Microphone Reality Check...again

  • Thread starter Thread starter MadMax
  • Start date Start date
M

MadMax

New member
I'm an old guy, been playing guitar for 30+ years and homerecing for about 10. I mostly record my own stuff with and without my bass player and my drummer. Occasionally, I'll record other bands.
I have a modest mic collection; SP C1, MXL V93m, Apex 40 something tube mic, D112, NT-5's, ECM 8000's, bunch of 57's. I use a A&H Mixwiz as my front end, except for vox- I use a Symetrix 528.

My point is this: I get Mic & Preamp lust every time I read these forums. I hear descriptions of the sounds and how this mic or pre is "Head and Shoulders above the rest". And things like "You won't really hear the difference until you pay over $xxx."
Maybe I've just spent too many years in front of too many Marshalls, but I've had the opportunity to listen to some high end stuff and actually compare SM-75's to Soundelux mics and U-87's in a real studio using an API console and Focusrite Red & Green pre's. I will tell you that I could hear a difference, but I couldn't tell you which one sounded better. I also realize that the subtleties may come out when you're mixing and layering.
In a pro studio where they've got top notch consoles and preamps and monitors and room acoustics, the subtleties have a cumulative effect and can produce a better overall sound, but buying a $1500 mic and a $2000 pre won't help my little home studio AT ALL.
For what 99% of us homerecr's do, it would be stupid to spend that kind of money.
I have to do these little reality checks every once in a while, because the more I read, the more GAS I get and this is just my way of talking myself down. Thanks for letting me decompress.
 
Sounds inspirational

but....
I beg to Diff-uh-
"buying a $1500 mic and a $2000 pre won't help my little home studio AT ALL"
I just don't see how you can say this.
I never really had total crap equipment, but getting a nice preamp brought out the beast in my microphones, and getting a $1500 microphone got responses like,
"I'm not sure what you did differently, but I feel like I can really hear what your voice sounds like now."
 
MadMax, I'll agree with you insofar as what you have is less important than what you do with what you have.

But, assuming that you know what to do with what you have, the "right" microphone does make a difference.
 
I think it largely depends on what you want to do. If you're just making recordings at home for your own enjoyment and/or to play for friends and family, you can do that with a fairly minimal setup. However, if you have higher aspirations (getting a record contract, recording quality demos, releasing an independent album), gearlust is a natural manifestation in the search for that "pro" quality sound. How close you can get at home depends on many factors, and equipment is only one of them. It behooves us to be realistic about such expectations.
 
I share this lust, MadMax, and it helps to read your post. I too need to be talked down every now and then. I can get so caught up with looking at/thinking about/chasing down gear that I stop writing music. Talk about putting the cart before the horse!

Personally, I have to keep telling myself that while a (for example) $2,500 U87 would sound a hell of a lot better than my NT-1A, it would not sound $2,300 better, due to my room and other equipment. Also, to my thinking, it might make sense for a studio to spend that kind of money on a microphone since it's an investment. For me to spend it to record my little band projects, though, would be insane (especially when I think of the percentage of my income $2,500 represents!)

But again, it helps to read your post because sometimes I feel I'm the only one that thinks this way.
 
Rethink your analysis without reference to the cost of the gear. If there's one issue which is repeated over and over again on this forum it is the cost issue.

For example, would you rather have a pair of Rode NT5 mics and a DMP3 preamp, or would you rather have a pair of Schoeps CMC64 mics ad a Gordon preamp?

Try leaving cost out of your thoughts.
 
MadMax said:
In a pro studio where they've got top notch consoles and preamps and monitors and room acoustics, the subtleties have a cumulative effect and can produce a better overall sound, but buying a $1500 mic and a $2000 pre won't help my little home studio AT ALL.

For what 99% of us homerecr's do, it would be stupid to spend that kind of money.
Click to expand...

I used to think exactly how you are thinking. As I got more into home recording my mic collection grew larger and my mic pres moved up in class. I first started out with a pair of Shure SM57's. Then I bought a pair of EV757B's thinking I was moving way up the chain of mics for vox. This was back in the early 90's.

Then I bought an AKG C3000 for $499 from MF and thought this is the holy grail of vocal mics. LOL! Oh and then MF dropped the price to $279 a couple of weeks later and I got them to honor their 45 day low price guarantee so the hit wasn't quite as bad.

Since then I have gone through a ton of mics and if you do decide to buy that $1500 mic and $2000 pre your recording will be noticeably better IMHO. If you have the 528E that works pretty good as a mic pre and you should get some decent recording through it.

Maybe just getting that $1500 mic will do for now but in a few months you'll start wondering how much better will your recordings sound with a $2000 pre. :-) You may not have to spend $2000 for a decent pre. Check out the Focusrite TwinTrak Pro which is around $700 or less. It would make a nice addition to most anyone's home studio IMHO. Good luck!
 
