What is my next step/Purchase????

  • Thread starter Thread starter DonGraham
  • Start date Start date
D

DonGraham

New member
Ok, I am just starting to get my personal studio going. I am primarily a guitar player songwriter---along the heavy/rock/progressive side, with female vocals---(think Garbage/Porcupine Tree type direction) I am looking to make my next improvement in studio gear and thought I would get some of your thoughts....Here is my current gear

Music Gear:

Musical instruments are all top notch:
Paul reed smith/gibson/fender/ovation/ibanez guitars and basses
Mesa/ marshall and other various tube amps
Korg X3 keys----enough for now
Using Beta monkey, M-audio and other high quality drum loops and wavs

Studio Gear:

Digi 002 Rack
Hp laptop with external 300GB firewire drive---Works "OK" ---G5 will be coming soon
KRK 8" powered monitors
Eventide h3000 harmonizer
Lexicon PCM41 delay
Groove tubes GT55 LDC mic
EV RE38 Dynamic mic
Shure sm57 and a couple of old akg D1000E dynamics

I am happy with all my equipment so far but am looking to upgrade> I was thinking about a nice mic pre---UA, Portico, Avalon....or a new mic 414, tlm103.......??????Are the pres in the 002R considered decent??? They sound OK so far.......So I am open for suggestions....lets hear em. :)
 
The Pre's in the 002 are better than most can take advantage of.. that is of course if four pre's are enough to cover any simultaneous input recordings you may encounter.

Your equipment list seems lovely...perhaps invest in your room
 
Joseph Hanna said:
Your equipment list seems lovely...perhaps invest in your room

I'd absolutely agree--I'm unsure how long "just starting" means, but even if you've had that equipment 6 months you'll still need more time to really get a feel and understand it and be able to think in terms of "I'm Mr. 1960A cab!" and then figure out what combination of mic and pre will help, not to mention getting a feel for what all of your outboard equipment and plugins /really/ sound like and /really/ do to your audio. That's true for everyone, but not everyone has a nice eclectic base of equipment to start from, which is why you should start throwing money at a room. I'd recommend trying to tweak your control room/mixing area first, because even if your recording room ain't all too hot, at least you'll be able to compensate, or at least know that it sounds like crap in advance. Best way to make a cheap control room on the fly would be dead. Dead dead dead. You want to hear your monitors, and not the room--not only because you probably don't have a space (or wallet) big enough to allow the room to compliment and aid in mixing, but also because you need to start getting used to how your monitors really sound. Then your recording room is definately a matter of taste and application...whether you want a nice warm room, a neutral sounding room, a big room with lots of ambience, etc. I've been mooching off of this forum forever now, and I've seen quite a few threads on room design and compromise (some w/ PICS LOL), so check 'em out.

I've only been recording for around 3 years, and didn't get the equipment to start doing it seriously until a little over two years ago, so take my advice with a grain of salt. However, if you're impatient like me and at least want something to chew on, I hope that helped.
 
I think upgrading to a better preamp is a great idea. Do that first and then think about some sort of acoustic treatment. The acoustic treatment could and ultimately should be twofold: some sort of vocal booth or quiet area for recording, and then a good listening back and mixing environment.

But really, you have a well chosen gear list and it is well matched to the work you do.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I think upgrading to a better preamp is a great idea. Do that first

I still don't know what you'd upgrade to from the 002 pre-amps. Obviously there's boatlaods of more expensive pre's out there but do you really believe that say a Grace 101 is gonna make a significant difference in someone's productions???? More so than a room with standing waves??

I certainly could agree that if the poster thought that they needed more pre-amped inputs an Octopre(sp?) might be a logical suggestion.
 
Joseph Hanna said:
Obviously there's boatlaods of more expensive pre's out there but do you really believe that say a Grace 101 is gonna make a significant difference in someone's productions???? More so than a room with standing waves??


You forget, everyone on this board is obsessed with mic pres.

