Mic Pre, Compressors, EQ Question

T

Twinhit

You gotta speak up!
Hi,

I think there's a lot of us want to build up a nice little studio for ourselves and perhaps
something to earn a couple bucks on the side.

I am starting out with some pretty basic, perhaps simple stuff
A Mackie 802 VLZ-3 mixer (wish it had 4 instead of 3 XLR Mic pres)
a 13 yr old PC running XP (it's not as bad as you might think - new one pending)
Teac 4010S .25" reel to reel tape deck
Shure SM57 (plan on a getting at least 1 more)
MXL 990/991 (solid state) condenser mic kit
MXL 960 Tube condenser mic


Application:
Male and female vocals (both spoken and lyrical)
Acoustic instruments and electric guitars and bass

Gear of interest:
Mic Preamps
Compressors
EQs

(Also)
Deessers
Reverbs

I am aware of low and higher end gear made by:

ART
Behringer

Higher end
Focusrite
Avalon
DBX
TC Electronics
Eventide
Rane
Drawmer
Universal Audio
Manley

....to name a few.

I know you get what you pay for but my question is what might be some good
choices for the gear of interest cited above for the home studio?

Because I want to do some experimentation on tape, I want to consider something
that caters to a two channel (or stereo) system.
Also, I am interested in both tube and solid state designs.

My main interest is the preamp, compressor, and EQ. One stereo (or dual mono) in solid state and tube.
ie

Tube mic pre (2 channels) and Solid State mic pre (two channels)
Tube compressor (2 channels) and Solid State compressor (two channels)
Tube EQ (2 channels) and Solid State EQ (two channels)

Any suggestions for the low, medium and higher end pirce brackets?
Also, any rule of thumbs?
 
Personally, I would suggest for someone who is just getting into recording and want to start recording themselves (to get experience) and maybe eventually some others is to start off by not dropping tons of cash on outboard gear. I would suggest getting a decent interface that has decent built in pre's or if you have a little extra cash, possibly get a decent outboard pre. In addition to that, I would suggest getting a couple decent mics. The mics you get, however, will be really dependant on what styles you plan to record. For acoustic tunes, I have never been a fan of using sm57s to record. They work good on cabs and electrics, but I would recommend some kind of condensor for acoustic. I like the sound of the KSM137's or the SM81's. A good stereo pair of condensors will go along way in recording acoustic.

As for EQ, Compressors and other effects, I would recommend just starting out by using some plugs. Most DAW's this day give decent starter plugs that will at least allow you to get your feet wet with recording. For my home studio, I prefer (for the most part) plugs over outboard gear (due to space, less restrictions, price, etc..) Alot of the nicer plugs are actually moddled after real gear and give decent sound.

However, alot of this is also dependant on what your budget is. What is your budget?
 
phriq said:
Personally, I would suggest for someone who is just getting into recording and want to start recording themselves (to get experience) and maybe eventually some others is to start off by not dropping tons of cash on outboard gear. I would suggest getting a decent interface that has decent built in pre's or if you have a little extra cash, possibly get a decent outboard pre. In addition to that, I would suggest getting a couple decent mics. The mics you get, however, will be really dependant on what styles you plan to record. For acoustic tunes, I have never been a fan of using sm57s to record. They work good on cabs and electrics, but I would recommend some kind of condensor for acoustic. I like the sound of the KSM137's or the SM81's. A good stereo pair of condensors will go along way in recording acoustic.

As for EQ, Compressors and other effects, I would recommend just starting out by using some plugs. Most DAW's this day give decent starter plugs that will at least allow you to get your feet wet with recording. For my home studio, I prefer (for the most part) plugs over outboard gear (due to space, less restrictions, price, etc..) Alot of the nicer plugs are actually moddled after real gear and give decent sound.

However, alot of this is also dependant on what your budget is. What is your budget?
Click to expand...


Thanks for your reply.
Good point about the style.
As far as budgets go, I kinda want to be openminded so others might have an idea what a decent entry level, low mid price, midprice, high mid price and high priced Pre/comp/EQ would be.


