Mics or Monitors: Where to spend the most cash?

[Steve Henningsgard]

I was having a discussion with a fellow engineer, and the following question came up:


All other things being equal, if you had the option of recording an artist/band using either inexpensive mics with expensive monitors, or expensive mics with inexpensive monitors, which would you choose?

(For the purposes of this discussion, it would be beneficial to suspend reality and equate cost with quality, at essentially a 1:1 ratio.)



Personally, my answer is most certainly the expensive monitors/inexpensive mics. I equated it to painting using shitty paint and excellent glasses, vs. the highest-end paint while wearing drunk glasses.

 

[Massive Master]

Undoubtedly - Monitors. Every single sonic decision you make is based on your monitoring (and your room, of course).

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

All other things being equal, if you had the option of recording an artist/band using either inexpensive mics with expensive monitors, or expensive mics with inexpensive monitors, which would you choose?

(For the purposes of this discussion, it would be beneficial to suspend reality and equate cost with quality, at essentially a 1:1 ratio.)



Personally, my answer is most certainly the expensive monitors/inexpensive mics. I equated it to painting using shitty paint and excellent glasses, vs. the highest-end paint while wearing drunk glasses.

It's a false dichotomy and a silly question. It's like asking which would you rather have on an Indy race car, a quality engine or quality tires. Either way, without both you won't even finish - let alone win - the Indy 500.

The microphones and the monitors are the two key points in the chain because they are both where the transduction between physical sound and electricity takes place. To chintz on either one of them would be a mistake. If anything I'd spend all my money on both of those and go cheapshit on everything in the middle.

G.

 

[fdr1972]

Yup

Completely agree with Glen, one may wax philosophical on the concept of recording, but we don't really record philosphy.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

Excellent, thanks gents! Although I disagree that it's a silly question: if you've shitty monitors and shitty mics, and $500 to spend, what do you spend it on?

 

[Massive Master]

You will only ever be as good as your monitoring allows (period).

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Excellent, thanks gents! Although I disagree that it's a silly question: if you've shitty monitors and shitty mics, and $500 to spend, what do you spend it on?

That's not the same question. Now you're throwing a price point into it. And since monitors and microphones do not cost the same for the same level of quality, that price point changes the equation.

I see two possible answers to that question. Either get a halfway decent mic, or hold off and don't buy anything until you save up enough money to get a decent pair of monitors.

And while John and I agree on 99.9% of our answers, on this one there's some disagreement. No matter how good one's monitors, without a well-recorded source, about the best decision one could make with their monitors would be to hit the mute button. With a well-recorded source, a person could make no decisions at all with no monitors at all and still wind up with a decent recording.

But I still stick with my original point; you gotta have both, and cannot rate one as more important than the other. And if one does not have the money for both, they just have to limp along with what they got until they can afford both, and not claim that they can do without one of them.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Mics. You can get mic placement right using a $70 pair of headphones, and hire out the mixing

 

[Chili]

Mics. You can get mic placement right using a $70 pair of headphones, and hire out the mixing

But by hiring out the mixing, you're basically hiring the studio's high end monitors.

I don't think you need to spend a ton of money to get monitors that will work well, but they are more important than what mic you use. Both my monitors and mics are cheap!! So, I've got that 1:1 ratio covered.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Mics. You can get mic placement right using a $70 pair of headphones, and hire out the mixing

But by hiring out the mixing, you're basically hiring the studio's high end monitors.

And conversely, one can hire out the tracking and do the mixing themselves, essentially hiring out the studio's Neumann mics and Neve preamps.

I also find it significant how much the "when you hold a hammer, you see every problem as a nail" effect seems to hold here. It's no coincidence that a mastering engineer picks monitors as the definitive answer and a mic manufacturer pics mics as the answer.

If one is doing this as a hobby, then they should get what will make them the most happy to have as their next acquisition.

If one is trying to make their own music as more than a hobby, then they should spend the money on a reliable manager/producer who will know how to best spend their money to make them money in return, and stop messing around with buying toys.

If one is serious about running their own studio business recording others, then they better wait until they have a lot more than $500 to spend on mics and monitors, and use the time to build their ears and their contact network in the meantime.

G.

 

[miroslav]

Without the right monitors, you won't hear what the mics are really picking up...but for $500, you're not going to find too much to pick from in the way of quality monitors.

But you could get one really decent mic.