Dude ... I got this $20 Crate amp I just junk picked, and a radio shack microphone I just upgraded from the one that came with my computer. I record direct to my soundblaster's "mic in," and I track in my walk-in closet.

I'm thinking of getting a really kickass mic pre that Sonic Albert just recommended, so that my stuff can sound profeshunal.
 
Chessrock...what will we do with you...LOL

Hey Chess... You are having one of your scarcastic binges. I LOVE IT! The best thing about you is that you have the material to back it up! Ever since I asked, "how did you get that bass sound?" And you replied, "Guy had a good bass and I used an Art tube preamp." Its mostly about the skills. I've been working non-stop for about 3 or 4 years improving my skills and things are just now beginning to be up to an acceptable level for me. I feel like my one nice pre really helps me alot though. But I am totally convinced that it is not even the icing on the cake, maybe the sprinkles. I do think that there is an acceptible level of gear that needs to be met to make things easiest and instruments and playing must be very good to even sound decent on a recording. As to the original question, having a motu interface, guess that is comparable to the Digi Protools stuff, I found that a super nice pre really gave me that extra 2% I was missing, but I was simultaneously making other improvements, like a subwoofer, a new neutral condenser mic... My space has been acoustically treated since I even began recording, so who knows...The Vintech x73i sure makes me feel better...lol. And when I had a problem with it Dallas, the owner, paid for it to be shipped to him, worked on it, and sent it back to me free of charge. Can't argue with that... Who knows...these forums are confusing me more.
 
chessrock said:
You forget, everyone on this board is obsessed with mic pres.

and I track in my walk-in closet.



And, what do you consider the issue here?
 
Sporkmyband said:
I do think that there is an acceptible level of gear that needs to be met to make things easiest and instruments and playing must be very good to even sound decent on a recording.

Absolutely. Thing is technology is improving things so rapidly and the playing field just keeps getting flatter.

Roger Nichols uses a $200 mic pre often (Rane) ... takes them to mic shoot-outs and records live records with them. And his stuff (Steely Dan) sounds pretty damn good. It would thrill the piss out of any of us to be able to record stuff that sounds even half as good as his.

Most of the high end and low end converters out there are based around silicon chips. And the same ones in higher-end stuff are being used in the lower end / pro-sumer stuff. 8 years ago, major releases have been tracked using digi stuff with converters that aren't even as good as the cheaper M-audio cards of today. Again, it's more silicon chips, and they're all using the same ones ... AKM, Crystal, etc.
 
chessrock said:
Dude ... I got this $20 Crate amp I just junk picked, and a radio shack microphone I just upgraded from the one that came with my computer. I record direct to my soundblaster's "mic in," and I track in my walk-in closet.

I know you are in sarcastic mode, but that's really not fair. This guy really has quite a professional setup going already, way beyond a soundblaster. He is a great candidate for upgrading to a channel or two of better preamps. Looking at his rig, that seems to be the most obvious area for some quick improvement.

The preamps in a Digi 002 are going to be workable and perfectly okay, but will not hang in the same vicinity with some of the great outboard preamps available these days. I am really quite sure that the Portico, UA or Avalon preamps he mentions will be a noticable improvement from the 002 preamps. Worth it in my opinion.

chessrock said:
Thing is technology is improving things so rapidly and the playing field just keeps getting flatter.

This is just not true. Perhaps in regard to certain digital technologies, but not when it comes to analog gear. Cheap gear sounds cheap, and expensive gear sounds expensive, at least when it comes to analog. Same now as always, as a general rule (there are exceptions).
 
chessrock said:
Yea, but he's got like 2 decent mics, Sonic.

Right, but he needs to get the most out of those mics. A great preamp will make every mic he has now and buys in the future sound better.

My own philosophy is to have a couple channels of clean high quality preamps. I own a Grace 201. I've used vintage AKG C12's and Shure KSM 32's with it for example--$6,000+ mics and $500 mics. It was definitely up to the job with the world class mics, and at the same time made the KSM 32's sound really excellent too (not quite as excellent!). I've run those KSM's through lesser preamps and I can tell you for sure that preamps make a *huge* difference.

