DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Music: microphones/recording question

Forums > Music

microphones/recording question

pacificYO	Date: November 8, 2003 @ 2:58 PM what do you guys use to record your voice onto your computer? i have one of those mics that are connected to the monitor, and i hate using it..
ashleighj	Date: November 8, 2003 @ 5:19 PM a cheaply made standard 1/4" connecter mic that i bought from a music store for like $30 or so 'cause i'm always broke.. you could just get a 1/4" to 1/8" converter and then plug the mic into your soundcard, but i run the mic into my casette 4-track which gives me a few knobs and sliders for fine tuning. then i run the 4-track to my sound card with a cord that has RCA plugs on one end an a 1/8" stereo plug on the other. i _seriously_ need to update my mic, though... ^^;
woodhead	Date: November 8, 2003 @ 8:36 PM you can get great deals on mic's for vocals here www.musiciansfriend.com Of you want to get the best sound for your voclas I would suggest a condensor. These star at MF for around 50 bucks.
ashleighj	Date: November 8, 2003 @ 8:53 PM thanks woodhead, but i already have about 20 of their catalogs somewhere and the website bookmarked. it's the money to pay for it with that i can't seem to locate...
woodhead	Date: November 8, 2003 @ 10:36 PM I just went there, and they have a condensor, mxl for 49.99
withering	Date: November 16, 2003 @ 2:13 PM If you buy only one mic in your life, get the Shure SM-58 mic (dynamic). That one you can use for anything, and it's built to last. Yes, it is possible to get better sound with a condenser mic, but for home recording a dynamic is often the best choice. It's less sensitive than a condenser, and therefore better at leaving out noise you don't want. I record vocals & acoustic guitars using a SM-58, in the same room as the (noisy) computer. With a condenser you can't do that. I would rather buy a sturdy dynamic than a cheap condenser.
blooddshedd	Date: November 16, 2003 @ 3:24 PM I've actually got a few extra mics at my home studio if anyone is interested in purchasing them.
woodhead	Date: November 24, 2003 @ 12:00 AM I would rather buy a sturdy dynamic than a cheap condenser even a cheap condensor for acoustic or for vocals is better than a dynamic mic in my opinon. A condensor will capture every nuance of your voice as well as every nuance of an acoustic instrument. granet dynamics are great and the sm 58 is a great mic, but for recording isn't the sm 57 the actual standard, the 57 is a work horse and can be used in a recording situation ut also kicks butt in a live app also. but for vocals condesors are the best, even a cheap one works wonders, I know I used a cheap for a while and upgraded a few months back.
GeneHilbert	Date: November 24, 2003 @ 12:36 AM Any time you buy crap - that is what you are stuck with. Your sound will suffer as a result. 57's & 58's not a hell of a lot of difference 58's vocals & 57's for amplified instruments. 57's have a little better bottom end, and they are both tough has nails. I saw a guy use a 58 to drive a nail in the wall just to hang a picture, and it still worked fine. For how long I don't know ..... what a dumb fuck he was.... anyway. Both are great utility mike's to have around - stage or studio. Buy both new now for roughly $80 ea. Personally I'd recommend one of these before I would piss away money on some cheap piece of shit you'll never be happy with. If you really want a good professional sounding studio mike. Save your money and get something nice - there are a lot of really good mike's out now in the $300 +/- range.
starseven	Date: November 24, 2003 @ 1:02 AM i just bougth a shure ksm 32.. i love it.. soudns fuckign awesome.....
woodhead	Date: November 24, 2003 @ 11:52 PM well the mic I was refering to list at 199.00 but musicians friend had it in sale for 50.00, they always have these type sales, they last a day or two and you need to check back often and have the cash ready to purchase. Butit also come's down to the person recording, and a 50.00 mic is always gonna be better than a comp mic or radio shack mic. to me as long as it is balanced is the first start, but how many ppl actually have mixers here, real mixers that is analog or digital, and use balanced mics?? this is the question. For a hundred bucks a novice user can purchase a 50.00 condensor mic, 2 to 3 channel berhinger mixer for around 40.00 bucks, and have a better set up than spending 80.00 for a 57 or 58 they may not be able to use, until they get a mixer.and if money is even tighter, you could get a decent cheap mic, and behringer for 80.00 if you look hard enough. This is why I made the statement of 50.00 for a condensor. Not every one is like myself or star seven or you gene who will buy the quality stuff and some can not buy the quality stuff for what ever reason. some are content using a computer mic or speakers for a mic if they can, and a cheap balanced mic is way better than a speaker.