As for vocal style I am thinking your basic country, pop, blues, gospel with voices ranging from Bass, Baratone, Tenor through soprano - that sort of thing.

Personally, my voice is a baritone, sometimes gravel-like sometimes sandpaper-lke sometimes velvet-like and on the nasal side, naturally.
However, I have fun impersonating a variety of voices from Louis Armstrong (gravel) to Pavarotti (velvet) with a little strain.
While they may not be perfect emulations, sometimes, I think, they are close enough to give the intended artist, being impersonated, away.
However, while I am certainly not vocal talent, myself, I think I am good enough for testing studio equipment in terms of approximating the best choice.

micing an guitar amp was one reason why I got the SM57

As for an interface, I am not exactly looking for iface for my PC as it has been doing pretty good. However, I have a new system in mind, which I plan to build that would be ready for upgrades to the extreme of one of those UA DUO PCIe cards. Of course, those are not an A/D audio interface.

I think what I am wanting to do is have a bit more control over the signal that is going into the computer BEFORE the digital domain before I dabble with soft plugs.
This way when Y2K's revenge finally catches up with us all I can tape myself a lullaby. LOL

Starting off
I thought I'd purchase some ART gear... Does anyone think I should look elsewhere?
ie a reply like "You'd be better off to save x $$ toward a DBX solid state compressor than waste money on the Pro VLA"

Oh, btw, I also like to DI some of my stuff so no mic is even necessary.
I found I like one of my guitars recorded this way.

Flame suit on... burn me with all the hellfire and brimstone audio gospel preachin' you can muster.
I am here to learn.
:)
 
Do you want to play your stuff live into tape? Good mic placement new strings tuned right will sound better then the latter with expensive tube gear. But once you get that down i would get the avalon 737 channel strip hands down. Ive used it with a neumann tlm and it was nock your sox of sick. First of all that preamp is sweet and really amplifies that signal in all the right places. The compressor is just sick. And a sweet eq. But all that amazing stuff would be worthless with a bad mic placement right?!?
And tape rules!!!
 
Yes, tape rules.
Grew up on tape and vinyl, myself.
But, that seems to be more true back in the day when CDs first came out.
You have a lot pros saying that Digital has come of age. Also, good tape for a good price is
getting harder to find. At the end of the era of analog tape, it's likely to be pros and audiophiles
with deep pockets who'll use the stuff.
I haven't used my software in awhile but I've heard the way to get as close to that analog capture quality in digital
is to record to the tune of 192 Kbps 44,100 Hz - I forget now, but it's high figure and the file is going to be big.
I've also heard that music such as classical music is full of a lot more nuances compared to a typical 5 piece rock band.
So.... my guess is while the file may be bigger and higher processing power needed, capturing as much of the original sound
is more likely. That said, it's quite an amazing piece of technology to have a 7000 songs in box smaller than a pack of cigarettes.

I could be wrong, though.
 
24bit/96khz is a sample rate. I dont think digital can ever get close to what analog sounds like.
First of all Analog means infinitely divisible, it is continuous. It in all intensive purposes has infinite resolution. Plus Analog has many coloration aspects that digital doesnt have.

Digital is finitely divisible. Hence there is a sample rate which defines that sequence. Its resolution is defined by its sample rate. The higher the rate the higher the resolution. The lower the rate the lower the resolution.

I dont know why i just got into this...
 
TheChikenMaster said:
24bit/96khz is a sample rate. I dont think digital can ever get close to what analog sounds like.
First of all Analog means infinitely divisible, it is continuous. It in all intensive purposes has infinite resolution. Plus Analog has many coloration aspects that digital doesnt have.

Digital is finitely divisible. Hence there is a sample rate which defines that sequence. Its resolution is defined by its sample rate. The higher the rate the higher the resolution. The lower the rate the lower the resolution.

I dont know why i just got into this...
Click to expand...


