit to their studios and mic your Martin through whatever they have just for the experience. What mics you use and how they are placed will be just as important as the pre. If we all agreed on what sounded good, music wouldn't be art, it would be science. Like psychiatry, recording is an art that uses science when it can. Best of luck.-Richie
 
welcome, theRoz!

Also, save up... a couple of HOURS (possibly 4-5 ;)) and read the thread that someone just BUMPED to the front of this forum:

"How does diaphragm size/polar pattern relate to mic applications?" a.k.a. "The Big Thread". There, you will find answers to many questions, including some great ways to record your Martin.

Good Luck! :p



Chad
 
Since you already have a 57 and know how to use it, perhaps you should stick with that for awhile and use it as a safety net to the gear you are going to have to use, that being a pre and a compressor. Then, when you're comfortable and know how to use that with your 57 you can branch out to the condenser mic world with a lot more understanding of what's going to work for you.
 
hey Roz,
welcome,
I mic my HD28 with a 57 just about every time I record. I used a 424mkIII and now a 788 to record. I ususally try to run the mic as hot as the recorder will let me, and mic the guitar around the 12th fret about 6 inches away. I get some real good results. If I could get into NWR I'd put up a links so you could listen to a tune.
If you can get to NWR sometime or the mp3 forum look for "dtb"
and you can here my Martin and a 57 on just about every tune.
I am also looking for another condenser but have not made up my mind yet. I have a 603s and may just get another. Works pretty good. I also have the ART tube pre which is ok, but not super great. Good luck.

dtb
 
Richard Monroe said:
...Here's a cool tip.- Check which heavy posters here live near you, and find out if you can arrange a visit to their studios and mic your Martin through whatever they have just for the experience...
Click to expand...
That is a cool idea. I'd certianly open my "studio" doors to help out some fellow home rec'ers!
 
Michael Jones said:

That is a cool idea. I'd certianly open my "studio" doors to help out some fellow home rec'ers!
Click to expand...

kewl.....

I've got a power trio...[me gtr] with triple Marshall stacks and [the bass player] double Ampeg SVT rigs...so we can hear ourselves over the 16 piece drum kit.. I was wanting to bring in the Austin symphonic orchestra to do some backing stuff also...

Can we come over NOW??;) :D (we'll only bring about 20 of our closest friends...honest)




michael...you're a good sport;)
 
If you win the 107 auction on Ebay, I would not buy another preamp and learn how to use your AT Pro-37. With a great sounding guitar you should be able to get a great sounding recording using almost any preamp and condenser mic, or even many dynamic mikes. The guitar and the person playing it is the most important factor in the equation.

I'm not saying equipment doesn't matter at all, because it does. People nitpick over the details once they have some experience and a frame of reference. Using that 107 and Pro-37 will be a step towards developing that frame.

After that, choosing gear is like running a dating service. Sometimes two pieces will clash and not get along at all, and other times they are a match made in heaven and they make sweet, beautiful music together.:cool:
 
TheRoz said:
But here's the most confusing part: some have described mic pre shootouts as demonstrating that there is very little reason to spend between 200 and 2000 dollars on a mic pre. Does that mean you get muddy acoustic tone if you can't shell out 2000??? .
Click to expand...

You don't have to shell out at least $2000 to get a tone that isn't muddy. A Mackie vlz preamps will give you a clear, detailed sound for less than $100 per preamp. (a Mackie 1202vlz is a 4-channel preamp for under $400 )

There is every reason for a home recorder to NOT shell out that kind of money on a preamp. There are preamps like the Earthworks, Grace, PreSonus, Sytek, and Great River that sell for much less than $2000 that are capable of capturing a "professional" acoustic guitar sound.
 
roz,

NWR is up now. Here's a links to my songs. Just about everything on here is with my HD28 thru a 57 which is going into very poor pres in an alesis mixer. I don't think I used the Art on any of these. Some are on a 424mkIII and a couple or on my new 788. But I was hoping that maybe hearing how some of these sound, could help you decide what gear you really need. Hurry up and get yo shit together, and you to can be a recording star. he he he he he he he, best hobby I know of.

dtb

http://www.nowhereradio.com/dtb/singles

try 788 blues, and east va. blues-good guitar tunz
 
Roz, as you know I own and use the Aphex 107, here are my
impressions of the pro's/con's/peculiarity of this unit.