woodhead	Date: November 25, 2003 @ 12:22 AM pacificYO just listed to some of your tunes, and being the human beat box def need dynamic mic, you would freak out a condensor for sure, cool tunes though and cant belive you used your vocals for everything, so cool.
munyhngrydizzle	Date: November 29, 2003 @ 12:26 AM i use the noise reduction head set....mic and headphones all in once,quite simple....but im thinking of using a standard mic.....
onewhodreams	Date: November 29, 2003 @ 11:26 PM I second what ofwitheringa... said. I've got a Shure SM 58 and I love it!
BenRebel	Date: December 5, 2003 @ 4:01 PM In recording there is two key things wil add or take away from a good recording Mic and your Monitors GOOD input give you a good wav to start with and you need to truly HEAR the end result .enuff said I use the NT2 Grovetube AKG C414B-ULS AKG SolidTube depending on the vocal
johnnygnote	Date: December 5, 2003 @ 5:25 PM I use a CAD gxl 2200 Recording mic with a gold element it cost about $70 new which is actually very cheap for a mic of that quality. http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=031205141702162042016115220694/g=live/search/detail/base_pid/270775/ Most mics like it run about 200 bucks or more. Here's a comparable CAD http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=031205141702162042016115220694/g=live/search/detail/base_pid/270775/ Before that I was using my trusty live performance mic Audio Technica Atm 41A http://www.samedaymusic.com/product;AUTATM41A Here's another good deal on Audio Technicas http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=021110190307216067223092417287/search/g=rec/detail/base_id/90235 MF has a great deal on Behringer mics 3 for 59.99 I bought these and they sound as good as my AT http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=031205141702162042016115220694/g=live/search/detail/base_pid/270403/ Hope this helps
johnnygnote	Date: December 5, 2003 @ 5:27 PM Oh yeah, I use a Behringer mini Eurodesk mixer between my system and my mics. that way you have more control over what's going in to your system .
jenspen33	Date: December 5, 2003 @ 8:22 PM I'm using a CAD MP10 mic (Brann's mic) and I bought a Behringer Shark DSP110 pre-amp. I input the mic into the pre-amp, and line-out the pre-amp into the line-in of the computer's soundcard. This works best for me. I've tried many different things, and I even got SOME good recordings with the $5 computer mic initially. But that gets OLD. Cord too short. "S" and "P" too harsh sounding. Hard to "work" this kind of mic vocally. I would suggest looking on eBay for an affordable mic and pre-amp. You'll be glad you did. ~J Good luck!
johnnygnote	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 6:49 AM Yeah Ebay, that's the ticket. Good call Jenspen
CrescentShadow	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 9:25 AM I just went to radioshack and bought a $30 mic and I get studio quality stuff. It took a lot of playing around with my distortion to have it not being too hissy, but my acoustic sounds perfect on it. You'll probably have to buy a 1/4" to 1/8" adapter, it only costs like $2, so dont worry.
woodhead	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 2:50 PM you guys rock!!!!!!
Arthen	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 3:28 PM here's one http://www.studioprojectsusa.com cheap, affordable and really good quality mikes. there's the C1 which i really love becoz it's an all rounder mike for such a great price, specially for those who can only afford 1 or 2 mics.
hipelle	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 8:26 PM I was using a Shure 58, but found I had to push so damn hard to get that "right there" quality I was looking for. So I bit the credit card and bought a Neumann TM 103 Condenser microphone. Holy cow. Did a before and after and it's really amazing the difference in quality...it's like I'm singing right there in the room. No preamp (use the built-in on the digital recorder). Now the problem with the microphone is cost money money money, but definately worth it. Vocals are the most important part of a song, you want to make sure they stand out.
woodhead	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 10:14 PM Now the problem with the microphone is cost money money money, but definately worth it. Vocals are the most important part of a song, you want to make sure they stand out. thank you this is what I was trying to say, there fore using a condensor for recording vocals. And I have had some luck with cheaper condensors, I used one when I first started putting my home studio together.
pog	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 11:50 PM A sm-58 is the industry standard 'cos it's a robust mic, that works well in any situation, at an affordable price. But as far as micing up, and studio recording, different mics are better for different jobs. Seinheiser make some sweet sounding mics, and still pretty reasonable in price for the quality. I guess like a guitar, try a few, and see which one's gonna suit your needs the best.
woodhead	Date: December 7, 2003 @ 10:47 PM A reminder if you buy a low impedence mic, and you do not have a board, be sure to buy the converter to go from low to high, you can pick these up at radio shack for around ten bucks.
