C
chessrock
Banned
Englebert said:
Very true.
Very true.
M
manning1
Banned
englebert - a few years back i got bored with the gear syndrome.
when i owned a largish studio.
as you say , its a no brainer using a u47 and the right pre.
been there , done that. but i find it far better fun seeing how far one can get and squeeze great tracks out of cheaper gear.
i'm alwaysswapping transistors in and out of my diy mic pre's
just for fun on different tracks. and seeing how the sound might change. frankly i think too many folks are hung up on esoteric
approaches.
when i owned a largish studio.
as you say , its a no brainer using a u47 and the right pre.
been there , done that. but i find it far better fun seeing how far one can get and squeeze great tracks out of cheaper gear.
i'm alwaysswapping transistors in and out of my diy mic pre's
just for fun on different tracks. and seeing how the sound might change. frankly i think too many folks are hung up on esoteric
approaches.
R
Rev E
New member
manning1 said:
Please tell me you're kidding about intentionally using cheaper gear because of the "challenge".
M
manning1
Banned
rev e
no rev . i'm not crazy. its always different types of sound i'm going for. old saying from when i was taught by some recording engineers a long time ago. sometimes very beautifull is not what you want. sometimes you want dingy and dirty.
i know you wont believe me - but i have a weird old mic in my collection that was given me by a friend that just spanks
anything on the CORRECT track. now i wouldnt use it on violins , but on the right rock and roll voice it just cracks through the mix properly. but i must say, even though ive been doing this so many years i still consider myself adequate at engineering
and still have so much to learn. but i agree with englebert,
if all you can afford is little for studio equipment , you shouldnt wait your whole life to get a song down while you save up.
no rev . i'm not crazy. its always different types of sound i'm going for. old saying from when i was taught by some recording engineers a long time ago. sometimes very beautifull is not what you want. sometimes you want dingy and dirty.
i know you wont believe me - but i have a weird old mic in my collection that was given me by a friend that just spanks
anything on the CORRECT track. now i wouldnt use it on violins , but on the right rock and roll voice it just cracks through the mix properly. but i must say, even though ive been doing this so many years i still consider myself adequate at engineering
and still have so much to learn. but i agree with englebert,
if all you can afford is little for studio equipment , you shouldnt wait your whole life to get a song down while you save up.
H
Han
New member
I have one Neumann M149 and I can assure you, if I could afford it, I would buy another five of them and some twenty or so other great and very expensive mics.
There are a number of very affordable and really good sounding mics these days, but they are no match for the brilliant sounding top mics like the big Neumanns, Elam 251's, and other hi end mics.
So, my dear fellows, the statement that you don't need expensive mics? Nah.....
Just listen to the great sounding recordings from the early sixties, Sinatra and that kind of stuff and listen to the vinyl or SACD.
For example, listen to Frank Sinatra's "It was a very good year". The intro with that sound of the hobo...........goosebumps, only from that awesome sound. (recorded april 22, 1965)
That's the sound of expensive mics and it gives me the shivers.
I WANT MORE EXPENSIVE MICS, AS MANY AS POSSIBLE!
There are a number of very affordable and really good sounding mics these days, but they are no match for the brilliant sounding top mics like the big Neumanns, Elam 251's, and other hi end mics.
So, my dear fellows, the statement that you don't need expensive mics? Nah.....
Just listen to the great sounding recordings from the early sixties, Sinatra and that kind of stuff and listen to the vinyl or SACD.
For example, listen to Frank Sinatra's "It was a very good year". The intro with that sound of the hobo...........goosebumps, only from that awesome sound. (recorded april 22, 1965)
That's the sound of expensive mics and it gives me the shivers.
I WANT MORE EXPENSIVE MICS, AS MANY AS POSSIBLE!
R
Rev E
New member
Manning,
You guys are taking this whole home recording thing way, way, way too far. I think we all can agree that you don't have to have a million dollar studio to do a decent job on a recording. BUT, to say that using lesser quality stuff in place of higher quality stuff is preferable is just ... well ... just plain silly.
In my experience, I'd rather have 2 great mics (Soundelux, certain Neumanns, other upper-echelon mics, etc) and 2 great mic pres (the usual suspects) rather than 16 mediocre ones any day. Call me crazy, but there's a reason why high quality gear is highly regarded ... because it's that good. All this talk about giving George Martin an SM 57 and him making a legendary record (because of his superior skills) is just plain silly... I haven't heard a Geoge Martin record made like that since ... never.