Pro;
1) Low noise, especially for its price range
2) Mild tube warmth
3) Can help "smooth" out mid's on brassy sounding microphones
(like the Shure SM57 for instance)
4) Good gain (64 db)
5) Used by Craig Anderton noted audio author (bit of trivia!)

Con's;
1) No "line in's", designed for XLR inputs only
2) Can get "mushy" mids on some condenser microphones

Peculiarity!
1) This mic pre actually has LESS noise the MORE you crank it
because of the circuit design making it handy for dynamic
microphones or low sensitivity condensers
(Of course tha means th opposite is true)

Note that Scott Dorsey at rec.audio.pro suggested a "tubectomy"
for those who prefer a bit more detail on the mid frequencies
with this mic pre. The DMP3, based on end user comments seems
a simpler way to spend around $200 for a cleaner sound.

IMHO for those like me that are recording to 16 bit digital
(minidisc in my case!) it helps as a "band-aid" to smooth out
some of the "digital harshness" inherent in these formats.

Chris
 
If you win the 107 don't sweat it. Just because one person hated it doesn't make it a pile of crap. I'm sure you could also find someone who would say your AT Pro 37 is a pile of crap too. I'm sure you could find at least one person here who finds Catherine Zeta-Jones ugly, but that doesn't make her a pile of crap either. And there are plenty of people here who think I'm a pile of crap!

There's nothing particulalry wrong with the 107 as an inexpensive mic pre. Does it sound like a $2000 pre? No.

Can you find a way to make a decent recording with it? Yes.
 
littledog said:
I'm sure you could find at least one person here who finds Catherine Zeta-Jones ugly, but that doesn't make her a pile of crap either. And there are plenty of people here who think I'm a pile of crap!
Click to expand...

Are you saying you're Catharine Zeta-Jones?
 
Theroz,

It's not that the Aphex is a "bad" preamp. And I doubt it muddies up accoustic guitar tracks as terribly as one might think.

It's just that it isn't really anything special. And cheaper tube gear isn't exactly renowned for having the kind of clean or transparent sound that is often desirable for accoustic guitar.

You can pick up a dual-channel M-audio dmp3 . . . it will cost you about $200 and you won't be able to get much cleaner or more accurate gain for a mic untill you get in to a much higher price bracket. Ditto for the built-in preamps on a Mackie board.

The Grace design 101 may be a possible exception at $600. It arguably is a noticeable step up in quality. My advice would be to see if you can back out of the auction . . . pick up an dmp3 right now, or save some money for a Grace 101.
 
Reply to chessrock

Ah, but you lead me right into the heart of my confusion in trying to reconcile all the comments I've read: More than one poster has commented that the Aphex 107 "blows away" the pres in the Mackie board that they have (or have a/b'ed against). I guess it depends on what Mackie they have. I don't think I can back out of the auction, but I see some Joemeek VC6 Meekboxes are out there for less than or about the same as a new dmp3. I realize the Meek is one channel, but for about 300 or 320 total, I could get the Aphex 107 and the Meek with a compressor. Hmmm???
 
IMHO, the Mackie VLZ Pro pre's get a little "nasty" sounding when they're
cranked up for a low output microphone like a Shure SM57, compared to
how they sound on a hotter condenser. A local studio returned my Sennheiser
421 MKII I was offering for sale because he thought it was too noisy/low output
as he was using a VLZ Pro Series board! (Not selling it now BTW-too useful)

Again, due to the design peculiarity on the Aphex 107 it has less noise the MORE
you crank it. (and vice versa) It's very quiet on a condenser too though
to my fussy ears BTW. Several 107 owner/users who also use Soundcraft M series
series mixers have made internet postings saying the M pre's and the 107
are very comparable. The Aphex 107 is actually a hybrid tube design,
and my understanding is that the tube section is responsible for up to
about 20 db of the total 64 db gain potential based on rec.audio.pro posts.
It works especially well on low sensitivity dynamics to "round off" harsh
middle frequencies inherent in a Shure SM58/57, Sennheiser 421's, etc.

Chris
 
pro 37r's are crap

Just kidding. I love em on acoustic and drum o.h.'s. The At 37r and either the internal pres on a soundcraft or the 107 can produce a very nice sound.

Kirk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top