Microphone upgrade

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

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

Teen Prodigy: << ...I've been told that by hundreds, if not a few thousand
people. >>

You, unquestionably, are the greatest teen prodigy I know. It is a great honor
to know you and I don't even know you. There should be a song written about
knowing you. If I knew you, I would offer you my finest cognac, but then, you
are, after all, a teenager. Pity.
 
G

Guest

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

Jim Kollens wrote:


> You, unquestionably, are the greatest teen prodigy I know. It is a great honor
> to know you and I don't even know you. There should be a song written about
> knowing you. If I knew you, I would offer you my finest cognac, but then, you
> are, after all, a teenager. Pity.

A teenager with a big head. Seems like there are too many of those
lately. I think talent is a better trait.
 
G

Guest

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

Hey Hassan it's a tough crowd around here. I liked your little
throw-away rap... most of these guys are getting old and grumpy so
take it with a grain of salt & don't let them rain on your parade.

Al

On 28 Dec 2004 01:33:40 GMT, jimkollens@aol.com (Jim Kollens) wrote:

>Teen Prodigy: << ...I've been told that by hundreds, if not a few thousand
>people. >>
>
>You, unquestionably, are the greatest teen prodigy I know. It is a great honor
>to know you and I don't even know you. There should be a song written about
>knowing you. If I knew you, I would offer you my finest cognac, but then, you
>are, after all, a teenager. Pity.
 
G

Guest

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

"SongCzar" <songczar@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1104203786.890059.197160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>If Sting comes to your
> studio to record a vocal track, he's not even going to let you pull out
> a Shure! He's going to want to hear the mucous on his lungs dripping
> down into his bowels and he's knows he's always gotten that with his
> U87.

So what's the best mic for under $200 to record dripping mucous?

:D

Neil Henderson
 
G

Guest

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

My first response would be that looking at the end you sing into, which
appears to be a couple of fine mics, is the wrong starting point. A) if you
move the Eureka out of the line and like the Mackie by itself better (as you
said), then at least that's one step forward. B) if you want even better,
then look at the pres and see what might benefit you if you absolutely HAVE
to spend money (like money burning a hole in your pocket), but for all
practical purposes if you can't get a good recording with your existing
equipment then I'd start looking at your gain staging and your recording
methods, your placement of the mic in the room (which you mentioned is now
dead) and the placement of yourself as you sing into the mic.

But if you can't get something good with what you have, it's not the
equipment that's the problem.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy" <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1104047478.886220.256770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> 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?
>
 
G

Guest

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

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I'm sick too. Ok, climbing into
the Wayback Machine...

Hassan Ansari wrote:
> Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
> to go into my soundcard?

The easiest way, and one which allows you to avoid building a patch panel,
is go to Radio Shack and get the 4-pushbutton input A/V switch box with the
3 RCAs per input, and connect it between the Mackie and Eureka and the
RCA-ins on your sound card. While you're there, also get an XLR
Female-to1/4" Male transformer adapter to convert the XLR-out on your Eureka
to unbalanced 1/4". Then use a 1/4" female-to-RCA male to connect the
Eureka to one of the inputs on the switch box. You can have the Eureka on
Input A and the Mackie on Input B and easily punch between them as needed.
I'll probably get flamed for telling you to use Radio Shack transformers,
but they're cheap and they work. While you're at Radio Shack, make sure you
have whatever adaptors and cables needed to make it work, probably at least
a couple more RCA-RCAs. Radio Shack stuff isn't the best, but it's
convenient and if you get a bad cable you can take it back.

> 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.

You got the attack and release right. Put the ratio knob on 4:1. Set the
VU meter to gain reduction. Then while singing into the mic, adjust the
threshold knob until the meter kicks back to around -10dB on the loud parts.
I also suggest you push in the "soft knee" button for smoother compressor
action.

> Okay, I put thresh knob to number 6.

No, you have to use the meter, ignore the markings on the threshold knob for
now.

> 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.

The EQ control marked "Q" is the bandwidth control. It adjusts the width of
the response peak or dip and can come in handy after a lot of practice. But
for now, just leave them all set on 2, the mid position, as the other
controls will have much more impact at this point.

The effect of the "soft knee" button is somewhat subtle until you know what
you're listening for. Just know for now that you'll get a smoother sound
with it engaged. The "saturate" knob is useless marketing bull, and make
sure it is always on 0 for a clean sound. The "impedance" knob should be
all the way to the right unless you're using a ribbon mic. You can play
with the effect of input impedance later as it is also rather subtle.

So lets make sure you've got this thing set up for good gain structure.
We'll move left to right across the front panel.

First put the impedance knob all the way to the right and the saturate knob
all the way to the left. Now you can set the input gain on the preamp.
While singing loudly, increase the gain knob until the 0 dB LED blinks. The
clip LED should never blink, it is a true warning light.

