|
Post by joseph on Jun 19, 2015 23:42:26 GMT -6
A fine and sincere eulogy.
My condolences.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 17, 2015 0:02:16 GMT -6
Tambourine seems so simple yet I think is one of the hardest instruments to play right and easy to fuck up, so I think he did a good job!
On the whole, this is frustrating because the basic song idea is really good, but it lacks development.
This is a little harsh and overly opinionated considering that they're definitely a good band, but well, the great is the enemy of the good.
Here's my honest review:
1) Her vocal performance is much more engaging than the rest of the main band, who seem a little out of their element, and bringing just enough but not much special. Check out Tommy Brenneck for real thing.
2) Another band after Black Keys and Arctic Monkeys now following this pumped up rock soul trend (either that or dance music) that is too often about sounds rather than emotional content, kinda getting old already. What is this song ultimately about beyond a catchy groove and ticking boxes for production and instrumentation?
3) Bridge is yeah yeah, okay what else you got? Rest of song relies too much on the singer.
The album has its stronger moments, and they do have some nice extended musical bridges. But my feeling is most of the time she's firing on all cylinders doing a caricature of an emotional performance rather than actually delivering one that operates on a more subtle scale.
Like Petty or Lennon. I mean maybe that persona is really her, but I don't find it especially interesting after a couple songs.
So really blown out drums and production on the album but not really emotionally there for me, at least in comparison with the best. This band could have more dimension, but with their star rising so fast, how are they going to realize it?
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 12, 2015 10:41:43 GMT -6
The thing about the vintage silverfaces is that they have sweeter breakup than the reissues.
For Fender tones in currently made amp, there's always Victoria, but that's more money.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 10, 2015 21:27:07 GMT -6
I have a 76 Princeton Reverb. Great recording amp, and very reliable. Breaks up really nicely.
I would not want to do without the reverb, but that's a taste thing (I usually keep mine on like 2), and the non-reverbs also have more clean headroom. The tremolo is fantastic.
You can put an Eminence Copperhead in any Princeton model, and get a lot more volume and punch for live playing.
Personally, I'd rather pay a little more for an amp that has been serviced and gone over at a reputable store, than one without clean bill of health off craigslist. I hate craigslist.
But one in good condition, I think would be more reliable and easier to fix down the line than a reissue.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on May 1, 2015 16:08:52 GMT -6
I'm in the process of putting a studio together with some friends and 20k gets eaten scarily fast, and between the three of us we already have most of the gear we want. We've dumped just about all of our money into construction to retrofit a preexisting space (that has unfortunately low ceilings). I'd say proper room acoustics takes you further than anything else. A microphone is only going to pick up the reverberations of the air in the room. If the room itself sounds bad then no microphone or outboard gear in the world can change that (obviously you can eq to compensate, but the more tracks you mix the more compounding problems you're trying to fix) . The same goes for your listening environment, you're listening to what playback sounds like IN YOUR ROOM, and better monitors are all relative to how good the room is (that being said, the Arc 2 system has been a godsend for my apartment). I once heard that for recording, the closer something is to the source, the more important it is. Get good musicians in a good room with some good mics and you're 95% there. This is the truth. But fuck it, you work with what you have. The real question is whether a studio is there to attract outside clients, or to produce in house recordings. These days a lot of great stuff and a lot of crap happens in the latter category. So many boring records made in top notch studios and drum rooms. So many great albums made in relatively small rooms with skilled players. I wouldn't let the low ceilings get you down. To me this is not such a big deal, and also genre dependent. I think it's better to have an okay room with a vibe than a perfect room that is boring. Get a pair of KM84s or M160s for overheads or use underheads and you can get great results. You can also hit a mic placed down the hall with a compressor for sustain, and blend that in as your room sound. Get a nice reverb plugin like phoenixverb. My sense is it's more about how hard or out of control the early reflections are in the room, anyway, not that it has high or low ceilings per se. And treating areas where build up is creating an uneven frequency response or reverberation. If the reflections are under control, then you set up drum set to play into the room or where it sounds best (not often in the middle of it). After that, I've found using thin cymbals, tuning/dampening a drum kit properly and for every single damn song, using fresh remo ambassadors, and choosing mics with nice rejection and off axis response all makes a big big difference. (I think the same is true for a mixing room. Just don't get speakers that are too big for the room, don't monitor too loud, avoid a square room, check for cancelation dips and adjust monitor distance from wall, and use bass traps where necessary. Then learn the room and speakers with reference mixes, check your mixes in car, on laptop speakers, earbuds, etc.) \ Anyway, 20,000 goes a long way these days. No it's not enough but it's a great start. And the lunchbox format + laptops means you can build a great mobile rig and track in nice/cool rooms if you don't have access to one on home turf. Or simply do your drum recordings in a real studio and do overdubs and mixing elsewhere. Plus it sorta depends how much gear a person is starting with. If they're already a guitar player, or drummer, chances are they have some things. That could shave off up to 10,000. Let's see. The essentials to me to acquire over time would be: 8-12 ADC, Logic/Cubase =3000ish Capi preamps and perhaps one 1073 type = 7,000 Couple Warm audio pieces and/or 550as = 2,000 & 2 KM84 or Josephson E22S. 2200-2600 2 Royers or M160s or Coles. 