So I'm not preamp crazy or anything. I just think if you need tor ecord vocals or acoustic instruments it is a great idea to have a channel or two of truly premium mic preamps.

Roger Nichols doesn't record exclusively with those Rane preamps, he throws them on here and there. He has full access to fine top flight gear wherever he works I'm sure. Also, you have to say that his skill level is also very high. he knows when and where to use what mic and what preamp.

For lesser mortals like myself, I find that good gear makes it easier to sound good.
 
Sonic, I've used some pretty kickass German Tube mics, myself. API, Telefunken, Neve mic pres. You name it.

You just can't even remotely compare this stuff. If I were at any of these sessions, and my mic cabinet was in any way compromised for the sake of having nicer mic pres ... I'd freak. I'm sorry, but if all I had was a GT-55 and an Electrovoice dynamic, and I actually had to record something, I would go freakin' berzerk. Then I'd get back to work and record, mind you. :D But only after I went berzerk. Even if I had a whole rack of APIs, Buzz Audios, Hardys and Neves to plug all two of my mics in to.

The mic and the source basically make the sound. Using a visual analogy, the mic and the source, including the room, are the image. The mic pre is just like the window through which you view that image. One window might be a little cleaner than the other. One might have a very subtle hue ... etc. etc.

You could go on all day about the subtle differences between them, but no one can convince me otherwise on this. And I'm not saying there aren't merits to having nice equipment ... up to and including mic pres. But I simply gotst to have me more mics!

I think the very fact that Roger Nichols uses Rane mic pres at times, even though he has access to much nicer stuff, even further proves my point. Here's a guy that records kickass stuff and has tons of experience. And I'll guarantee you he'll be happy with his Rane ... but take away any of his mics, and he'll probably go berzerk, like me.
 
SonicAlbert said:
Also, you have to say that his skill level is also very high. he knows when and where to use what mic and what preamp.

For lesser mortals like myself, I find that good gear makes it easier to sound good.

Albert,

I really do know where your coming from. There's nothing wrong with reading about, comparing spec's, buying cool new stuff...the whole gear hound attitude is fun and nothing in and of itself is negative. Despite how it appears here I do LOVE to talk about equipment.

However I am a FIRM believer we are more often than not helping to educate future Sweetwater salesman than any real world information concerning home recording. (Nothing against Sweetwater people)

You do realize that there is a bunch of young folk out there who now think their recordings aren't up to snuff and won't be primarily due to their 002's inferior pre amps. (Perhaps an not entirely true but you get my drift)

Roger Nichols got to where he is by patience, hard work and talent as did many others in the industry. Of course he has the pick of the litter now when it comes to equipment but it's important to note that it wasn't the equipment that that got Roger Nichols...where he is now
 
Joseph, I should just shut up and let you do the talking.


I can't say any of this stuff nearly as well as you.
 
chessrock said:
Joseph, I should just shut up and let you do the talking.


I can't say any of this stuff nearly as well as you.


No, no man I need all the help I can get around here.
 
Get a mic or two - nice ones. How 'bout a real pair of SDs and a killer LD? Add a ribbon or two. A few more dynamics. Then add more preamps.
 
I'll go along with that, as long as the upgraded preamps are part of the long range plan. I personally would get the preamp next and then go for another mic or two later, but everybody has different priorities.

I tend to be less mic oriented because when I record at commercial studios I use their mics but bring along my preamp. Buying a premium quality mic collection is *really* expensive. But you can buy a couple channels of superb preamps that work for your style and sound and more or less be done with it.

I have a couple AKG C414 BULS mics that I use at home with my Grace 201 when I need to record my piano here. The Grace comes with me when I record at studios, but we always A/B with whatever preamps they have there too. I couldn't care less whether we use the Grace or not at that point, and always leave the decision up to the recording engineer. So far they've been liking the Grace though.

I'm thinking about going with a pair of Gefell 930's for recording my piano, but don't have the cash for that at this point.
 
Back
Top