BenRebel	Date: December 8, 2003 @ 4:21 PM BUt also saying that a SM-58 is a Industry standard is like saying monitoring with NS-10's is a standrd (it was a standard) but with the change in Technology why should it be for you? listen the thing is "spend" more for your mic and get a good pre amp behind it ..
ishouldtellyou	Date: December 14, 2003 @ 4:17 AM thanks guys. i've been wondering about all of this lately, because i want to start building a home studio, and this was inredibly helpful.
TripEclipse	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 4:39 PM I use a Behringer B-1 Condenser with and Alesis Compressor to my 6 channel mixer then to my SBLive audio card. Alas, the card is where im hurting.
GeneHilbert	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 5:09 PM Yes ........ as well as some type of mic pre
robin101	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 7:33 PM It may be of interest: Once (in arguing with a “tech-head”), I recorded 21 different microphones on 21 separate tracks. I used everything from a Neuman U87 to AKG’s. When I asked him to tell me which was which, he thought an SM58 was one of the more “high-end” microphones. I love the simple SM58. Just goes to show you…it’s just a lot of talk. You should try this kind of thing to your friends sometimes, especially those who think they can tell the difference. It’s quite embarrassing, but worth the point.
BenRebel	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 9:55 PM Robin all the mics where run though the same mic pre?
robin101	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 10:45 PM YES!
BenRebel	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 11:39 PM Thats something...
woodhead	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 12:41 AM love the simple SM58. Just goes to show you…it’s just a lot of talk. You should try this kind of thing to your friends sometimes, especially those who think they can tell the difference Well if this is true explain to me why major recording studios use condensors and such???? If this is true why are there mics other than 58 for recording that cost 3 to 4 times as a 58?? just a question, if the 58 is the best mic then why are there specialty mics??? I mean if a 58 is as good as say a sensiemer condensor, then why build any thing else throw all my mics away and use nothing but 58's??? I need proof on this aspect and should run a test myself. oh and a dynamic is a sensitive as a condensor????
GeneHilbert	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:01 AM I own an AKG C3000B and I have recorded on a Neumann TLM 103 I have never heard a 58 even come close to either ..... and I never will.
withering	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 6:29 AM one of those mics that are connected to the monitor, and i hate using it.. Just to bring this thread back into context ... Would you recommend anything but a 58 to this guy? No, there is no such thing as a generic/best mic. But if you are to pick the starter mic for somebody that most probably is going to sound / work ok, and be good for experimenting with, what would you pick? (Just curious!) Condenser mics sound great, but they really belong in a studio. I have not much experience with cheap condensers, but in the instrument world you most often get what you pay for - so I'm a little suspicious of that option. And after all, condensors are some of the most fragile instruments ever made, you can literally destroy them by breathing on it... If a chap with a pc is buying a condenser, he's probably going to need a preamp with phantom power, a pop filter, a decent recording room, etc.. (the list goes on)
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 8:49 AM I'm not one to fight over beliefs or even what one person does in one studio over another because I do know one thing IS TRUE: "THE END RESULT TELLS ALL" thats what we are doing for the end product I'm not one to tell a person I don't believe them UNTIL I have seen for myself OR I have backup prove and (I guess I have no life) :) 1 a SM 57 a standard at one time because for stage.. its a good mic also the the 58 I do not own a 58 I do have a 57 but now let me put in my 2 cents and please NO disrespect we are in here to learn from each other please you disagree thats whats this is all about... Small diaphragm dynamic microphones (57 or 58)has a nice bass-y type sound and can take a stronger input signal tight signal BUT NOT WARM now a AKG C3000B a Large diaphragm condenser microphones or the Neumann U87 (the real industry standard for a while ) has a MUCH warmer sound sweeter and has a higher a better and DIFFRENT pickup Pattern A MUCH better choice for vocals and