Microphone upgrade

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann? The
only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on my
voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a Neumann
TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a setup
with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way I'm
gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again and
again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low, distorted,
not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff are a
good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for my
room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other thing
I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than I
am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
are using?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
are using?"

Not Necessarily. Don't fall into the usual trap of believing that a
condensor is always better than a dynamic mic, or that a higher price
tag automatically means "better". Your only requirement seems to be
finding the mic that is right for your voice. In that case all that
matters is trying _anything_ different than the mic's that are
currently not getting you the results you desire. You should exhaust
the many possibilities with the lower to mid-price mic's before
committing to spending more. You could be pleasantly surprised to find
that the mic that's perfect for you is priced much lower than what
you're willing to spend. Some really good mic's that should be easy to
rent for comparison are:

Shure: SM-7
E/V: RE-20
Beyer Dynamic: M-88 and M-500
Sennheiser: MD-421, M-431 and/or MD-441

I'm sure the r.a.p. regulars will have plenty of great advice and can
help you find what will best suit your needs without costing you an arm
and a leg. Please keep us informed about your mic search.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
> with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
> with M147, etc.

Are you being hired to record "major release CD's"? Since you have to ask
this question here, I highly doubt it. There are many mics in the Rode
price range that are no worse than the pricey ones, they're just different.
Big budget studios are simply expected to carry the more expensive gear.

First step, upgrade the tube in the K2 to at least a *US-made* JAN Philips
ECC88. If the stock tube reads JAN Philips it's just a relabeled Russian
Sovtek 6922. It doesn't substantially change the behaviour of the mic, just
makes it silkier and more elegant, which may be what you're looking for.

> I try again and
> again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
> instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low, distorted,
> not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
> out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
> difference between them other studios and my studio?

You're talking about mixing hardware and techniques more than anything.
"soft", "warm", "blended in with the instrumental" are terms that imply
compression and coloration. The Eureka's compression and EQ are decent, but
the "saturate" feature isn't on par with the coloring aspects of better
processors. Try renting a Distressor and see if that doesn't cure what ails
you.

> "So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
> are using?"
>
> Not Necessarily. Don't fall into the usual trap of believing that a
> condensor is always better than a dynamic mic, or that a higher price
> tag automatically means "better". Your only requirement seems to be
> finding the mic that is right for your voice. In that case all that
> matters is trying _anything_ different than the mic's that are
> currently not getting you the results you desire. You should exhaust
> the many possibilities with the lower to mid-price mic's before
> committing to spending more. You could be pleasantly surprised to find
> that the mic that's perfect for you is priced much lower than what
> you're willing to spend.

Agreed, except for the part about the dynamic mic. It is very rare that a
dynamic mic is better suited to vocals, and even then it's usually shouting
rap-like vocals involved. I also wouldn't audition mics like buckshot to
the barn door. Tell us what properties you dislike about what you're
getting from each mic, perhaps we can narrow the field.

 

[erick]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:

> I got acoustic treatment for my
> room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other thing
> I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than I
> am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
> are using?
>

What monitors are you using. It looks like you took some of Scott
Dorsey's previous advice and did some room treatment (who know whether
it was helpful or not). But I don't think you've ever told us what
monitors you are using.

I don't think throwing more money at preamps and microphones is going to
help you one bit. From what I seem to recall, you have some pretty nice
gear.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Hassan,

1st of all, I have the Baby Bottle, and a Rode NTK, I also own a
Nueman TLM 103. All the mics you have listed have been used on major
record releases, I'm certain of it. I doubt any major recordings have
been done on the Presonus Eureka though! Your mic pre means much more
than your mic after you've met a certain threshold, and you have! I
know the NTK and the Baby Bottle will do fine on your vocal. I've
heard good things about the Eureka but I doubt Sony Records has ran out
to purchase one of them for their studios. But, I would wager money
that they own several of the mics you mentioned.