 

[mixsit]

Gad I wasn't going to get into this 'cause its frikin circular rabbit hole..
So, as it's a while since I've been w/o a nice monitor, just what is (+/-) min entry for a usable let's say small monitor?
And then there's 'the room' of course.
And away we go!

I'm sounding contrary here.. not my intent. But I think you can make good decisions before this stuff's in place. It's just a hell of a lot harder?

I say first -What mic(s) do you have now? And "min entry" is a decent dynamic or two, a pair of condensors and.. some gobos' so you can extend at least a little into some tone/room control mic placement decisions.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

If one is doing this as a hobby, then they should get what will make them the most happy to have as their next acquisition.

So you're saying I should skip both mics and monitors and just spend the money directly on coke and hookers?

When we're talking about the price of monitors here, are we talking about just the monitors (and their amp presumably)? or does that include some signal chain and room treatment too?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So you're saying I should skip both mics and monitors and just spend the money directly on coke and hookers?

$500 wouldn't even get the attention of the kind of hooker that would actually be worth even considering .

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Monitors are about decision making, mics are about recording. Very few people record their monitors. There really isn't a "wrong" monitor to use, but if you get hired to record an orchestra and you show up with a pair of D112s, probably you won't get hired again.

I built my monitors too . . . and I designed my room as well. I'm pretty sure I could mix on the crap 8" full range driver I use as a white noise generator, if I had to. In fact I've gotten into the habit of listening to jazzy tunes on that box, mostly out of laziness.

So long as the monitor doesn't cause you to make an incorrect mixing decision, it doesn't matter what quality it is. I find that for the hobbyist usually the mix environment is far more critical than monitor selection. There are no monitors that have +/-20dB peaks from 40Hz to 250Hz, but there are plenty of bad rooms like that . . . of course that screws up the tracking, too . . .

 

[Twinhit]

Microphones are the ears, monitors are the voice. It would be nice if both were high quality.
I think in the scheme of the big picture, when you are starting out, you're likely to spend economically.
During this phase, you are learning the ropes and getting aquainted with the routines.
It is during this time that one should save up for better equipment.

I am inclined to think microphone because it captures the sound. IMHO, you should want good input devices.
Monitors are on the output/playback/back end of the studio equipment list. The microphone on the front end.
What you capture can be manipulated later. You can keep a copy of the original track and play with duplicate tracks and
listen through decent headphones or cheaper 'puter speakers UNTIL you can afford a real nice set of monitors.
This can be had at about $500.00 - In the meantime you can save up and research the subject to your heart's content.
Then, once you have coughed up the big bucks for nice monitors, you can go back and re-mix yet another copy of the original track. You'll discover what you've been missing and what you like or don't like about the mic you purchased and used previously.

That's my way of thinking in terms of working my way up the mountain from the bottom.
I think it will also help you learn how to work with what you have and can teach some things that "might" not otherwise be
learned on high dollar equipment. ie learn to dig with a hand shovel before you learn to operate an excavator.

 

[Twinhit]

You will only ever be as good as your monitoring allows (period).

And if you've got rotten hearing, well..... the best monitors in the world may not help you.
Yes, Massive Master, I am very very hard of hearing. Send me your projects and I will produce sounds you never knew existed. LOL

 

[John Willett]

I was having a discussion with a fellow engineer, and the following question came up:


All other things being equal, if you had the option of recording an artist/band using either inexpensive mics with expensive monitors, or expensive mics with inexpensive monitors, which would you choose?

(For the purposes of this discussion, it would be beneficial to suspend reality and equate cost with quality, at essentially a 1:1 ratio.)



Personally, my answer is most certainly the expensive monitors/inexpensive mics. I equated it to painting using shitty paint and excellent glasses, vs. the highest-end paint while wearing drunk glasses.

Easy - Microphones.

The mic. is the source so always get the very best you can afford.

For monitors - listen on headphones as great headphones are only 10% (or less) than the equivalent quality monitors.

This is how I started and my early recordings still sound great now I can listen on decent monitors.

 

[BLP]

I need both....

 

[JJ Jetflow]

Your best bet is to spend the money on monitors..and as good as you can buy. I do not know where you are located but here in Toronto, many of the top music stores will rent microphones...and expensive ones at that... but none of them will rent you monitors.

Besides monitors are something you should really only consider buying once, maybe twice if you are like me and still cannot afford what you want at the start! . Once you find those magic set that makes your mixes great, you will NEVER want to part with them. With mics, they are like a collection of tools that are best at doing only certain jobs. You may find yourself always adding to the mic collection and the need arises but the monitors should be a one time deal.