|
Post by joseph on Aug 31, 2015 15:43:28 GMT -6
I hate the sound of high-passed overheads, and of drums built around the close mics, instead of using them for reinforcement where needed. It's like an orchestra with no basses. What kind of no control filters are you using? I high pass ever single piece on a kit/and in a mix at some point, including the kick drum, it virtually always yields a much more focused, punchier, and bigger sound than not, i honestly can't think of a single good reason not to do it to some degree? Unless you like tasking your woofs with extra work for no reason. I don't like steven slate super punchy drums, or the blown out phasey low end sound that you get with over-eqing really close mics, I like the perception of size and space around the drums for rock, or finesse and mostly mono for other genres. I also don't like the obligatory 1176 20:1 room mic sound and decapitator/sans amp on everything for rock music either, which is boring now. Shock mounts can make a big difference. Actually I do high pass the kick drum around 30hz on occasion, but only to tighten things up and help with any drum bus compression. I just don't high-pass the overheads or snare because then the elements of the kit sound disconnected and not like real drums to me at all. Fuck that. I prefer to use a Glyn Johns style arrangement but with the overhead angled to capture the rack tom, and a FOK to glue everything together in the center and bring the size, and close but not too close mics on kick and snare. Sometimes I add a room mic. Similar to the weedywet approach. The best drummers will sound good most of the time with just the FOK mic. thewombforums.com/showthread.php?23682-The-weedywet-4-5-mic-drum-techniqueI also use thin cymbals, like Zildjian K and Paiste 602. These help a ton. I agree with Bob, it's an insult to the drummer to use lots of mics. And if a drummer can't balance their playing, then sorry they probably need to practice more before they record. They need to understand the difference between playing live and playing in the studio. Even Dave Grohl and Dale Crover, two of the hardest hitting drummers ever, play more lightly on smaller kits in the studio. Likewise, a band with a lot of crashing and ratty guitars, maybe that's part of their sound anyway. Also ever since I read thethrillfactor's posts, I stopped high-passing my vocals too when I can help it. It's a myth that there is no useful info below 100hz on a lot of instruments, and you have to deal with the resonance of the filter which can sound unnatural. I'd rather uses gentle shelves.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 31, 2015 13:27:48 GMT -6
I hate the sound of high-passed overheads, and of drums built around the close mics, instead of using them for reinforcement where needed.
It's like an orchestra with no basses.
I think aligning the overheads to the snare mic can work, but often doesn't sound any better than simply flipping the phase on the preamp, assuming the overheads are in phase with each other, which isn't hard to get right.
Aligning anything else sounds weird a lot of the time, and using an expander like jazznoise said on the room mic tends to work better anyway to bring punch to the snare without too much mud.
Also the whole point of a FOK mic is to get the bloom and size from the kick and shells, not to impact exactly where an inside kick or beater mic does.
Agree, best to sort out these problems in the tracking stage, or lose mics that are not working with those that sound good with no processing.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 27, 2015 22:15:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 27, 2015 13:58:49 GMT -6
To me, there area a few things to think about.
If you have hard/harsh early reflections captured by your microphones, no quality reverb will fix them.
And all the best records until 2008, none of them used a Bricasti.
Everyone uses the Sunset Chamber or Large Wood Room preset, an easy trap to fall into, and do you want your fake room to sound like everyone else's?
Things are so portable these days, it's not hard to find an interesting space to track in that no one else has away from your main studio.
That said, if I were dealing with Ensemble/Orchestral/Classical guitar music, I would want one to improve less than ideal performance halls. Much like the 480L is still used on classical releases, but this is far superior.
But Phoenixverb also does have great and uncolored chambers especially, rooms and plates, and lets you handle early reflections elegantly. As many as you want. For rock/pop, thats kinda enough.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 21, 2015 13:04:35 GMT -6
I find that the m201 sounds best a little farther from the snare than other mics. Sounds good on kick beater and anywhere you need another reinforcement dynamic with controlled bleed.
Albini often paired it with an SM98 for top end until he switched to the Altec lipstick mic.
I think the M88 sounds better on guitar amps, vocals, and inside kick however.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 14, 2015 20:57:34 GMT -6
Yeah, great video and song.
And to reiterate WA76 has such a nice tone, even if it looks/feels a little cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 14, 2015 20:31:09 GMT -6
From those that prefer it in situations, my understanding is that the 1081 circuit is leaner than the 1084 or 1073, which makes it better for certain types of vocals (pop, R&B) and potentially less enhancing for others.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 14, 2015 20:15:44 GMT -6
I have a Grace Spacebar, the 30cm version. Pretty awesome and rugged, but overkill for most purposes. I bought it on a whim because I didn't want to think about this stuff too much.