I think all of these replies have wisdom in one form or another but it does come down to what your own personal goals are for recording are.
However, I dont think you need to spend as much as you think you do to get good quality gear nowadays.
For example, a Grace 101 preamp sells for around $565.
It is not a DW Fearn or a Gordon Pre per se but it is a well respected pre.
In fact I have read a number of reviews that say it can really open up the mics you currently have.
Another example is the RODE K2 tube mic that sells in the $600 range.
This mic is not a U49 or a RODE Classic but it is a multi-purpose highly respected and award winning tube mic.
The 2 of these together puts you in the $1200 range and provides you with 2 nice pieces of "go to" equipment.
I can certainly relate your predicament!
Want to make it worse? :eek: Get a 2006 Sweetwater catalog :rolleyes:
BG/HSG
 
I think the line that most people seem to miss is

I will tell you that I could hear a difference, but I couldn't tell you which one sounded better.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth in there. "Different" need not necessarily mean "better".
 
I endorse the concept of getting good results from what you've got. Every time I record acoustic guitar, it seems like I learn something new about it, or about the space I'm recording in, or which mic works best, or even whether running the guitar pickup on its own track is useful or not.

When was the last time anyone said to you, "I like the sound of your recording, but, since it wasn't done with a Neumann, it can't be any good."

First, you learn how to use what you have on hand, and then you buy new stuff, and then you learn about it, and then you buy new stuff, and then.....
 
i agree with ya madmax.. currently, i have nice gear but my room acoustics suck.. and i don't want to put money into my studio room, becuase im 16 and i live with my parents. when i have my own house, i would invest the big bucks to have a good sounding room. my best bet is cheap carpet on the walls and some studio foam.

plus, i barely know how to use my stuff to get the full potential of my mic's, pre's and my interface.

but hey, who here doesn't masturbate to Neumann mic catalogs. (joking)

dump the chick, get a mic.. the mic's probably cheaper in the end anyway.....

plus, all the expensive gear is shiny, smells good out of the box, and my parents believe that because i spend so much time and money on gear, i dont have any money left over (or time) to do drugs...

a third (or whatever) point- $2000 mics and pres can only replicate the sound of the instrument. if you have crappy drums, the recording only reflects it clearer that they are junk. invest in good instrument and amps.
 
I sold all my high-end mics/pres b/c my room is not ideal for recording (amongst other reasons). I think it's funny to see people buy 2k mics and 3k preamps and record in their untreated bedroom - it just doesn't make sense unless you have money to burn.

Instead, I took the money from my high end gear to buy some high quality affordable gear (everything in my studio cost <$500/piece save the Chameleon Labs 7602) and decided to invest the difference in stocks and maxed out my Roth IRA.

In the near future (< 1 year), I will be buying a house in Charlotte, NC, and will devote time and money into building a dedicated recording space. Then, and only then, will I even think about investing more than $1k into a mic and preamp.

From personal experience, I can say that a nice mic (i.e. Pearlman TM-1) in a crappy room will only help reveal how crappy your room is.
 
Acoustics

I agree that the purity of the sound source is the most important - followed by the acoustics in your mixing area.
 
I agree with NSR here - Having a 2500 dollar mic and a 4000 dollar pre ain't going to make a nasty cymbal sound good. You're just more likely to bring out the imperfections in your room and gear.
 
Same old story. For the last 90% of the money you spend you only get a 10% increase in quality.
 
Best money I've spent was on getting a solid silent place to work and a quiet signal chain. That second part is where the gear slut-itus comes into the picture. But without the work space...it won't matter what gear you have.
 
Don't forget in all of this gear solipsism that dumping $200 on a mic is going to give you drastically different results than a $20 Samson. There is a level where this makes a difference. When Tascam put out their first four track in 1977, they did some recordings and everyone commented on how unfair it was that they used a $1200 mic. They merely responded "shit in, shit out." It's definitely true to a point. Microphones are your ears,
 
The conclusion I've reached, based mostly on what I've read here, is that the benefits to be realized from high-end mics and preamps will come from the room and the cumulative effect of mixed multiple tracks. To me that means if you don't have a good room to record in, or if you only have a couple tracks to mix, you really have no need for high-end mics and preamps.

Does that represent a consensus? If not, why not?
 
The conclusion I've reached, based mostly on what I've read here, is that the benefits to be realized from high-end mics and preamps will come from the room and the cumulative effect of mixed multiple tracks. To me that means if you don't have a good room to record in, or if you only have a couple tracks to mix, you really have no need for high-end mics and preamps.
Click to expand...

Having only a couple tracks does not negate the benefits of a good mic pre/mic. I can hear obvious differences between cheap/expensive gear when recorded properly, regardless of the number of tracks.

I do agree there's no need for high-end mic pres/mics if your acoustic space sucks.
 
Last edited:
It's all a matter of what you want vs what you can reasonably afford. Really, why care what anybody else thinks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top