I will say it: can you hear the diffrence YES you will its almost impossable not too (in my opinon based on MY studio and having work with alot of these mics in diffrent studios in some cases its sonicly impossable for a Neumann M49 if set to the same setting as a C3000B to sound the same ..so I will say this A GOOD MIC gives you a GOOD signal to work with THIS is what your looking for a GOOD signal to work with for YOU in your budget.. I would get the BEST Mic I could get a few mics what the hell ! each mic brings something diffrent to the table I sometimes use two diffrent mics for the same song one for lead and another for back ground for the same person but THERE is a diffrence in them if that where not the case why is there Microphone modeling pluggin's for those with creaper mics? its the feel some mics give you BUT not just the microphone the preamp you use also has a play in your over all sound :) " id="74303"> I'm not one to fight over beliefs or even what one person does in one studio over another because I do know one thing IS TRUE: "THE END RESULT TELLS ALL" thats what we are doing for the end product I'm not one to tell a person I don't believe them UNTIL I have seen for myself OR I have backup prove and (I guess I have no life) 1 a SM 57 a standard at one time because for stage.. its a good mic also the the 58 I do not own a 58 I do have a 57 but now let me put in my 2 cents and please NO disrespect we are in here to learn from each other please you disagree thats whats this is all about... Small diaphragm dynamic microphones (57 or 5has a nice bass-y type sound and can take a stronger input signal tight signal BUT NOT WARM now a AKG C3000B a Large diaphragm condenser microphones or the Neumann U87 (the real industry standard for a while ) has a MUCH warmer sound sweeter and has a higher a better and DIFFRENT pickup Pattern A MUCH better choice for vocals and I will say it: can you hear the diffrence YES you will its almost impossable not too (in my opinon based on MY studio and having work with alot of these mics in diffrent studios in some cases its sonicly impossable for a Neumann M49 if set to the same setting as a C3000B to sound the same ..so I will say this A GOOD MIC gives you a GOOD signal to work with THIS is what your looking for a GOOD signal to work with for YOU in your budget.. I would get the BEST Mic I could get a few mics what the hell ! each mic brings something diffrent to the table I sometimes use two diffrent mics for the same song one for lead and another for back ground for the same person but THERE is a diffrence in them if that where not the case why is there Microphone modeling pluggin's for those with creaper mics? its the feel some mics give you BUT not just the microphone the preamp you use also has a play in your over all sound
woodhead	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 10:00 AM I wasnt try to disrespect any one but I was simply stating that to say all mics sound the same is to say that the crate 4 x 12 cab I sold a couple years ago sounds the same as the MArshall 4x12 cab I own now, they dont sound the same at all. Ben you answerd all my questions and the way that I think. And more than likley will be someone that I come to if I have questions. If a chap with a pc is buying a condenser, he's probably going to need a preamp with phantom power, a pop filter, a decent recording room, etc.. (the list goes on) This is true to a point. but you can always build as I did, but a piece here buy one there, lets face it studio gear does cost some cash but you can always find the tools in your budget range. OR do I as I did, buy somethings used if you can find them. Pre amps and so forth, but check them out and of they look likethey have been to hell and back well then you prob want to keep looking.
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 10:39 AM I agree Wood and thats sound advice.. in home studio setups you already have some forces against you .. you have to work with what you got and can afford SO be a good shopper you can get a 58 for about $100 hmm you can get a Audio Technica 3035 Studio Condenser for $199 new is it better hmmm can't say but a used 414 for $300 could be worth waiting an extra week to get feel me ..
robin101	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 11:05 AM By the way, I wasn't talking about the "quality" of the different mic sounds. I just meant that this guy could not name the microphones...none of the 21.
robin101	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 11:12 AM I just wrote a rather long shout to BenRebel regarding this issue. Don't feel like going through it again. Maybe BenRebel can paste the shout here.