1200-2100 Beyer M88, RE20, SM7. about 1000 2 LDCs when you can afford it, or one fancy looking tube mic for show, take your pick. Lots of options there. People seem to get the most mileage out of having one 47 and one CK12 type. But 2x C38 or UM70, or 1 U87. 3000ish Then some cheaper mics when you need them. 1 used of each: D18 or Gibson, 1500 P Bass, 800 Fender Silverface, 800 Marshall/high gain, 800 Les Paul, 1000 Strat, 600 1 Tele, 600 1 Rhodes or Wurly = 800 Drum Kit and a couple nice snares and cymbals = 2000 Bunch of K&M stands = 1500 Cables = 1500 or more = 33000 or so + monitors. Used KH120a or Questeds or whatever. Something under 2000. You can got a lot of nice speakers used.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Apr 30, 2015 11:58:51 GMT -6
Martin, Is there something in particular that you're unhappy with? In the end, it's what you're trying to accomplish that matters. When I listen to your mix, you vocal isn't as controlled by compression as Tom Petty's or the guy from Counting Crowe's, -two examples of picked/jangly rhythm guitar songs-but they may not be who you're referencing. You're vocal is a bit up in the mix volume wise comparatively as well. Secondly, your rhythm guitars sound as if they're panned across the stereo field instead of of having distinct space left and right. When I listen to similar rhythm guitar songs they typically have left right separation. This separation gives the kick, bass and vocal room to breath. I can barely hear your kick drum relative to similar songs. Everything feels up the middle, which is why you may have pushed the vocal up to sit on top of all that energy in the middle. The same holds true for the guitar solo which sounds loud as well. The rhythm guitars disappear, but still should be audible. So, again I wonder if you boosted the lead guitars because you're fighting all that up the middle energy. Give more side energy space that doesn't fight with the kick/bass/vocal and the mix may come alive better and be more balanced. Hope that's constructive feedback. Good luck. Cool song. Frank Very nice song and arrangements. Okay, I agree with all this. Vocals are too loud, dry and up front. Maybe back away from the mic more (like at least 8 inches to a foot or more depending) when you're tracking them. Better the room, as Bob says, the farther away you can get without it getting muddy. To me, the same basic concept applies to size from the front of kit mic if the drums are tuned properly. The backing vocal, make it wetter, lower in mix, panned more, add predelay, push it back with eq, whatever combination, to somehow separate it more from the lead vocal. The guitars, yeah, too much going on in middle. Pan them in mono to opposite sides (this is one signature Tom Petty sound), and if you double, try some ~20ms predelay on one of them, monitoring in mono for phase. Also track your guitars with a different guitar/amp/mic or some permutation on each guitar part. On electrics, I always pair a ribbon and a condenser or a dynamic for this reason, so you have more tonal options for different songs or emphasis on certain parts, or you can blend the two mics in different balances on one or more than one part. Definitely agree the lead part should be tucked in much lower and more subtly somewhere to the side. I find it's way easier to get separation this way without resorting to eq, which never sounds as good. I do find it useful to high pass/shelf cut one of the guitars a little higher sometimes. The drums, are they real or programmed? They just need more personality. The crash on the left is a little tinny sounding, and kit is kinda lopsided without another crash or ride or both on the right. Get or record samples of some nice dark/thin cymbals like Zildjian Ks, 18" -20", if you don't have any, and don't high pass them. To me, this makes a huge difference. Hihat doesn't have enough chick/meat to it. You can always try shaker and tambourine too. Kick could have more depth. Snare sounds a little nondescript. I think the bass guitar could be a little less clean and direct in sounding. Also one more note. There's this recent trend to steep high pass everything somewhere as a matter of course and boost highs and sometimes high mids on the whole mix. People seem to think it makes it easier to mix but real ensembles don't sound like this. Personally I think this makes everything sound disconnected, especially on drums. Cymbals lose their body, there is no foundation to the kit. And then you have to use more and more bus compression just to get the mix to gel. So you keep boosting the highs and then you have to boost the lows as well to compensate. To make matters worse, people scoop the shit out of the midrange on everything, and there is no body. It's sorta like taking a solid tree and cutting it into sections, and then stretching those sections apart from each other. Then trying to glue them together again. I think it's way easier to get highs from the cymbals (maybe add some sparkle in 14-16khz where applicable) and the vocals mainly and not mess with anything else too much. Sometimes you have to watch the sub 40hz region, and the build up from 300-700hz, but that's about it. Like -1db at 400hz and +1db at 4-7khz on guitars or just favoring the condenser mic is about as much as I'll do now if I miked the cab right.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Apr 15, 2015 10:35:35 GMT -6
VK's prices are outrageous.