Now get some initial settings on the compressor. A starting point. Push in
the "GR to Meter" button at the far right so that the meter will switch to
gain reduction mode. Compression is the automatic reduction of gain. Set
the side chain high pass knob all the way to the left to take it out of the
circuit for now. Set the attack and release all the way to fast. Engage
the "soft knee" button. Set the ratio control to 4:1. Now, while singing,
adjust the threshold knob until the meter is kicking back to about -10 dB on
the loud parts. This will make the overall volume lower, so you may have
to turn up the compressor output "gain" knob some to compensate.

Now set the EQ. My usual preference would be to have the compressor before
the EQ, so leave the EQ>Comp button out. Turn all the Q controls to 2. Set
the low freq to 80 for future use, but set the low gain to 0, no boost or
cut. Set the mid freq to 2.8kHz and the mid gain to +4 dB. Sorry I didn't
know the mids only went up to 2.8k before. Just go with it for now. Now
set the high freq to 12kHz and the high gain to +6. These settings will
sound VERY bright in your headphones, but will make the vocal sit better in
the mix. And remember, we're just creating a starting point right now. You
can play with variations later to get a feel for what's going on.

Now the Master output gain (level). You can leave the "GR to Meter" button
engaged, as you need to adjust the output gain while looking at the meter in
Audition, not on the Eureka. While singing loudly, adjust the output gain
so that the meter in Audition hits up to about -10 to -6 dB, and never hits
0 dB. That'll give you a good playback level, but with some margin of error
for the loudest parts. Some of the guys will be more conservative and tell
you to set it even lower; I'm just telling you what I like.

Now you're set to a good starting place. The input preamp won't hiss or
distort, the compressor will be quite obviously riding gain on your voice,
and the EQ will be very bright to match the clarity of your backing tracks.
Try recording a full song with these settings and see how the vocal now sits
in the mix more clearly. Then try changing one knob at a time and listen to
the effect that knob has. That's the way to learn.

Somebody mentioned getting Bobby Owsinski's book, and that's a good idea.
The more your read and experiment, the more will gel in your mind about
what's going on with your controls. It also pays to read the Eureka manual
more than once; it should be regular bathroom literature until you know it
inside out. At Results Video, we called that the Christian Science Reading
Room due to the number of epiphanies causing guys to call Jesus' name in
exclamation. At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;-)

Mike Rivers is a little sensitive about people dissing Mackie, as he's done
a lot of good work for those guys and they do make good gear. I've used a
lot of Mackie gear myself, and still use an 8-bus to monitor and for non-mic
inputs. Having the switchbox to select between the Mackie and the Eureka
just helps keep your soundcard input path as clean as possible. If you had
a bunch of separate components you really would need a patch panel instead,
but the switchbox is really, really convenient. I've also used one as a
SMPTE sync router to sync my workstation to various video sources, but
that's not something for you to bother with unless you're doing audio for
video.

Happy Editing.

Jeff Jasper
Jeff Jasper Productions, West Funroe, La.
 
G

Guest

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

On 25 Dec 2004 23:51:18 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
<AbnoticCo@aol.com> 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?


Better equipment will maybe add a few percent to an otherwise great
recording. Look to your performance, the room and your recording
technique. What are you doing right on the good recordings you've
made? What are you doing wrong on the bad ones? Sort that out before
throwing money around. The problem isn't the gear.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
 
G

Guest

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

On 27 Dec 2004 00:43:33 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
<AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

>Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
>to go into my soundcard?

What a strange question :)

Indeed, if you insist in feeding the soundcard from the Mackie RCA
outs, that is what you'll feed it from. Maybe you could feed it
from something else?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
 
G

Guest

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

On 27 Dec 2004 00:43:33 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
<AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

>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?

Adaptor cables. Or a patchbay.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
 
G

Guest

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

On 27 Dec 2004 11:05:56 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
<AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

>Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
>run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
>and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
>up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
>hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface which
>would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
>and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
>Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
>insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my Mackie's
>XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
>all my stuff organized and hooked up?


Is the Eureka's XLR out a mic level signal? I suspect it's line
level, which will overload the Mackie mic input. Use the jack
output to Line in on the Mackie.

You seem over-concerned with the connector type. You should worry
more about what electrical signal it carries. Adaptor cables are
easy to make. An XLR may be carrying line level, mic level (or a few
other things). So may a 1/4" jack.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
 
G

Guest

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

On 27 Dec 2004 12:25:30 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
/ Rapper / Producer" <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

>Okay, I did what you said immediately... I got the adapter and got the
>Mackie out of the way. Then I recorded the same thing through the
>Mackie without touching any settings on the Eureka. Here are the
>results:
>
>With Mackie:
>
>http://www.abnoticrecords.com/mackie.mp3
>http://www.abnoticrecords.com/nomackie.mp3


Can't be bothered to listen - and on the laptop I use for email I
probably wouldn't notice any difference :)

Which sounds better?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
 
G

Guest

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

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:
>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.