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:32 PM ---------- robin101 said the following: Yes, it's something...and yes there were mics that used phantom power of many types. The thing is, of course, the micriphones sounded different from each other. It's just that the tech-head couldn't tell which was which. Also (and not many people may be aware of this), a Neuman U87 is a mic that costs a couple of thousand dollars...always sound different from one another. In other words, if you recorded 3 Neuman U87s, each one would have a distinct sound. Consequently, when recording a major act, those of us aware of this write down the serial number of the U87 so that in the day to day recordings...we always use the exact same mic. This is true of most high end microphones. This is why the tech guy couldn't distinguish the difference between a U87, to an AKG, to a Sanhieser or to a Shure SM57 or SM58. In addition, their is a difference between an SM57 and an SM58 (contrary to popular opinion). The SM58 ("beta" or not), has a bass boost...-the closer you get to it. An SM57 does not have this bass boost. However, I kept a safe distance from the 58. Subsequently the mics sounded the same (or too close to call). This little bet I had was not about quality, but rather: "which mic was which". Just goes to show that sometimes, all the "tech-talk" about "specs" means nothing. ---------- BenRebel said the following: OOOOOOH ok NOW I understand what you were saying I DID think you were saying that mics ALL sound the same.. which I coud not agree with but 21 mics and can call them out by name .. I do not think anyone can do that if they said they can i woud not believe them.. and yes I believe that when it comes to tube mics two of the same can sound diffrent.. I never believe specs I go by my ear.. (you have alot of knowledge in that head of yours)
woodhead	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:39 PM oh well now it is put in context, and makes sense cool I thought you were saying they all sounded the same also Robin. cool great thread guys
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:41 PM I also want to add that the over all lesson is this: You WANT and NEED good Quality input because this is what you will be working with in the end. you need good monitors to hear what you put in.. (and before alot of post popup lol you need monitors that YOUR ears are trained to that will give you that pro sound your looking for. GO for the best that you can do, with what you got think read and listen before you buy..
GeneHilbert	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:51 PM Sound advice all around ....... pun intended
Arthen	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 2:11 PM johnny gote's avatar is really fucking funny, couldn't stop laughing for a good minute when i first saw it weukwhekuwhkehk
robin101	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 2:54 PM That sounds better. (Worse pun than Gene's). By the way woodhead, There is good reason why major studios have (and use), all different mics. I know, I've recorded much in the Power Station, Electric Lady, Delta... They all have the same ones. They're used for many different reasons. Too many to mention. One really good (and old)trick is to use a Neuman U87 "through" an LA4 limiter compressor - but not using it's limiting or compressing. The simple electronics within an LA4 brings out the high-end of the 87. Sad, but true, is also that some people use these high-end mics simply because everybody else does. Sometimes people look at the "specs" when they should be listening to the "sound". In such "stubborn" cases, I have (in fact), put up several different mics just to fool them into using what I need. It's better than arguing the point, and they've never known the difference anyway. Clever production technique - don't you think?
woodhead	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 3:05 PM oh yea I wil have to remeber that, the trick of running the mic trough a limiter compressor but not usingthe functions is also cool, I think I will try this, thanx for the tip.
woodhead	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 3:57 PM not only will you need monitors but with all the mics that we commented on you need a mixing console of some type (a board) to get the most out of your mics and preamps( most of these mics if not all are low impedance) or balanced mics.
robin101	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 4:50 PM That's right. I'm using a Mackie 32 channel 8 bus console. There is a picture of it in my pictures under my site. (A friend put this up for me). Ya see, it's only recently that I've realized that a lot of you are using computer recording programs (as opposed to consoles and recorders). Rather stupid of me, but I didn't get it. Now I know. I'm using actual recording equipment and physical outboard gear (no "plug-ins). However, now I'm interested in these programs. You guys get very good stuff out of them. I have one called "Vegas", but I've never even read the manual. I wonder if it works. Any ideas would be appreciated. Although I've produced a lot of records, the whole computer thing is very new to me. I'm interested.
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 8:08 PM I also use the Mackie 32 channel 8 bus I also have the 24e(the exspander piece)I'm all hardware but I'm flitering in Pluggins for end point mixing I have a picture here in DM Robin did you have your ribbons redone by mackie?