I look at the sample rate as being similar to video resolution, better yet... video refresh rate.
I think it is only logical to conclude that the faster the sample rate, the smaller the digital steps and thus
less loss of audio. I don't know but if your screen has a higher resolution, the image is going to be much sharper
and less blocky. It only makes sense to record more samples in shorter periods of time would equate to
better sound quality. Now, the human ear which is described as "perfect hearing" wouldn't be able to discern
the difference at some point in course of digital audio technology improvement and it may well be that we have
already arrived to that level where it doesn't matter how much faster a digital recording/playback system can go because
the human ear simply cannot discern any improvement. A 3D video game with 16 frames per second is trash compared to 32 fps and
64 fps would only be that much better. Same smell.
Again, I could be wrong.
 
First of all Analog means infinitely divisible, it is continuous. It in all intensive purposes has infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
Phooey. Both systems have very finite and definable limitations.

The old digital gaps or grain size in the picture' analogy has been debunked for a dozen or more years now.
Sometimes it helps instead of resolution' to compare first in terms of percent of error, then preferred error.
This is a wonderful time for us. For very little $$$ we can have tracking/mix/play back where that error % is nil -if we want.
Plus Analog has many coloration aspects that digital doesnt have.
Click to expand...
And we can choose to get our color up front, later, or not at all
(..more or less :D
 
TheChikenMaster said:
First of all Analog means infinitely divisible, it is continuous.
Click to expand...

LPs are composed of discrete granules of vinyl and tape has discrete particles of magnetic material. In both cases the accuracy of the resulting waveform is limited by those and many other parameters. Digital audio uses filters in the DAC to produce a continuous waveform, the accuracy of which is limited by a different set of parameters.

The grain of truth to your story is that digital audio uses periodic sampling while analog is essentially randomized. The periodic sampling does pose problems but they are well defined and managed by any decent recording or playback system.
 
umm,
for what it's worth, I think we hear by means of a "neuro-electro-mechanical-acoustic" process.
The absolute closest analogy that I can think of is the piezo type guitar pickup or a vinyl turntable cartridge.
Both devices sense vibration (mechancal). These physical vibrations are the circular motion of the plucked guitar
string (for the guitar) and the random vertically oriented peaks and valleys, cut on the vinyl by the vinyl cutting lathe
which was mechanically translated by the lathe cutter.

Tape is an electomagnetic device which "may" be (somewhat) likened to the Electric Guitar's single coil pickups such as
used on the Fender Stratocaster, among others that sense the motion of the metal string rather than the vibration of the string
as piezo pickups do. However, it may be a mistake to make this comparison as magnetic tape doesn't vibrate like a guitar string.
But, the tape head does react to the various magnetic strengths proportional to the signal which is similar to how a guitar's pickups
actually work in tandem with the string's gauge, length, vibrational intensity that generates the signal:

Analog recording is based on the fact that remnant magnetization of a given material depends on the magnitude of the applied field. The magnetic material is normally in the form of tape, with the tape in its blank form being initially demagnetized. When recording, the tape runs at a constant speed. The writing head magnetizes the tape with current proportional to the signal. A magnetization distribution is achieved along the magnetic tape. Finally, the distribution of the magnetization can be read out, reproducing the original signal. The magnetic tape is typically made by embedding magnetic particles in a plastic binder on polyester film tape. The commonly used magnetic particles are Iron oxide particles or Chromium oxide and metal particles with size of 0.5 micrometers.[1] Analog recording was very popular in audio and video recording. In the past 20 years, however, tape recording has been gradually replaced by digital recording.[2]
Source: Magnetic storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That being said, with a little more thought given to the subject, Digital really isn't all that bad in terms of recording, editing and storage,
which I believe is an astounding improvement in the advancement of musical capability and marketing.
Again, the only improvement I can see is in the way of increasing the sample rate and as noted earlier, the results "may" be negligable.
Also the reproducing devices (ipod, mp3 players, etc) would have to improve along with anything the recording devices for the tech as
a whole to benefit.