Even so, if I had a pro studio with extra money, I'd want a vintage mic vetted by someone like them, since their name has cachet = value.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Apr 15, 2015 10:19:25 GMT -6
Don't forget to try the 241 with and without the switch engaged From manual " The 241 has a unique 'HF cut' switch, which allows the user to effect a gentle rolloff of highs starting at 5kHz, ending with a 1dB cut @ 10kHz. " As to the OP's question, all these CK12 type mics sound good/great. Bock 251 and 241 - doesn't sound exactly like the 251 in cardioid, according to David Bock 241 doesn't go down as low, midrange not as detailed. Also it sounds to me like the top end resonance is a little different. Then you have the really expensive reissue telefunken, and Josephson C716/700A/700S. I've not heard the Flea/Campbell mics. But none will sound like the vintage ELAM, for reasons discussed by Klaus Heyne here www.gearslutz.com/board/7472874-post65.htmlThat said, they are all great mics. As the OP mentioned, it's also about client perception vs personal sound aesthetic. Bock 251, Josephson C700a, and Telefunken all impressive looking to anyone. Personally, what I listen for in a capsule is how well the highs are integrated into the rest of the sound, how sweet they are, and whether the midrange is consistent and even. Because the best capsules and vintage mics tend to have this quality. The Josephson capsule (and their mics in general) seems to do the integrated highs thing the best. But the C716 lacks a tube and the large core output transformer design of the Bock mics and the vibier Josephson C715 (darker C37 type capsule with large nickel core Lundahl ). So it's cleaner sounding, but I think the top end response is the smoothest I've heard. Paired with a 1073/tube compressor, who knows how good it would sound. www.gearslutz.com/board/7350373-post25.htmlI think the Bock mics have a kind of airy pop quality that sits on top of the main sound. Whereas the vintage CK12 mics don't do this really. To me, the midrange in the vintage mics more softly transitions into a less open top end. David Bock himself has said that his CK12 type capsule is tuned to sound bigger and flatter in midrange, the lows with large core output transformer, as opposed to vintage ELAM's small core. The amp is the same. The capsule is not. In any case, the Bock 241 is interesting. In this comparison I sort of prefer the top end resonance of the 251 but like the roll off switch of the 241. Too bad there is no 251 with switch. www.transaudiogroup.com/241-vs-251The reissue telefunken is very expensive, and also doesn't sound as sweet as the vintage ones. Not the same capsule. Think for that kind of money I'd rather get a real U67 or BOTH the Bock 241 and the Josephson C715 (the C37 type). But the Bock 251 has the model recognition with big stars that one can point to with superficial clients without the caveat that it's merely a reissue.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Mar 10, 2015 11:07:15 GMT -6
This is nothing new, but I'm not convinced that transformerless condensers are ever the right way to go for stringed instruments.
Every instance of a transformerless revision seems to sound worse than the previous model with the same capsule. Of course, there can be other cost cutting measures that can affect the sound.
Even the smoothest capsule like the Schoeps MK22 I bet would sound more interesting with a transformer amp like the old 221B. One can directly compare the old Gefell M70/94 with 692 and UM70 to the current M294/5 and UMT70S models. People seem to prefer the old ones. But the new designs are more cost effective to produce.