You guys are taking this whole home recording thing way, way, way too far. I think we all can agree that you don't have to have a million dollar studio to do a decent job on a recording. BUT, to say that using lesser quality stuff in place of higher quality stuff is preferable is just ... well ... just plain silly.
In my experience, I'd rather have 2 great mics (Soundelux, certain Neumanns, other upper-echelon mics, etc) and 2 great mic pres (the usual suspects) rather than 16 mediocre ones any day. Call me crazy, but there's a reason why high quality gear is highly regarded ... because it's that good. All this talk about giving George Martin an SM 57 and him making a legendary record (because of his superior skills) is just plain silly... I haven't heard a Geoge Martin record made like that since ... never.
W
wilkee
New member
Rev E said:
No one said give him an SM 57 ( I would not wish that on my worst enemy)
But the success of the recordings in the 60's was due to the fact that they had to keep it simple and also use their Brains.
We have become so used to the "Mixed for Radio" type of sound that everyone feels that that it is the only way to go "Max Level for Max impact".
What a load of Bollocks
E
Englebert
New member
Rev E said:Manning,
You guys are taking this whole home recording thing way, way, way too far. I think we all can agree that you don't have to have a million dollar studio to do a decent job on a recording. BUT, to say that using lesser quality stuff in place of higher quality stuff is preferable is just ... well ... just plain silly.
I think the key word in mannings text was "sometimes", like in "sometimes very beautiful is not what you want." I´m no pro, but if you read just about any interview of a big name engineer, you´ll find one thing: although they praise all those high end mics (U47, Telefunkens ets), they almost always have one or more "secret weapons", some esoteric cheapo mics or FX boxes that they like to use for various tasks.
They are NOT saying that lo-fi stuff is as good and versatile as the vintage classics or that they could make top notch records using only them. They, like Manning, are saying that sometimes, on some voices or instruments, they give them something a U47 can´t give.
If you want to make a pristine, high-end acoustic recording, then you need high-end tools. But sometimes you feel like experimenting and making new sounds. That may not be your cup of tea and I respect it. But other people might have different ideas what some songs should sound like and how they should be recorded. Thats the beauty of it: wouldn´t it be dull if every record sounded the same?
And about taking this homerecording thing too far (funny thing to say in a Homerecording dot com forum
)... Not everybody tries to compete with big buck studios. Many of us are quite happy with "decent" results. It´s something we do for recreation and fun, just like sports. I swim because I like it and I want to keep myself fit, not because I want be an olympic athlete.Would I like to have a U47? Hell yeah, but I´m not going to sell my leg to get one...and my arm to get a high end pre to go with it...and my other limbs to build a room with great acoustics.
C
CanopuS
Amateur music since 1847
SluiCe is a great example of how you can get astounding results using equipment worth just over $2000. I don't know exactly what he uses, but his stuff is totally professional sounding.
D
DJL
Self Banned
What's the best mic for recording polka?chessrock said:I really don't think the problem with this is in the answers people are given.
Rather, the problem lies in the questions people are asking.
Good example: We just had some newb ask if a B1 was going to help him record his/her next big smash hit of the century debut CD. I mean, honestly, what are you going to tell someone like this?
Besides, most of them get all huffy when you tell it to them like it is, because they don't want to actually have to work and learn something. They just want us to point them to the magical piece of gear that's going to sound like a zillion-dollar record right out of the box. See: Hottsauce for an illustration.
Guys like you who are actually realistic are kind of few & far between. Instead of asking "what do I need to be the next Quincy Jones or Mutt Lange?," why not ask "What do I need to get decent recordings on a budget?"
Then you might find BBS's like this one to be a lot more helpful.
M
manning1
Banned
han - about sinatra.
thats a fantastic song. a great favorite of mine. but i think it was more than the mics if you read some recording history han.
back then the tape machines had much higher snr than todays decent semi pro sound card at -80db. and i bet it was more than the mics. it was the engineering approach used. ive used old vintage mics. some - yes - are great , but others can be quite noisy.
its a great song but i'm sure it has more to do with how the audio engineerrs of the time captured it. in the same way as some days i use an sm57 - not most favorite mic on a track and it doesnt work then other days by working very very hard on mic positioning and how i approach the track it sounds phenomenal.
only the other day i captured a superb lead guitar track using the 57 and it was amazing. so i believe I""M the one with limitations rather than the mic.
best regards
thats a fantastic song. a great favorite of mine. but i think it was more than the mics if you read some recording history han.
back then the tape machines had much higher snr than todays decent semi pro sound card at -80db. and i bet it was more than the mics. it was the engineering approach used. ive used old vintage mics. some - yes - are great , but others can be quite noisy.
its a great song but i'm sure it has more to do with how the audio engineerrs of the time captured it. in the same way as some days i use an sm57 - not most favorite mic on a track and it doesnt work then other days by working very very hard on mic positioning and how i approach the track it sounds phenomenal.
only the other day i captured a superb lead guitar track using the 57 and it was amazing. so i believe I""M the one with limitations rather than the mic.
best regards
R
Rev E
New member
Englebert said:...