Go and try it. You will be surprised. If you don't try things, you will
never know.

Also realize that what is "best" on one source is not "best" on another.

>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.

Is it totally dead? Is it too dead? If the room is very small, the only
solution might be to make it totally dead. There's only so much you can
do with a small room, and if you are stuck working in a place like this,
artificial reverb can be your salvation.

>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.

By bringing your own mike and trying your mike against theirs. Almost
certainly you will find it's _not_ the mike that is making things better,
which is a good thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

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

In article <1104172691.151656.186970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>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?

With a 1/4 to RCA cable. Markertek stocks them, or you can make your own.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

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

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:
>Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
>run the Eureka through them?

No. Electronics don't improve sound quality. Sometimes electronics do
useful things, but you always have to deal with some level of degradation.
Use a cable.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

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

In article <RH4Ad.6876$iC4.970@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM writes:

> So what's the best mic for under $200 to record dripping mucous?

I'd probably go for those AKG D9000s, two for $79.95 at Musician's
Friend. Throw 'em away when they grill gets full of mucous.


--
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
 
G

Guest

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

In article <1104212859.810661.168010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> AbnoticCo@aol.com writes:

> I was thinking...there are 2 chanels on the
> Mackie where you can pretty much bypass the eq and they have 1/4"
> inputs. I can take my Eureka's TRS, put it into those jacks without any
> eq so the sound is nuetral and get it out to my soundcard....

Those are the AUX RETURN jacks, and yes, you could indeed connect your
preamp to those and it will go through a fairly direct path to the
main and tape outputs. You don't have the ability to solo it coming in
that way, and you don't have a good way to check the signal level, so
it's not as convenient as a regular channel, but it's a fairly simple
signal path.

Since this input is conventionally used for bringing the signal from
an effect such as a reverb unit back into the mix, and that isn't
considered a particularly "high fidelity" signal. Some manufacturers,
and I don't know if (or to what extent) this is the case with Mackie,
cheap out on these inputs, not putting in as well designed circuitry
or as quiet amplifier chips. But you're right - no EQ controls so
there's no need to worry that you have it really set flat. Give it a
try. It may not make your recordings sound any better, but it may ease
your conscience.


--
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
 
G

Guest

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

On 27 Dec 2004 21:50:12 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
/ Rapper / Producer" <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

>I can deffinetly hear a difference...the sound going into my Mackie
>sounds better on singing and without the Mackie it's more fuller and
>better for my hip hop vocals....well that's how it sounds to me.

Right, to me it sounded noticeably "bigger" and more detailed with the
Mackie bypassed. I used to use a Mackie too... for just a couple of
hundred more $ I bought a used Soundcraft Delta off ebay that is
worlds better than the Mackie, although it takes up a lot more room.

Al
 
G

Guest

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

It's OK, these guys just love to give a free lecture with the free
advice... you get what you pay for.

Al

On 27 Dec 2004 22:09:07 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
/ Rapper / Producer" <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

>And thanks playon, these guys are making a big deal out of nothing...
>
>I'm not thick headed people, I just have a lot of confidence in my
>talent.
>
>When was the last time a 15 year old came by and posted a thread like
>this and took all the advice given asking one question after another
>and showing respect to all the people helping him out? I'm just trying
>to learn.
>
>AND OF COURSE I AM NOT GOING TO RECORD TRACKS FOR 2 HOURS EACH JUST TO
>HEAR THE QUALITY OF THE RECORDING! I'm recording the vocals raw without
>adding any adlibs, reverb, eq, compression, etc in my software. If I
>took those recordings I posted the links to, made a nice instrumental
>to them and polished them up with VST plug-ins...of course they gonna
>sound much better. This is my raw work...what do you expect? Yea, I'm
>talkin to you Joe....do you want to hear my vocal abilities or my
>studio's quality? My studio's quality is easily heard with these
>"trash" recordings...and no, they are not my best work...they are just
>recordings to get a hint of the sound quality...not a hint of my talent.
 
G

Guest

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

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:18:06 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>I can only think of one Major's hit that used an SM7, which was Michael
>Jackson's Thriller. And I wasn't impressed with it for that reason.

Really? When you first heard that record did you say "damn I hate the
sound of an SM7 on vocals"?

Al

But I
>have an SM7 and it's great for trumpet, kick, guitar amp and a number of
>other applications where some real dynamic range was required, as well as
>some high SPL handling circumstances.
>
>Then again, one has to assume that Bruce Swedien knew what he was doing in
>his mic selection and that Quincy would have corrected the situation were it
>not acceptable.
 
G

Guest

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

www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer
<AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

> When was the last time a 15 year old came by and posted a thread like
> this and took all the advice given asking one question after another
> and showing respect to all the people helping him out? I'm just trying
> to learn.

Get over yourself. Our best prior teen posters didn't bother to tell us
they were teens until well into their discussions. In the end they
impressed with their lack of self-importance.

--
ha