But I'm glad I did. Includes a longer mount, which makes precise ORTF/DIN, etc easy. Also has rotational axis at the stand mount and comes with a tape measure, so you pretty much do anything out of the box. Besides ORTF, I use it mainly to mount different sized ribbons and condensers together on guitar amps, and you can align the capsules/elements just right or in configurations impossible with a standard stereo bar, like the K&M I had before.
Plus you can buy the longer bar separately, although it's not cheap either.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 6, 2015 19:00:34 GMT -6
For that kind of money invested in 300 dollar a pop plugins you can (and I do) track with real hardware. My main point is that in order to have 2ms latency I would have to also buy converters and preamps I don't need. I can't just buy a low latency device with decent (i.e. OCTO) DSP power, they don't have that option. Size-wise converters are fine but not quite on the level of Forssell, Mytek, Apogee Symphony, Burl, etc. Preamps, I like mine to have ohms switch and I/O transformers, just plain sounds better to have these options with condensers. Like I said, it's really the unique effects not available native that appeals to me. EQs and compressors, I have hardware and other software options for that. What I want is a thunderbolt device with low latency and good DSP horsepower, not the overpriced and underpowered and higher latency QUAD satellite. Those UAD-2 DSP chips are just not very good by today's standards. The whole point of plugins is you're not forced to print them. Am I imagining things? uadforum.com/general-discussion/16697-dsp-usage-oh-well-cant-get-much-worse-until-uad-3-a.htmlAnyway, just my opinions. The plugins sound great, the platform is a turn off.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 5, 2015 17:35:44 GMT -6
Hi Joseph, the latency of the firewire satellites is related to the up-sampling and the ua plug quality. The new pci-e over tbolt satellites are certainly faster than the older FW, maybe try one of those? It's also related to the implementation of the DSP off-loading which is much improved in the ~2ms Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 5, 2015 16:44:26 GMT -6
That's the point. The paradigm has shifted, and yet I would be forced to buy an obsolete design to subsidize their business model. We're not talking Bricasti level purpose built DSP chips. The UAD SHARC satellite hardware itself is a total rip off because of its poor performance with their newest plugins. They should at least give you DSP chips with performance that fairly reflect the entry price. For $1000+ you shouldn't run out of DSP with a basic 12-16 channels, tape emulation, and some effects buses, but people do. Firewire is also old tech, but at least there they have thunderbolt option. Same deal with Apollo- you have to buy subpar preamps and converters to get improved latency over the satellites. Both these approaches are not good for the consumer. I would rather they just say straight up, in order to gain participation of the EMT250/AMS RMX16 designers, AKG etc, they have to charge more for their plugin licenses. Would be cheaper for everybody in the long run than forcing people to buy overpriced hardware for the privilege. ah a ua hater. you don't seem to know the ua system well ? the satalite has nothing to do with ua's pre amps and converters do you own any ua interfaces ? Please don't resort to ad hominem. I don't own a UA device, because I don't want to bother with another piece of clunky and overpriced hardware. The price itself is not the issue, it's being locked in to the hardware, which again would not be as much an issue if it weren't underpowered. I think this is a reasonable assessment of their users' experience with latest plugins. Really it's an ongoing issue all over GS and the UAD forums. I tend to research things before I buy them. The satellites have extra latency. The apollos have less, but I don't want the preamps or converters. Franky, I don't understand why anyone would support this business model which is clearly bad for the consumer. We're not talking about the actual plugins but the platform. That said, the plugins are top notch and there are some unique choices like the AKG Spring and the EMT250, so I may just decide to deal with the compromise in the future. I'll resent it, but it's not a life or death decision is it?