The next two questions are, #1. What are you recording into? and
#2. How are you processing the sounds you have recorded? The mic and
the pre's will give you a big fat in you're face sound only if you're
recording into a nice system! I would get a nice mic pre and if your
using a hard disk system, I would certainly get a UAD Studio Pak card
for my processing. Good luck Hasasn.





www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
> I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
> decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
> them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
> using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
> would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
> dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann?
The
> only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on my
> voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
> voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
> with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
> with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a
Neumann
> TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
> should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a setup
> with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
> respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way I'm
> gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again
and
> again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
> instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low,
distorted,
> not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
> out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
> difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
> equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff are
a
> good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for my
> room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other
thing
> I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than
I
> am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big
guys
> are using?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SongCzar wrote:
> Hi Hassan,
>
> 1st of all, I have the Baby Bottle, and a Rode NTK, I also own a
> Nueman TLM 103. All the mics you have listed have been used on major
> record releases, I'm certain of it. I doubt any major recordings
have
> been done on the Presonus Eureka though! Your mic pre means much
more
> than your mic after you've met a certain threshold, and you have!
I
> know the NTK and the Baby Bottle will do fine on your vocal. I've
> heard good things about the Eureka but I doubt Sony Records has ran
out
> to purchase one of them for their studios. But, I would wager money
> that they own several of the mics you mentioned.
>
> The next two questions are, #1. What are you recording into? and
> #2. How are you processing the sounds you have recorded? The mic
and
> the pre's will give you a big fat in you're face sound only if
you're
> recording into a nice system! I would get a nice mic pre and if your
> using a hard disk system, I would certainly get a UAD Studio Pak card
> for my processing. Good luck Hasasn.
>


I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
sound with its eq. Then I am running rca outs from the mackie into a
m-audio audiophile soundcard (the interface might be the problem but
I've heard soo many good things about this soundcard, and that's why I
bought it)...I haven't really A/Bd it with any other studio soundcards.
>
>
>
>
> www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
> > I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both
are
> > decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either
of
> > them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
> > using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
> > would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
> > dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann?
> The
> > only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on
my
> > voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
> > voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being
recorded
> > with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
> > with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a
> Neumann
> > TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
> > should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a
setup
> > with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
> > respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way
I'm
> > gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again
> and
> > again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
> > instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low,
> distorted,
> > not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they
turn
> > out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
> > difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
> > equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff
are
> a
> > good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for
my
> > room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other
> thing
> > I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff
than
> I
> > am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big
> guys
> > are using?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I was about to get the RE-20 because it was recommended to me quite a
few times, but then I was like, wait, will it really be better than my
Rode K2 tube mic? So I kinda stopped. The acoustication made the room
dead....and different. I don't know if better or worst is the
word....just different. The room is more bassy but quieter. I was
pretty satisfied as it only cost me 2 hours of my time and $70...the
room looks more professional...lol. There are no places around here to
rent equipment...I've tried looking for a while and gave up. There are
studios around...but how would I know it's the mic which is making me
sound better, not their preamp, compressor, eq, interface, console,
etc. So I didn't try that either. I compared the Eureka to the Avalon
and it held its own...I was pretty surprised, so I didn't buy the
Avalon 737SP.

Here's the latest sample I have with the Rode K2, Eureka, acoustic
foam, Mackie goin into a m-audio audiophile soundcard and being
recorded in Adobe Audition. Don't mind my off pitched voice, I'm sick
and I wrote that song in some unfriendly notes which my voice doesn't
like.

http/abnoticrecords.com/sample.mp3

The sound is decent, but I WANT BETTER! lol. No, I'm not signed to some
major label, but I do want to record an album in my studio and release
about 10,000 copies. So yea, I do need pretty good quality sound. I
don't want to record in someone else's studio because:

1) I don't get to keep the equipment
2) I'm limited to studio time
3) I don't feel as comfortable recording the same part over and over
again to get it just right when someone is constantly watching me.
4)I don't get to keep the equipment.

lol.