All that said, Analog STILL has a place, both in recording and in playback devices.
After all those earbuds connected to your media player also work on 30 year old cassette players.
Ultimately, what we all actually hear is mechanically projected sound (winds up his phonograph).

To be certain, analog or digital, both have their place.
Playback preferance:

Do I want to hear a recording in true acoustic form? IF I do, I need to record to an old fashioned bakelite disc phonograph and wind it up.
This would be as close to an acoustic guitar as one can get. What brand of phonograph shall I choose? A Martin? A Gibson? Perhaps a
Spanish made Classical or.... why not a Stradivarius?

Do I want to hear a recording in acoustic electric form? A Technics SL1200 MK2 fitted with an $11,000.00 cartridge
going through the best stereo tube pre, receiver and 12.1 surround speakers might be a smidgeon eccentric even for the audiophile,
but Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles might approve.

Do I want to hear a recording through headphones? Hey, it just might be my bag.
So it really might just boil down to personal preferance. Obviously there is no strict rule of thumb for sound men. It's what sounds
best to them. Whether the masses agree with his choices will be seen in how famous he turns out to be.
Not many celebrity superstar soundmen out there and that's a pity. Why? Because if I were the guy that recorded Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, it may not have received the favor of it's listeners. Star Wars would have been a flop, for sure!

I know this much. The more options we have the better and soundmen and the lowly speakers
deserve more recognition than they've received.

I give you.... the Phonograph!
Phonograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
TheChikenMaster said:
Look What I started haha.
Now lets discuss Fourier transforms!
Click to expand...

ummmm, please, let's rather just discuss what a decent Pre-amp, Compressor, and EQ would be.
three suggestions for each type of equipment in 4 price ranges.

$200-400
$400-800
$800-1600
$1600-3200

It sure would be appreciated.
 
TheChikenMaster said:
avalon 737 hands down
Click to expand...

OK, thank you, that's one for the Avalon 737!!
Any additional comments?

"The Avalon VT-737SP features a combination of TUBE preamplifiers, opto-compressor, sweep equalizer, output level and VU metering in a 2U space."
For more info: Avalon - NEW VT-737SP, Specs & Details
Click to expand...
Estimated Street Price (2012): $2,250 (Sweetwater)
This single channel combo* channel strip product does appear to have a very satisfied customer rating.
* It should be noted that this "combo" implies preamp/compressor/eq for a single input, in a single 2U rackspace enclosure.
 
guitaristic said:
The Golden Age Pre-73 gets a ton of good reviews. It's about $350 new.
Click to expand...

There's one for a Golden Age Pre-73*
* It should be noted that there is a Golden Age Pre-73II

"The input impedance of the microphone input can be switched between 300 and 1200 ohms, which makes it possible to affect the tone of most microphones. There is also phase switch and an simple 4-step LED signal level meter."
Golden Age Project
Click to expand...

This highly affordable device is based on the circuitry used in Neve’s legendary 1073. So can you really get a classic vintage preamp sound on a budget?
Golden Age Project Pre 73
Click to expand...

Thank you guitaristic
 
the m-audio dmp3 gets solid reviews also, if you wanna go solid state. I have the presonus tubepre which is decent, and the art dps.
 
so you have a merging of analog to digital.... 13 yr old pc, thats 1999ish, with XP, so thats 32 bit version.

I think most agree mixing down in the DAW and HR-mastering type software is a given. a decent interface to your active Monitors, or passive....sets you up, and your room is always waiting for improvements.

so aside for that "backend", your incoming suggestions of a Channel Strip sounds like a great idea. Work on getting a "golden strip for vocal tracks" sounds fun. The Avalon 727, $2200, the Focusrite Producer.......or cheaper Joe Meek VC...or even cheaper JoeMEek v3 and the ART racks..... mics, i really like the Shure SM7 and Seinheiser 421 I had long time ago was good.
I guess I like the Vocal Channels all in one concept too.

fo Bass direct, guitars direct or a SM57 on an nice amp should be fine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top