The mic I used at a real studio

[KonradG]

last weekend i went to the nicest studio in town to record some acoustic songs. This was my first time in any recording studio, so i was overwhelmed. Everywhere i looked there were either platinum records or expensive recording equipment. After i calmed down i started to notice the equipment i was using. the mic i used for vocals was a blue baby bottle type mic that sounded unreal. Im not sure what he ran it through before it went into protools but i know one was a compressor. Im about to buy a box (comes with protools) for my laptop and buy a mic so i can start recording at home. Can anybody with experience let me know if it is possible to get a good quality sound out of a microphone like a blue without spending 1000 bucks on it?

 

[mshilarious]

Can anybody with experience let me know if it is possible to get a good quality sound out of a microphone like a blue without spending 1000 bucks on it?

I got my BB used for $300 . . . that plus a decent preamp/compressor combo would be within a grand. But then what exactly is your budget?

 

[apl]

Protools is overrated. You can get a Tascam US122 or a Presonus Firebox (both include Cubase LE) and a good condenser from RØDE or Studio Projects, and you'll have a little green left for a downpayment on a good pair of monitors.

 

[XLR]

Are you sure what you liked was the mic and not the room's sound? How did the room's acoustics compare to the room you'll use for your home studio? And if they were using compression, that can make a huge difference too.

Tim

 

[mcolling]

Protools is good if you want to be able to really manipulate your songs digitally, but if you are like me and like a fairly straightforward approach to recording, something analagous to Cool Edit Pro would be fine. And Protools costs, what, $800 or whatever.

 

[xstatic]

Pro Tools is not at all overrated. Pro Tools LE however, that may be a different story.

 

[photoresistor]

Pro Tools IS overrated by some and probably underrated by others. However, I find that most people vastly overrate Pro Tools, at least those that I come into contact with.

Then again, those people are mostly musicians and guitarists that somehow think Pro Tools is God and that you're a professional studio if you have any sort of setup that says "digidesign" on it.

I'm not going to knock PT but I know that for myself and many others you can get by with solutions other than PT that will work just as good (and if spent well, sound better) for less money.

To each his own...

 

[Lomo]

Are you sure what you liked was the mic and not the room's sound? How did the room's acoustics compare to the room you'll use for your home studio? And if they were using compression, that can make a huge difference too.

Tim

The Baby Bottle is a pretty colored and unique sounding mic, I'm betting at least %70 of what he liked about the sound was coming from the mic. Probably.

 

[deepwater]

I would suggest getting the a Tascam Fw1884, Baby Bottle and Sonar 4. You can do that for around $2000.00. AMS has the FW1884 for $1000.00. If you have the budget a nice pre like the Neve Portico $1400.00 would make a lot of differance.

 

[chessrock]

Keep in mind he said it was a Babybottle-type mic.


I'm guessing it was one of the older Neumann CMV's with the M-7 capsule.

Just a guess.

.

 

[xstatic]

Or maybe it was the full on Blue Bottle

 

[XLR]

Konrad, if you found a vocal mic that works well for you it'd be a good idea to find out exactly what it was -even if you're aiming for a less expensive substitute. But also find out what preamp they used, the compressor and any other processing it went through. Might be that it was those things also that gave it the sound you liked.

Im about to buy a box (comes with protools) for my laptop and buy a mic so i can start recording at home. Can anybody with experience let me know if it is possible to get a good quality sound...

Most of us when we started out found that recording has a steep learning curve, and discovered that there was more involved with getting a good sound than we thought. I say that from my own gear-lust driven experience, heh-heh.

Tim

 

[chessrock]

Konrad, if you found a vocal mic that works well for you it'd be a good idea to find out exactly what it was -even if you're aiming for a less expensive substitute. But also find out what preamp they used, the compressor and any other processing it went through. Might be that it was those things also that gave it the sound you liked.

Or it could have been the fact that he was recording with professionals that produced quality work?

Na. Had to have been the mic.

 

[XLR]

Or it could have been the fact that he was recording with professionals that produced quality work?

Na. Had to have been the mic.

Well, that was pretty much the point of the second half of my post.

Tim

 

[tkingen]

Are you sure what you liked was the mic and not the room's sound? How did the room's acoustics compare to the room you'll use for your home studio? And if they were using compression, that can make a huge difference too.

Tim

I like Tim's take on this. Good rooms make a gigantic difference, which is a big reason why most of us with small, home studios get frustrated. Check this out - https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=153234

Regards,
Terry

 

[scottboyher]

Are you sure what you liked was the mic and not the room's sound? How did the room's acoustics compare to the room you'll use for your home studio?
Tim

Bingo!





78910

 

[KonradG]

Im stopping by to talk to the engineer today. He owns a music store in town too so he'll probably be able to tell me about the mic that i used. Thanks to you guys, i'll also bring up what i should do about acoustics, like where i should set up the mic in the room. thanks for all of those who helped.

 

[darnold]

I think he would be able to tell if it was a full on Blue Bottle. Arnt those things the size of a 4" diameter baseball bat? Heh.

danny

 

[xfinsterx]

Pro Tools IS overrated by some and probably underrated by others. However, I find that most people vastly overrate Pro Tools, at least those that I come into contact with.

What i find most is people saying "ahh pro tools is not so great"

But, then i ask them,"well have you spent more than 8 hours using it?"

Majority answer is "no i havent".

Ive used Vegas, Cubase, Live, Nuendo, Digital performer, N-track, and finally Pro tools so far.

The two best so far have been Pro tools and Digital performer IMO.

Its not so much about "pro tools sucks!".....

Its about what software will work best for you.

If you need an intuitive editing screen and things like beat detective, and audiosuite then pro tools may be right for you.

But if you just want to hit the record button and be done with it?

Then try one of the more simple software editors, Ive heard Traktion and Cool edit pro are a bit more simple to work with, and i know N-track is pretty easygoing.

But again, do your research and figure out what youll be needing.

-Finster

 

[chessrock]

I think a lot of it also has to do with speed and convenience. When you're workign on a large number of projects -- some simultaneously -- you need something that loads up quickly, saves quickly, and performs basic tasks without the need to sit around and wait forever for the function to carry out.

In that regard, I think Pro Tools is in the middle of the pack.

On the other hand, in just about every scenario I've used it, Vegas beats all others hands down. It's just lightning fast in every function it carries out. On the other hand, it doesn't do the microscopic precision edits. It's not designed for that. Pro Tools is, and it does it well. Cool Edit is even better at that stuff if it weren't for the fact that it ... is ... just ... so ... damn .... slow.

They all have their strengths and weaknesses. They all have their specialties. Pro Tools is the only one out there that can do pretty much everything without totally sucking. That and Nuendo, perhaps.