 

[Agent86]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:


> I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
> sound with its eq.

That could very well be your problem.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
to go into my soundcard? Do I get a new, more versatile interface with
XLR and 1/4" jacks or is there another way to do it? I tried using a
m-audio Fast Track to get the Mackie out of the way and tried to follow
your recommended settings the best I could (even though I didn't get
some of the stuff you said)....the results were tragic. :-/ I don't
mean to sound dumb, but...

Here is a picture of the Eureka:
http/www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=live/content/doc_id=91865/base_pid=184130

You might start with 4:1 and 10 db of
compression, with attack and release as fast as possible

Okay, I turned the attack and release knobs all the way to the left
because that's where is says "fast". I don't know what you mean by 10db
and 4:1..hopefully not 10db of gain on the compressor...cuz that kills
the sound....4:1...I have no clue what knob to touch and where to put
it.

Then if that
sounds too smashed, increase the threshold so that you're compressing
about
6dB and listen again.

Okay, I put thresh knob to number 6.

Or, if it doesn't sound like enough, lower the
threshold a little or increase the ratio to say 6:1

Um...what...I see the ratio knob, what number do I put it to?

You just need to learn
how to use your EQ and compression; I don't think you've got the
controls
down quite yet. Note that what I said is a STARTING POINT, not carved
in
stone.

Yes, I think you're right about me learning to use the EQ and
compression better. My method is, keep the low end low, mid a little
higher and the high end usually as much or a little higher than the
mids. Then mess with all the knobs one by one seeing how the sound
changes....then put each knob to the place where it sounds the best to
my ears. Some knobs honestly make so little of a difference to my ears
(and my friends' ears) that I don't really know where to put them. It
would really be a nice lesson if you could tell me a little more about
these things....Eureka is my first compressor....I never used a
compressor personally before this...I just used a preamp straight into
the interface with some eq.

When I go to a studio, they have everything setup, and I just stand
there and say check as they fix the knobs. I really can't see what
they're doing. When I come home I need to learn everything by
experimenting or of course, asking you guys.

BTW, I was listening to the old recordings and some new recordings, and
yea, the acoustication did make an improvement...thanks for the advice


I don't know what I would do without the internet and people like you
helping people like me out with these questions. Yesterday I must have
been on google groups for about 5 hours straight reading questions and
replies. lol....I've learned a lot.

 

[Truth]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
> decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
> them

The Shure SM-7 costs a LOT less, and will blow all other microphones away.

 

[Truth]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Not Necessarily. Don't fall into the usual trap of believing that a
> condensor is always better than a dynamic mic, or that a higher price
> tag automatically means "better".

Right, as I have proven to other engineers, and also magazines like MIX and
RadioWorld have also shown, the Shure SM-7 dynamic mic for around $400
blows away $3000 mics like Neuman condensers.

> you're willing to spend. Some really good mic's that should be easy to
> rent for comparison are:
>
> Shure: SM-7

There you go.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Truth wrote:

> Right, as I have proven to other engineers, and also magazines like MIX and
> RadioWorld have also shown, the Shure SM-7 dynamic mic for around $400
> blows away $3000 mics like Neuman condensers.

So the SM-7 creates some kind of huge wind?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

agent86 wrote:

> www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:

> > I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
> > sound with its eq.

> That could very well be your problem.

This is a job for the RNP from FMR. <g>

--
ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Truth wrote:

> > I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
> > decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
> > them

> The Shure SM-7 costs a LOT less, and will blow all other microphones away.

That's why it's nicknamed "The Typhoon"...

(Are you on a roll or just too many Spudnuts?)

--
ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hassan Ansari wrote:
> Did you guys listen to the sound from the link I posted? That might
> help....

First, you should be using the Mackie ONLY to mix your keyboards and drum
machine, and possibly to monitor your soundcard. Don't use the Mackie EQ
(or the Mackie at all) after the Eureka. Did you get the digital out card
on the Eureka? If so, use it. Just switch between analog and digital ins
in Audition, not a big deal, and you'll get a very clean path.