Jennae	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 8:40 PM I'll get ya sorted Robin It's way easier than that stuff you have been showing me wayyyyyyyyy easier. same concept just slightly altered. But I have to laugh at the mastering process on a computer... on handed mixing just... I can't seem to fathom it as far as Mic's I use a SHURE BG 1.1 for everything I do... which lines in to a MIDIMAN(audio budddy) which imports to the computer for me. Works rather well.. I just wish Cubase did
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 9:09 PM Jennae on hand mixing is almost and art form I have yet to hear a mix with software that can give you the bigness and warmess of anolog mixing out right without extra process the final mix is based on ,hands on real time feelings that feel is whats missing in alot of mixes I know and use alot of programs (I also write some of my own) but I safe my final mix for the hands on mix hands on real time punches
Jennae	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 9:16 PM well my point here is... you are mastering with a m ouse... not a left and right hand... sometimes you need to boost a level and pull bak on one at the same time, and things along that nature.. I just don't get how you are suppose to MASTER fully and to the best production ability with a m ouse Sure you can utilize SOME mastering abilities on the computer but the concept as far as alolowing you to PROPERLY master in my mind bewilders me
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 9:20 PM I think your agreeing with me also I look at final mixing and mastering as being two diffrent animals altogether there two diffrent thought processes
woodhead	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 10:29 PM also I look at final mixing and mastering as being two diffrent animals altogether there two diffrent thought processes I here that, two seperate animals for sure
Apertome	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 11:24 PM Jennae -- when mastering on a computer, you can adjust as many parameters as you want, simultaneously, with automation. And once you program in the automation, it saves it, and you can edit it much like normal MIDI data (sometimes it is just normal MIDI data). This can be very powerful. Usually you can make changes in real time as well, so you can really do hands-on mastering using a MIDI controller, and then fix any fuck-ups or whatnot. That said, maybe outboard gear sounds better -- I don't know. I can't afford such gear, and haven't had the pleasure of working with it. Also much of this gear can be MIDI controlled these days, so you can automate it in much the same way as plug-ins. A great mastering plug-in is Izotope Ozone (http://www.izotope.com). It's what I use, for the most part. It does a lot of analog modelling and is highly configurable. If anyone has compared it to analog gear, I'd be very interested to hear how it fares.
woodhead	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 12:57 AM IN my experiance, I use both out board gear and computer gear(plugins) depends on the situation of what I am doing they both have there pros and cons.
ChillinBuzz	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 1:00 AM Shure's are good. Ive done plenty of time with mixing desks, its not hard to get the levels its just a pain to have to fart around with 30 or so knobs per channel
BenRebel	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 6:01 AM your right CHill its apain to hmmm Fart around with the knobs lol I'm sick enough to like that .. it may take me up to 2 hours to EQ a song and set level PUT this I believe everyone need in there level of growth in understanding fully how sound works and works together sonicly.. and yes you do and can automate alot through midi vol changes and drops at times I've programmed in I leave somethings for hands on because I know it will FEEL better if I do it .. thats personal taste though but I will say ths some pluggins are very good (I'm also a software developer/engineer) but do i think the Finalizer pluggin is as good as the finalizer hardware that I have hmmm no its not I can say that because I did test it out.. also I have said this before something that everyone in this room knows already FINAL MIXING and MASTERING is not the same thing your attacking the song two totaly diffrent ways and for me the "sound" of the song means everything to me I have my own gear because I want to spend as much "time" on my songs as possiable because I would rather not trade off the quality of a song because its easyier to do..
robin101	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 11:50 AM Hey Ben, Seems to me (from our shouts), that you and I go back about 22 years or so. Seems because we grew up in two towns next to each other that you know an awful lot about me and the record industry stuff(as per our shouts). I'd like to know how this is so. You can either Email me at: beach033053@comcast.net, call me at my studio number: (732) 477 - 9364, or leave your number in my shout box. I am curious how we go back so far. You apparently know me from well before I entered the record industry (which was a long time ago)...and you are correct about why I am on DM to assist.
leflaw	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 1:18 AM tips: 1. Watch out for "mid bass buildup". Happens all the time. Thin out 200 - 400 hz. range. 2. EQ: Less is more. Cut rather than boost, if possible. 3. Reverb + echo - you should "feel" it rather than hear it. If you can hear it, its too much. Exceptions, though abound. Sometimes you want the effect to be heard. 4. Master on accurate speakers. Quad ESL's, IMF monitors, even old advents. Mastering speakers and mixing speakers are different. The purpose of Mastering is to find a sound and balance that will sound good no matter what system it is played on.