And about taking this homerecording thing too far (funny thing to say in a Homerecording dot com forum
I'm not knocking home recording per se. What I AM knocking is all the posts that imply that all you need to produce a product comparable with pro recordings is an $80 B1 mic and an ART MP Tube pre. Much of this talk is coming from people who have never used "high end" gear, so they have little context to place their statements in.
My simple point is that the legendary recordings are legendary, "partly" because they used legendary gear. Anyone who has ever used "high end" gear will tell you that a lot of the sound is in the gear ... no two ways about it. This is not to say that you cannot get "decent" or "respectable" results from quality inexpensive gear (I've done it and do it every day). What it does mean is that there is a certain level of quality gear required to get in the ballpark of legendary stuff. And if you want to get into that ballpark it's going to cost you big money ... or you will have to rent or borrow it.
E
Englebert
New member
All Right, I think we are starting to find an agreement here, gentlemen. Let´s see the results this far:
1. You can make good recordings with budget gear, but for really professional (or "legendary", as Rev E puts it) results you need top end gear.
2. Although pro gear is essential for great recordings, sometimes some lo-fi approaches can be used to "spice things up"
3. Although pro gear is essential, it is of limited use without proper expertise. U47 won´t make your recordings automatically good, if you don´t have a clue how to use it.
4. Too many newbies do not understand point 3. They are obsessed with gear lust instead of trying to develop their own recording skills.
How about that? Any disagreements or appendices? I´m happy to carry on with this discussion if somebody sees it fit
1. You can make good recordings with budget gear, but for really professional (or "legendary", as Rev E puts it) results you need top end gear.
2. Although pro gear is essential for great recordings, sometimes some lo-fi approaches can be used to "spice things up"
3. Although pro gear is essential, it is of limited use without proper expertise. U47 won´t make your recordings automatically good, if you don´t have a clue how to use it.
4. Too many newbies do not understand point 3. They are obsessed with gear lust instead of trying to develop their own recording skills.
How about that? Any disagreements or appendices? I´m happy to carry on with this discussion if somebody sees it fit
R
Rev E
New member
You get the Rev E stamp of approval for that sum up Englebert! 
W
wilkee
New member
Rev E said:You get the Rev E stamp of approval for that sum up Englebert!
Yep sounds good to me too.
A
acorec
Banned
DJL said:What's the best mic for recording polka?
This one is a bad example, all you have to do is polka-round and see.
tkingen
Djembes Rock
The conclusions are coming up strong! I wonder if using an analogy may also help...
Say you are a guitar player, and you think a Strat through a Marshall is the ultimate in guitar tone. You go out and spend $1200.00 on "your" Strat, and another $2000.00 on the "right" Marshall.
Now, why did you do that when you could have gone to Guitar Center and got the $179.00 knock-off strat and a $299.00 Crate?
Then, why bother buying a $99.00 TS-9 OD pedal when you could just get the $19.95 cheapo od special that they have stacked up in a pyramid on the counter?
Doesn't the cheap stuff get you close enough?!?!?!?!
Terry
Say you are a guitar player, and you think a Strat through a Marshall is the ultimate in guitar tone. You go out and spend $1200.00 on "your" Strat, and another $2000.00 on the "right" Marshall.
Now, why did you do that when you could have gone to Guitar Center and got the $179.00 knock-off strat and a $299.00 Crate?
Then, why bother buying a $99.00 TS-9 OD pedal when you could just get the $19.95 cheapo od special that they have stacked up in a pyramid on the counter?
Doesn't the cheap stuff get you close enough?!?!?!?!
Terry
Z
Zeppelin456
Banana Co
Well obviously the cheap stuff might break easier and it lacks that certain something but depending on your situation it might get you close enough. If you can afford it though, there's no reason not to buy the real thing, that's WHY it's the real thing!
E
Englebert
New member
tkingen said:
Well that is precisely the question everybody must ask themselves. And as I said earlier, whatever the answer is,
nobody else has the right to question it. It´s your money.
EddieRay
#?
chessrock said:
Do you play chess?