Something about the way the transients and chords are smoothed and the smearing in transformer designs, while technically a deficiency, just sounds more musical to me. An acoustic guitar or violin just doesn't sound quite that clean and super detailed to the human ear in a good room. It reminds me of the time I tried 80/20 strings on my Martin and hated how each chord sounded like a bunch of too bright independent notes. Went back to phosphor bronze immediately.
People find the right balance for their tastes, though. You can still have a relatively clean transformer output, like a Lundahl which seems to be a good middle ground between "accuracy" and smoothness.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Mar 9, 2015 19:18:45 GMT -6
The problem is if you really need a matched pair, you need vintage capsules compared by ear by an expert. Because of the wider tolerances, spec, and inconsistent use and aging of KK84 capsules. So even a matched pair from 1980 won't necessarily be a matched pair today. But if the capsule and vents are in good shape and the caps don't need replacing, the KM84 will most likely sound good. See the bottom post on the subject repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=29149.40;wap2It seems like usually the mids are pretty consistent, but the low end and top end can differ a bit, and the imaging can drift between them as a result. I would think unless two mics are totally off from each other within the +/-4db spec, a pair will sound good on most anything outside of the most critical ensemble/orchestral applications. But yeah, that's why people who do that kind of work rely on Schoeps, which sound less vibey anyway. The E22S is an amazing microphone, sounds almost like a cross between an SDC and an LDC. Needs to be placed closer to the source than the KM84 I think, and has more low end and proximity effect plus a very smooth lift in the highs, unlike the pretty much flat KM84. But again reiterating, the transient response and off axis predictability is very similar to the KM84's. And I think it's usually better on and definitely more durable for close drum and guitar cab miking, and vocals but maybe not quite as cool as the KM84 is for cymbals. That said, the cymbal bleed in the E22S is so so good. Plus you don't need an external pad, and it's quieter with a good preamp.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Mar 9, 2015 18:25:50 GMT -6
To be fair, Neumann did just release a more or less exact reissue of the U47 FET. Maybe one day they will risk a proper reissue of the KM84, and improve the components in the 87ai.
And Gefell has changed many of their mics into transformerless designs.
I think the Josephson E22s transient response especially and low mid richness is closest to the KM84's and actually extends deeper in the low end. It also seems smoother to me in the high mids than the M300 examples I've heard, with the E22S rise beginning higher and the transformer softening. It seems even less sensitive to hard string and snare attack than the KM84 and has almost indestructible brass housing. But it sound best i.e. huge placed close to the source, and is more expensive. I really like it on vocals too.
KM84s I have found just sound good within the widest range of placement around cymbals and acoustic instruments, and the mids are smooth and evenly represented throughout the whole range, not prone to peakiness or boominess anywhere. They often require little eq if at all.
The Gefells I would think with a cleaner sound and steady rise are maybe most useful at a distance, as pointed out by sll above, and when noise is an issue. And the matched pair and beautiful look is very appealing.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2015 10:54:35 GMT -6
I keep trying to get across to people that there is no reason to not record old school today and now we have incredible tools we can fix any distracting glitches with. The whole reason for '80s methods no longer really applies. I wish everyone would listen to this sage advice, because it really does pay off and I think it should apply to any type of music, electronic and pop included. Today in the era of plugins on every track and 50 overdubs, cohesion is lost and you end up with a flat performance with a lot of unnatural degradation and phase shift. I listened to Bob and bought a Beyer M88 to track vocals live in the room with my band. This mic is amazing for this application. At the very least, the live performance can inform the fancy condenser vocal overdub later on, yet sometimes you end up with the best energy and so you keep the live take. As a rule, the no headphones but live monitoring method results in a better performance. Likewise when you have a drummer playing along with headphones, it's very easy to lose all the power. No one wants a to hear weak sauce drumming. The other advantage is that when you have to control bleed, you learn a lot about which mics/patterns and which placements work and which don't in a given room, each with its own set of issues. Tuning the drums and choosing the right cymbals and height becomes even more critical. Communicating balance with the drummer and getting musicians to really listen to each other and play with controlled dynamics, you don't need much compression afterward, and musicianship can improve in little leaps under the pressure. It is a pain in the ass at first, but an instructive challenge. Many of you know all this already, but it was a revelation to me, so it bears repeating. If you want the captured performance to have life and not sound flat, listen to Bob.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 21, 2014 9:54:11 GMT -6
I realize I brought up accomplishment, which is dangerous around musicians who are the cattiest bitches in the world....but, that was simply really "A" factor that wasn't being factored into Albini's thoughts. He likes people who don't need to learn to play well....or effortlessly master instruments.... Where do you get this from? Just because he plays abrasive music doesn't mean that's all he likes. Notice something in this picture of electrical audio? On the other subject- Keith Richards has feel. John Mayer not really. Compare this crap with the Beatles' rooftop. No feel in comparison. Not to mention how hammy and awful his singing is compared with Lennon's!