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 5, 2015 15:43:36 GMT -6
The ua system was designed at a time when systems weren't as they are now That's the point. The paradigm has shifted, and yet I would be forced to buy an obsolete design to subsidize their business model. We're not talking Bricasti level purpose built DSP chips. The UAD SHARC satellite hardware itself is a total rip off because of its poor performance with their newest plugins. They should at least give you DSP chips with performance that fairly reflect the entry price. For $1000+ you shouldn't run out of DSP with a basic 12-16 channels, tape emulation, and some effects buses, but people do. Firewire is also old tech, but at least there they have thunderbolt option. Same deal with Apollo- you have to buy subpar preamps and converters to get improved latency over the satellites. Both these approaches are not good for the consumer. I would rather they just say straight up, in order to gain participation of the EMT250/AMS RMX16 designers, AKG etc, they have to charge more for their plugin licenses. Would be cheaper for everybody in the long run than forcing people to buy overpriced hardware for the privilege.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 5, 2015 14:46:49 GMT -6
I also got one of these not too long ago and it sounds great, nice extra frequency choices for tightening up or softening the midrange. The most important thing is the low and top end gentle phase shift, just sounds more solid in the pultec way on kick and vocals than some eqs I have that cost a whole lot more.
Build quality is pretty good and appearance/color is good. Obviously if you look close at the knobs you can see some cheapness, but good compromise overall.
I was so impressed that I picked up a WA76, and again the sound is top notch.
Yet looks wise I think they should lose the steaming logo and go for something classier. And that unit feels and looks cheaper than the EQP-WA. But sound wise again not noticeably worse doing its own thing or in chain than my much more expensive pieces.
I see people complain these are noisy from time to time, and I think that's down to user error/EDM syndrome for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 5, 2015 14:34:13 GMT -6
So dumb that you have to pay many hundreds of dollars simply for the privilege of using a plugin that you also have to pay for separately.
Frankly I'd still rather pay hundreds for another dongle than have to worry about being forced to use some shitty DSP device that can fail outright or glitch out on thunderbolt/firewire bus.
Damn it, this and EMT250 are pretty tempting, just for some more flavors.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jul 16, 2015 18:03:27 GMT -6
Yes, the start menu is essentially back, although different.
Important thing is you don't have that bs metro screen freaking everybody out who touches it.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jul 16, 2015 17:27:32 GMT -6
Windows 10 is way less clunky than 8, for one.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jul 15, 2015 12:54:54 GMT -6
Echoing some points above. Here's a list of things I've applied from others' insights which have helped a great deal.
-Recording in a good room with good musicians playing together, and miking things carefully with the right mics and combinations of brighter/darker mics at a distance makes compression or eq much less necessary. -Drums are less pointy and can breathe when you use the close mics for reinforcement, and overheads and room mics (sometimes with expander keyed to snare) for the big picture of the kit, size/body. The drummer needs to hit consistently and ease up on the cymbals. Ideally you use thinner cymbals for recording than live. Compression will not fix bad recording technique in drummer.
-Of all the instruments, vocals and bass need compression the most frequently. -For bass touch is by far the most important thing, but sometimes hitting it with higher ratio than sounds good soloed can lock bass into place when you don't want it moving much but as the anchor. Sorta depends on if the kick or the bass is the low end foundation for the song, and tempo.
-Getting a singer to work the mic and stand back a bit on louder parts sounds much better than hitting a compressor harder. Singing with balls is better than eating the mic. -When you have a big peak in level, like a belting, it sounds more natural to use trim and serial compression, with something first that can shave the jumps before it hits the compressor that is providing the real shaping and tone. I find TDR Kotelnikov with like 2-3.0db peak crest can sound very transparent before my preferred opto hardware comp. But 1176 > LA2A is same idea.
-For loud rimshots, similar to vocal approach, using 1176 as fast action peak limiter or anything fast enough shaving off 1-2db, and not super fast release (moderate enough to smooth the transient) before hitting the drum bus with a slower attack compressor or tape for weight and tone really helps. As opposed to hitting a compressor on bus directly, which will not work as well because the threshold will be too low for the peaks and too high for everything else; likewise the attack will be too slow for the big peaks but too fast for overall material.
I read Albini did this 1-2db 1176 for Grohl's snare, and often he tracks with peak limiters, and it's worked for me ever since, is very easy to do and not fuss over. Kick same idea but perhaps slower attack depending. I don't like compression on close mics per se, more as limiter.
-Parallel compression and multing can help with inconsistent snare or kick hits, or low level verses, and multing when you want to add body/attack/grit with separate and automatable control to things like Kick, Bass and Snare. Parallel compression doesn't sound good on vocals because it screws with the phase too much. Parallel compression and multing are not something to go overboard with in every situation and not very necessary when good arrangements are tracked well.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jul 11, 2015 12:33:25 GMT -6
1073 types work on most things, especially snare, vocals, and guitar.
I tend not to eq on the way in. Like with vocals if you want to retrack anything.