Your vocals are muddy and have inconsistent level, so you need to work on
your EQ and compression. Try starting with +4 @ 3.5k and +6 @ 12k, all
bandwidth at 1 octave, and see if the vocal opens up for you. Don't add
bass. Less bass = sharper imaging.

Make sure you're a good 6-8" from the mic, and a foot back would not hurt.
That'll clean up the low end.

Hit the compression a little harder. You might start with 4:1 and 10 db of
compression, with attack and release as fast as possible. Then if that
sounds too smashed, increase the threshold so that you're compressing about
6dB and listen again. Or, if it doesn't sound like enough, lower the
threshold a little or increase the ratio to say 6:1. You just need to learn
how to use your EQ and compression; I don't think you've got the controls
down quite yet. Note that what I said is a STARTING POINT, not carved in
stone. YYE. Learn.

You don't need a new mic, and you don't need another channel strip. The K2
and Eureka will get you there IF you learn how to use them. It just takes
patience and practice. Run the Eureka *directly* into your computer,
whether using the analog or digital ins. A veil will be lifted overall,
and -- particularly -- you'll decrease the variables needed in achieving
your sound.

Mackie EQ is a last resort, and you should be far, far from that point with
the Eureka. Make sure you are monitoring flat: no Mackie EQ, no bass or
treble controls, no "loudness" control. Just as plain-jane as possible.
Soundcard to amp would be ideal.

And finally. The importance of good monitors cannot be overstated. A $3000
channel strip or more expensive mic will be worthless if you can't hear what
you're doing. And incidentally, with the VoxBox you are stuck with a set
3:1 compression ratio. It's not the most versatile tool on the planet. If
the EQ and compression starting points I gave you above don't sound like an
immediate and drastic improvement, you need new monitors. A pair of JBL
LSR-8s or Mackie 824s would be a good set to learn.

The room sounds better.

Jeff Jasper
Jeff Jasper Productions, West Funroe, La.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <jZJzd.6535$za4.2704@bignews6.bellsouth.net> jakethedog@backyard.net writes:

> > I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
> > sound with its eq.
>
> That could very well be your problem.

The Mackie mixer (in general)? The EQ? Or his ears?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:02:42 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <znr1104113720k@trad>):

>
> In article <jZJzd.6535$za4.2704@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
> jakethedog@backyard.net writes:
>
>>> I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
>>> sound with its eq.
>>
>> That could very well be your problem.
>
> The Mackie mixer (in general)? The EQ? Or his ears?

Yes.

Smiles,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Agent86]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> In article <jZJzd.6535$za4.2704@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
> jakethedog@backyard.net writes:
>
>> > I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
>> > sound with its eq.
>>
>> That could very well be your problem.
>
> The Mackie mixer (in general)? The EQ? Or his ears?


In another post, in another thread, he said that the Eureka sounded almost
as good as an Avalon "to his ears".

I'm not one of those Mackie bashers. I've got 2 use them regularly. But
taking the output of most any standalone channel strip (with its own
compression & EQ) & running it through most any budget mixer & adding more
gain & more EQ is seldom going to improve things.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yes, it does. I never said the Eureka's sound is bad...it's actually
very impressive for the price....I'm just trying to improve it even
further or get the best sound possible out of it. These guys keep
telling me to take my Mackie out and make my life much harder :-(. lol.
But hey, they know more than I do...so yea...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Is there some mixer or interface I can use which would allow me to keep
everything hooked up like I have it on the Mackie and at the same time
not ruin the Eureka's quality? The Eureka has an XLR out and a TRS jack
for outputs. I have my monitors, speakers, headphones, rca outs from my
soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked up to the Mackie...how
would I hook all of them up without the Mackie there? The Eureka
doesn't have any head phone jacks either. Is there a way to hook up the
Eureka to my Mackie and bypass the EQ or some mixer or interface which
would work like the Mackie but not jeopardize my quality?