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 20, 2014 0:16:42 GMT -6
Glad to be here, thanks. I've learned a lot about recording and mixing. Also appreciate the balanced attitudes and level of experience around here. Nice avatar. Love the V-4. Thanks, same!
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 19, 2014 22:29:54 GMT -6
In Utero was the album he did. Butch Vig did Nevermind. I sort of agree with him in principle, but given the huge impact his engineering had on the sound of countless records, I disagree with him and agree with you in actual effect. Touche - you're right...Welcome, joseph! Glad to be here, thanks. I've learned a lot about recording and mixing. Also appreciate the balanced attitudes and level of experience around here.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 19, 2014 22:17:09 GMT -6
Sorry to offend. When dealing with most any pop/rock music, you're nearly always dealing with "how unaccomplished" the musicians are compared to nearly any other form. That's why I use that word....not "shit". Musicianship is all about listening to your fellow musicians in performance and adjusting your feel. That's true whether you're first desk in the Berliner Philharmoniker or playing Soul or Rock and Roll. Music is either good or bad, not important or not. Whether you agree with him or not, Albini's views are perfectly valid. He worked with some of the biggest acts of the 90s, and has his own feelings about how the big labels treated them and the recording process and how it affected their artistic output, especially Sonic Youth. Let's not forget DGC people screwed with both Nevermind and In Utero after the recording sessions.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 19, 2014 15:56:07 GMT -6
ReRead my post. The level of musicianship HE works with hasn't changed--he has never worked with accomplished musicians. He actively loves garage rockin noise making punk. That is the music he loves....hich fuels this POV. Right, Dave Grohl and Nirvana, The Breeders, Pixies, PJ Harvey, all shit musicians. Actually his band Shellac is pretty accomplished too. I know a few very top level musicians that make money touring and selling their own music. Real music, not dance music, thank god. It's not big money but enough to live off of. Bob Olhsson has noted elsewhere that the overall level of musicianship has gone down, and musicians aren't matured through live experience in the same way as they used to be. This is definitely true. On the other hand, I see this as primarily the fault of television and big labels, where producers and staff are hired to manufacture acts for maximum profit, saturation and turnover. I doubt the pop acts today would have made the cut as performers even to become backing acts in the 1960s. I can't think of any pop singers today who compare to Motown's artists or Dolly Parton. So I also blame engineers and producers for propping up singers and musicians who have very little vocal or original songwriting ability or performance talent. You think Steve Albini does this? All he does is record people for money, he doesn't fix bad performances, and he doesn't produce to market targets, so I thank him. It's just a lot more efficient to throw money until it sticks and inundate people from a young age with bad music until they don't know the difference rather than find and nurture talent.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 19, 2014 15:30:55 GMT -6
This is the same yahoo who didn't take points on "Nevermind" and now admits in the new "Music Highways" show that his studio goes under about once a year. Nobility at the price of survival is stupidity. In Utero was the album he did. Butch Vig did Nevermind. I sort of agree with him in principle, but given the huge impact his engineering had on the sound of countless records, I disagree with him and agree with you in actual effect.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Mar 5, 2014 0:05:54 GMT -6
What is your favorite synth and why? Do you feel one is good for strings while others are better for brass, woodwinds etc? If you want realistic you should look at kontakt eg berlin woodwinds and cinebrass. If you want traditional synth sounds then there are a lot of options, from vintage arp, oberheim (obx famous brass and xpander) and sequential circuits (prophet, pro one early 80s soundtrack for instance) to new moog/oberheim/korg. They are all different, so you will have to decide which tone and personality suits your music and budget best. There are late 70s stringer/ensemble synths as well.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Mar 4, 2014 23:28:16 GMT -6
1x15 = And between victoria and the new magnatones, etc, the future looks bright.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Feb 26, 2014 15:03:09 GMT -6
I like -18dbfs average with only occasional peak transients from drums not ever above -10dbfs. Easy to remember and works for everything.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Feb 26, 2014 10:01:54 GMT -6
Hi Everybody.
Would anyone care to share samples of the Serpent Chimera or SA3A?
Thanks.
|
|