I know you said you didn't want a pultec, but sometimes 2 broad bands with better phase response simply sounds better than 3 or 4, when you're adding bottom or top.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jul 8, 2015 12:27:15 GMT -6
Depends how you frame the question.
For anyone tracking real musicians in real rooms, there will be an analog front end that no plugin can replace. You can't physically track pre-AD with plugin signal processing, and you can't with a single cheap microphone capsule and some software fake several real mics' on axis or off axis frequency and transient responses through entire range of distances and real room resonances, and distortion characteristics (or put differently, each microphone's usability through a range of real acoustic applications).
At a certain point, it's just easier and better to use the real thing.
You also can't play to a room with an amp sim.
That said, plugins are nice for effects, transparent eq cuts and limiting. The most impressive I've used are Exponential Audio PhoenixVerb and Excalibur, Relab LX480, DMG Equilibrium and Essence, and TDR Kotelnikov. I also think u-he Satin does a damn good simulation of 15ips tape delay, per track asperity and softening of highs, is fully tweakable, and I doubt any hardware box other than a few real tape machines could come close, given the complex variables involved.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jul 2, 2015 15:01:41 GMT -6
Recording drums is serious business if you plan to get a good sound, you need a great drummer playing a great properly tuned instrument, a great room, great mics, great pre's and a great engineer working them, and since these are all as rare as rocking horse poop, what you get instead is replacements from a guy in his underwear 8) So true. Getting a really good drum sound is a big pain in the ass, and the good part is 90% the drummer. If I'm going to spend all that time on something, then why replace all the work with samples? Which won't help the drumming performance truly take off for anyone who has an ear. Aside from that, the complete grid/replacement in vogue today is very different from supplemental Andy Wallace style, or at least what he used to do. But for musical reasons, I think it's the happy accidents in the kick or snare especially that can make a song distinctive, and you can still preserve the core sound while using mults and such to beef things up if needed.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 30, 2015 22:02:18 GMT -6
The tab between My Music and All is pretty great.
Even for my favorite bands, there's always some material I don't have. Then often there's the bands I've been meaning to listen to more on lower right under influences.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 29, 2015 16:48:06 GMT -6
I got itunes match because I was tired of obsessing over what albums to sync to my phone.
I'll try this too because it will force me to listen to new music, and I hope it will prove to be the least evil of the streaming options.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 27, 2015 15:21:46 GMT -6
So dumb. Now I'll definitely be buying some CAPI products in near future. It's not as if API was making anything that sounded like their 70s designs anyway.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 27, 2015 15:16:26 GMT -6
I really can't see windoze 10 being nearly as much of a threat to my freedom as malware. I'm just glad I don't use a mac because Apple is a decade behind Microsoft in malware protection. As windows becomes harder to hack and macs become more common, macs will have a much larger target on their backs than in the past. Right, but honestly malware today is so sophisticated that the only thing that really works against it is smart behavior. That means to always install system and application updates that patch newly exploited vulnerabilities, don't click on random links in email or on websites or open unknown files, and avoid porn and illegal sites, at least on one's work computer. Even then you have to worry about phishing and new credit cards stolen before you even receive them. The alternative is installing heuristic anti-malware that can work against zero day threats but also cripple day-to-day operation of your computer. It's all a trade off. From this standpoint, it doesn't matter as much which brand of computer/OS you choose for personal use, and servers will tend to use linux simply because it's designed specifically for computing clusters, free academic use, and different security protocols.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 26, 2015 17:39:57 GMT -6
GML is an eq regarded for its super tight lows, but for general work I would think DMG Equilibrium combined with either a Sontec for smooth curves and the 12.8k sheen or a Massive Passive for mids especially on vocals and elsewhere would go further.
BTW I just got one of those Warm Pultecs and quality wise it's pretty much as good as any of my more expensive gear.
The Moog Sub 37 is what I would get over the Little Phatty. But there are a lot of vintage synths to consider too that sound great (e.g. Juno 60, Prophet 600). And the reissue Odyssey sounds pretty close to the old one. But all that depends on the sound you're after.
4. is to me a big waste of money. Frankly I don't get the point of transparent summing mixers and the Burl stuff is a little overkill when you can just combine Capi or anything with transformers with your normal converters. That money would be enough to get a vintage rack mixer or a bunch of compressors or mics that can do things that have a lot more general utility.
Custom Les paul... a nice used Les Paul + Lollars or another boutique set would be a lot cheaper and probably sound and play better. And you'd have money left over for another amp.
|
|