Just Getting Into Home Recording

[ecc83]

RC

You need to understand that the forum gets a lot of people who join, buy some gear based on popular lore of the various forums, often ask a bunch of fairly basic questions, and then vanish, never to be seen again. Likewise, we get a lot of new students who are taking "audio production" courses at a recording school (LA Film School is very common), and never check in again.

It looks like you've got a really solid background in audio and I suspect you're far more advanced that most people would have guessed.

Once you get everything setup and sorted out, we'd appreciate your comments, some audio samples, and opinions. Some of your equipment is less common than the typical home recording enthusiast. It might just fit the bill for someone else, something that they would have never considered!

I quite agree Rich, this is hardly your struggling, impecunious teenage bedroom wannabe! Don't really understand why the post is in the newb section? But no, no one means to be negative but there are different [points of view regarding sound recording. I belong to the "hi fi" school if you will in that I feel it is best to capture as accurate a take as possible of the instrument. Post tracking one can eff it about to death if you like!
Others want some "mojo" going in. Both techniques are valid.

Dave.

 

[rob aylestone]

I'm really interested in our very different views on 'quality'. I have never been able to produce a quantifiable link between price and quality, probably because we don't have a worldwide standard for audio quality at all. Up till maybe the end of the 70's, 'quality' was the avoidance of noise and distortion. Back then we were struggling with tonal shifts that people were starting to link (wrongly, I personally think) to 'quality'. So some of the historic mics - the Cole (STC) 4038 being a great example were deemed quality because their tone was more neutral for a ribbon - and the HF roll off was sort of kind - if you used one on something bright, you got the harmonics and then they gently tailed off. They didn't 'sizzle' - which meant some people went off them. Mics like the U87 became workhorses, not really special - but if you worked for a bigger budget organisation like our BBC, then they were the sort of thing you used for certain things - the things they did well. They were also NOT used for other sources as as I discovered when I bought one, they either flatter or hinder. Unlike the 414 which rarely does anything badly.

My mindset is still on accuracy, no noise or distortion and the ability to reveal, not create. This is why none of the items on your six grand shopping list are on mind. I'm absolutely not saying you have made a poor choice, but what you are looking for is some kind of magic I cannot treat in any positive way. I suppose I could - if I had the spare funds - buy a specific set of kit like yours, and for maybe 25% of my work, use it. That's just economically reckless for me. In fact my mic collection features 3 414s now - I bought more, when you got rid of yours to go for the Ear Trumpet. I'm sure you're really pleased with it - but I just cannot imagine me adding one to my collection. Many of the reviews for it are sufficiently odd for me to be wary. One review said it was nice for male vocals but less so on female. That concerns me - because that swing between good/bad is something I don't want to get into. I'm guessing the frequency response is just a bit odd to start with - but many boutique audio products are a bit odd and very succesful.

So we just have very different views on what we actually want. I hope the guitar builders will love what your kit produces. Interesting quest, I have to say.