woodhead	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 1:36 AM Mastering speakers and mixing speakers are different. The purpose of Mastering is to find a sound and balance that will sound good no matter what system it is played on. Well this is cool and something I never knew thanx leflaw, some thing new to check out The speaker part that is
pog	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 3:43 AM 2 hours to perfectly mix a song.... I've spent days at a time on some mixes, particularly when there's a co-mixer, and miltiple live instruments. All of these complexities of choosing the right mic for the right job, so I'll try and summarize it a little. Now don't be goin' quoting me on this. This may be in poggish, and slightly unconventional. Piezo mics - Old skool mics which rely on a piezo chrystal to create the signal. Great for accoustic recording... a lot of semi-accoustics have them. Also, those microsoft headphones with the mic on em, I think are cool piezo mics, and you can even bend the mic into the sound hole, and plug it straight into your pc. Dynamic mics - These are the mics you use for certain close mic up situations... Like capturing the noises a vocalist's head makes These mics generally have a fairly high power at a close proximity to the mic, so their useful for isolating sounds from spill of other instruments. Also, the big, fat dynamic mics (usually 2-3 time as thick) are wikked kick drum mics. Condenser mics - These mics have a much longer range, and are great for capturing the ambience of a live room. Stereo condenser's can be invaluable tools of domination If you scream up close at it without a pop filter... expect it to distort... and if the mic's expensive enough, need repairs. If you were to run such a mic live, it would surely feedback, but in a studio, with a pop filter, they can be really beautiful sounding vocal recording devices. There is indeed a science to it...
BenRebel	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 6:14 AM 2 hours to perfectly mix a song... you right Pog .. I did'nt want to scare the room and go to far off the subject I've spent days with Just EQ and Balancing at home but normally have a attack plan if I'm called in to mix at a paid session even still one time at Island Media it turned out to be a 18 hour mix good mic break down also so let me add that having a good Tube Condenser microphone (even the more affordable ones I have a Groove Tube 57 that I love on certain vocals) if you let run for about an hour or so before recording can give you a really good sounding vocal just very quick break down someone else can explain further if they like. In Tube Mics the tube itself gets warm and like all tube produces the warmer the tube gets the better (sorry for being so simple) also there is the "dominant distortion level" transistors overload is in the third harmonic and tubes mics the dominant distortion is in the second harmonic musically the second is an octave above the base you can bearly hear it but still it adds body to the sound, making it fuller lol ok enough tech head stuff I feel everyone going to zzzzZZZZ this is a good forum make me think and remember..
robin101	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 2:34 PM Leflaw, I agree with you for the most part but with one exception: You stated: "3. Reverb + echo - you should "feel" it rather than hear it. If you can hear it, its too much. Exceptions, though abound. Sometimes you want the effect to be heard." If you want your track to "feel" right, then you should "time" the reverbs and delays. This is accomplished by listening to any track (most of us prefer a snare drum in solo), and "feedback the effect back to itself" until it flanges. This should be done by delaying on 1/4 notes, 8ths, 16ths and/or 32nd notes. With this methodology, the reverb rarely becomes overbearing within the track. Secondly, the reverb and delays should not be long enough to stretch into the following chord. Otherwise the extended reverb and/or delay could cause dissonance within the track itself. It can also cause inter-modulation distortion among and between certain instruments and/or vocals. Subsequently, I respectfully disaggree with your 3rd statement. This is not just my own opinion. I've never met an engineer (who makes records), adjust or modify these effects by "feel", and I have obviously dealt with many. This is by no means meant to sound argumentative. It is rather just the way it is in the world of mixing. If anyone takes exception to this, I'll have to ask the horrible question: "Can you name any gold or platinum records you've made?" -...and I don't want to ask that.
Jennae	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 2:50 PM I've made a few gold and platinum records... just get an old LP and a can of spray paint you can have as many as you want
robin101	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 2:54 PM Now that's funny Jennae...
Jennae	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 2:55 PM I made Ricks ( now that's even funnier )
robin101	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 2:57 PM That is why you are my personal hero...
BenRebel	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 2:58 PM lol @Jennae" id="74679">lol @Jennae
Elu	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 5:51 PM My experience with hard disc recorders and microphones is a bit different. The truth about microphones is that you need a good one. Not and expensive one. If you own a hard disc recorder with a microphone emulator on it you can get almost any type of sound you want. And if you know your skill you can emulate anything with far less money. I use shure mics. good stuff. You can record crap just as easy with a good mic...but it's how you do it that matters.
robin101	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 6:28 PM Exactly the point Elu.
woodhead	Date: December 18, 2003 @ 8:02 PM You can record crap just as easy with a good mic...but it's how you do it that matters. Good point and nice statement.

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: