|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 12, 2014 12:34:03 GMT -6
So, at the Purple Site...there was a recent thread where the claim was that people have an impression that gear produces good sonics...meaning, specifically--that anything run through their hallowed circuits sounds better than anything ELSE run through some "inferior" circuit.
I called BS on the concept....I've been an engineer for decades...and worked with all different levels of "Gear"....it literally doesn't work that way. It's like arguing that with the best camera lens, you can point it at anything...and it looks better than whatever you pointed it at. Simply not the case. Which isn't devaluing what good tools bring to the table. AT ALL...unless you've OVER valued what they bring.
I bring it up here because of MJB's recent post about loving the sound of Lyle Lovett's vocal...thus wanting a 67. Now...you all know how huge a fan I am of U67s...but, I can assure you it's a tool. A lens. It didn't "make" the sound he loves. Lyle and Massenberg made that sound...and that happened to be the tool they chose.
Anyway--I was wondering how prevalent this feeling is--that gear somehow is responsible for sonics directly. It's comparative, IME. Meaning-it sounds better than the EXACT same everything...fed to lesser gear. That's not semantics.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 12, 2014 12:53:36 GMT -6
I have had tape make things sound better than the source.
some would say it's masking, other mojo, whatever it is it can make things sound better.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 12, 2014 13:00:36 GMT -6
interestingly I was mixing one of my bands songs last week and the vocalist was getting agitated because of a harshness in his vocal. I rolled off some of the top end and cut around 1k and it sounded better. We then spent 2 hours trying to find creative ways to add distortion to his vocal. ma-5 won that night.....
eventually I said, -
"you know we've been playing around with the direct to disc version.
we should probably use the tape version as that will be what we use in the final mix."
lo and behold, no annoying freq/edge in the tape version.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 12, 2014 13:15:36 GMT -6
Well, all along I thought it was The Magic Bus of Fidelity. Dammit, I'm so lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on Mar 12, 2014 13:15:37 GMT -6
Well, I know I can make great gear sound like shit so it ain't the gear.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 12, 2014 13:19:06 GMT -6
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the purple lilpeqr and the capi vp 28 posses "magic box tendencies"
|
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Mar 12, 2014 13:49:21 GMT -6
Gee, If I get an Alembic Bass am I going to sound like John Entwistle?
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 12, 2014 13:50:30 GMT -6
Gee, If I get an Alembic Bass am I going to sound like John Entwistle? Nope. I had one. Didn't work.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 13:56:28 GMT -6
Not a believer in magic boxes. I just want killer players.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 12, 2014 13:58:50 GMT -6
I'm with popmann on this. I don't believe in the "magic box" at all. I used to for sure, until I learned how to pick my "tools" for their sound and effect, rather than for the marketing hype/cock measuring that runs rampant on the internet. I remember buying my first "professional" mic and feeling completely let down that it barely sounded better than the cheap mics I had. Same happened with my first "professional" preamp. And then again with my first "professional" compressor.. And on and on and on. The problem was that I was brainwashed into the mindset that I would hear voices of angels and God himself would come down from heaven and push the record button for me. Didn't happen. Will never happen. What I got was slightly better fidelity with each piece of gear, that's about it. Only when used as a system did I really start to notice a difference, and only after a lot of learning on my own part. So there you have it. 20 years of recording off and on, with all kinds of gear from cassette tape recorders to Neve preamps. Now I'll let you in on a dirty secret.. The biggest thing that holds amateur engineers back is thinking they have a handle on everything. For me, it took letting a lot of gear go and therefor letting my crutches fall by the wayside and finally taking on the task to truly learn the gear, rather than hope that each piece of gear is "the one". They aren't. None of them. Learn each piece intimately. You'll then learn to get what you want from what you have instead of lusting after marketing hype. |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 12, 2014 17:22:29 GMT -6
Lola preamp. That's a magic box as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Mar 12, 2014 22:24:53 GMT -6
The rudest awakening I ever had was going from Motown where the gear was servicable and the musicians were great to Wally Heiders where it was the absolute best gear available but most of the bands only had one or two first class players. Tracking my hobby projects in Nashville has been a dream, the gear and the players both at the same time. If I can't afford the gear, I'll spend the budget on players and record in a livingroom or bedroom. I have a picture of Reggie Young I've posted a few places as my favorite plug-in!
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 12, 2014 22:41:50 GMT -6
But is this not parsing words a bit? I mean a U67 won't make a voice sound inherently better than it is, but it can make it more euphonic and amplify it in ways that it isn't normally heard in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 13, 2014 6:37:17 GMT -6
In my (limited) experience, moving from mic to mic tends to accentuate or de-accentuate certain aspects of things, but simply moving the mic around can make a much bigger difference. Heck, stuff like vocals, whether or not the singer just took a swig of water seems to make a larger difference in the sound, than the mic does.
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Mar 13, 2014 8:00:42 GMT -6
No, Burl is a magic box...everything else is meh! I was listening to stuff I did with a SM57 and a Digi 001 and thought it sounded great.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 13, 2014 8:07:10 GMT -6
Great gear cannot stand-in for lack of talent or a poor performance. And the musician is not the only one performing - the engineer is, too. Bad engineering can ruin a great performance. However, a great performance can often compensate for mediocre equipment and/or engineering. So, in the end, it all comes down to us imperfect humans, and how we use the tools available to us. Does my exotic tube condenser turn my vocalist into the next Robert Plant? No (bummer). Does it turn me into Al Schmitt? No (double bummer). Does equipment make us better than we are? Absolutely not. BUT, does it allow us to make the best of our mutually limited skills? Yes (IMHO). So we work at it, constantly trying to improve ourselves, to get better at the craft of making music. I think that great equipment can help facilitate the process of self-improvement, and even be inspirational at times.
Now, can we get another take? The one you just did was really good . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 13, 2014 13:11:27 GMT -6
But is this not parsing words a bit? I mean a U67 won't make a voice sound inherently better than it is, but it can make it more euphonic and amplify it in ways that it isn't normally heard in the real world. Not really. It IS a unique TOOL for vocal recording....because of its negative feedback...so, sub 251 or 47 and GOD NO... I can assure you if I use a 67 on some tracks...and an sm7 on some others, you will not be able to tell the difference in the finished product. And the bit you CAN, if you really know the specific "tells" to listen for...no one (or few) would call them clearly inferior. The reason I charge more to mix if you've used certain gear is because I have to work longer to get there...not because it doesn't end up, give or take in the same place. And, an sm7 doesn't charge differently than a u67...use a CV4? Up charge unless MAYBE you're a nasal thin woman. The reason I recommend gear I do is ease of use. My guitars don't sound hugely globally "better" because of the 121...it allows me to get the sound of the amp EASIER/quicker, thus get down to the actual playing. If I have the amp tone dialed where the track needs it, the Royer at a foot dead on cone...it will sound like the amp. If I have to find the right color dynamic or condenser...and find that sweetspot for the given song/part...I spend longer engineering the guitar instead of playing it. Now, there's certainly a nuance it brings to the attack that other types of MICS don't...but, grand scheme--that's the stuff of cork sniffing. It actually manifests moreso the piano hammers... But, I don't want to be misunderstood...I value better tools...I use them...at least where I can. But, none of it is some circuit that passing signal sounds better globally. MJB's latest thread on MICS...he references loving a Lyoe Lovett record. Massenberg and Lovett made that sound. Not the u67. Had they used a C800...or a sm7 (which Massenberg regularly uses on vocals)...he would "love it" the same. No one would think if they buy X kind of horsehair brushes, they'd be able to paint like their favorite artist...but, you also wouldn't expect a great artist to want to use shitty brushes--it's what they do all day. But, they'd do just as good of work with them--they'd just be cursing them and chucking them when the paint bunched up, etc. Theres a LOT of value in good tools. It's just not the kind of relationship/value that apparently a lot of people believe. Good tools are not necessarily mapped to money. I'm a PICKY singer...ask Rolff about who can tell when he gives me the OTHER M149 from their matched set....and I don't have a problem with the sm7. I DO with nearly every less than $4k (new) LDC I've used. This is why I find it frustrating when I see people buy a $1500 LdC, then go through different preamps and vintage tube compressors  ...because the mic, or their ability to mix(just meaning treat the mic in the mix), is the problem. ...or because they just haven't made peace with what their voice sound like. You live here. Call Blackbird next time you're cutting a vocal...line up a real 251 and La2a and a Neve preamp. It will likely be a little easier to work with...but, the end result won't change much. On the vocal subject specifically, I like to point out--go get Sting's All This Time live record. Then his studio work. That's a 57...vs a 67 or c800(depending on the studio era)...you hear differences...and as a listener, you do not care. They both sound like Sting. You hear the details that make Sting sting. It doesn't sound like a "shitty recording of Sting"...in fact, without the DIRECT comparison, you wouldn't know there was a difference. But, THAT is exactly the difference a mic makes...which makes more difference than any other piece of gear (for a vocal). |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 13, 2014 13:38:16 GMT -6
On the vocal subject specifically, I like to point out--go get Sting's All This Time live record. Then his studio work. That's a 57...vs a 67 or c800(depending on the studio era)...you hear differences...and as a listener, you do not care. They both sound like Sting. You hear the details that make Sting sting. It doesn't sound like a "shitty recording of Sting"...in fact, without the DIRECT comparison, you wouldn't know there was a difference. But, THAT is exactly the difference a mic makes...which makes more difference than any other piece of gear (for a vocal). You jerk. That doesn't look like a 57! ...sounds like Sting though. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 13, 2014 13:50:59 GMT -6
But is this not parsing words a bit? I mean a U67 won't make a voice sound inherently better than it is, but it can make it more euphonic and amplify it in ways that it isn't normally heard in the real world. You live here. Call Blackbird next time you're cutting a vocal...line up a real 251 and La2a and a Neve preamp. It will likely be a little easier to work with...but, the end result won't change much. I gotta disagree with you on this line of thought, Pop. You take a vocal path like that and it will throw something to storage that you can't "get" with any amount of post processing. Now I DO agree that one can get to a great take through lessor gear, but there is a reason certain items such as the 251 are sought after. They reproduce more faithfully than lessor items. And that is what MJB likes about Lyle Lovetts record. No Massenberg, no this one or that one can EVER make Lyle Lovett sound better than he would if he where standing 2 feet away singing live in a room. That is the ultimate fidelity. And that's the advantage to using superior tools. If nothing else, they provide a moment of clarity to our sensibility's upon playback that say's to us, "that sounds great. Maybe I should leave that alone." Because most of us if not all are very prone to stepping on our dicks by wanting to put our fingerprint on something, which usually always works as a disadvantage to an end product in my experience. Does the gear make the product?? No. The artist does and I'd bet my last penny that after Massenberg recorded that vocal of Lovett's he didn't do much more than push up a fader. My 2 cents which is worth what you paid for it |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 13, 2014 15:10:42 GMT -6
On the vocal subject specifically, I like to point out--go get Sting's All This Time live record. Then his studio work. That's a 57...vs a 67 or c800(depending on the studio era)...you hear differences...and as a listener, you do not care. They both sound like Sting. You hear the details that make Sting sting. It doesn't sound like a "shitty recording of Sting"...in fact, without the DIRECT comparison, you wouldn't know there was a difference. But, THAT is exactly the difference a mic makes...which makes more difference than any other piece of gear (for a vocal). You jerk. That doesn't look like a 57! ...sounds like Sting though. Oh...whoops...fair enough...every other damn time he plays live....oh well--corrected, it is something else. Maybe a Neumann handheld...but, same difference...it's NOT a Cv4. It's not a AK47. It's not a 4047. Not any other pretender to the throne. It was a mic designed for close mic'ing vocals. |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Mar 13, 2014 15:51:24 GMT -6
You live here. Call Blackbird next time you're cutting a vocal...line up a real 251 and La2a and a Neve preamp. It will likely be a little easier to work with...but, the end result won't change much. I gotta disagree with you on this line of thought, Pop. You take a vocal path like that and it will throw something to storage that you can't "get" with any amount of post processing. Now I DO agree that one can get to a great take through lessor gear, but there is a reason certain items such as the 251 are sought after. They reproduce more faithfully than lessor items. And that is what MJB likes about Lyle Lovetts record. No Massenberg, no this one or that one can EVER make Lyle Lovett sound better than he would if he where standing 2 feet away singing live in a room. That is the ultimate fidelity. And that's the advantage to using superior tools. If nothing else, they provide a moment of clarity to our sensibility's upon playback that say's to us, "that sounds great. Maybe I should leave that alone." Because most of us if not all are very prone to stepping on our dicks by wanting to put our fingerprint on something, which usually always works as a disadvantage to an end product in my experience. Does the gear make the product?? No. The artist does and I'd bet my last penny that after Massenberg recorded that vocal of Lovett's he didn't do much more than push up a fader. My 2 cents which is worth what you paid for it I remember you posting a song (on the other site) with the vocal done with your U67 and the R84 and though they were similar, everyone thought the U67 track was more appropriate for the track. So I guess in your real world situation it absolutely matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 13, 2014 17:05:54 GMT -6
I can assure you if I use a 67 on some tracks...and an sm7 on some others, you will not be able to tell the difference in the finished product. And the bit you CAN, if you really know the specific "tells" to listen for...no one (or few) would call them clearly inferior. Yeah - I can buy that...to a point. (I should probably read the rest of your post before commenting...) You're saying the only differences is that the U67 or "better" mic will get you to where you want to go quicker than the SM7. That's definitely true...But I would argue that some cheaper gear won't capture the same thing in the same way. For instance, My CV4 - before the mod - had the Chinese zing that just couldn't be EQ'd out. I think it was ultimately a problem with the Capsule...like the capsule was "tensing" or "tightening" when it was hit hard and that caused the sonics that it received to not be consistent. The frequency range wasn't consistent across the dynamic range...I totally agree with the "they're just tools" argument, but I do think your have to reach a certain quality level before that's totally true. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 13, 2014 17:38:23 GMT -6
While we've ventured pretty far from boxes possessing a tone by passing signal.
...you don't ever see a professional session with a cv4, though. Yes--that is correct...there is a level of gear that's downright hard to work with. Interface preamps. 44.1. Cheap LDCs--and don't be offended, I hope you know what I mean--professional LdCs costed $6 in the 60s (adjusted for inflation)...and they still are give or take a few grand. I'm not saying $1500 isn't a lot of cash...at all...it's kind of what pains me about this market. I feel like people are being taken advantage of...AND...getting less music done for all the swapping pieces. To eventually come to one of two ends...well, actually, the same end--you buy old mics or NOT LDCs. Either old designs still made...or like Cowboy, you buy the old gems.
I own two LDCs (now)...they both old. I don't pretend to know why the hell people can't do it anymore...consistently...but, they can't. Korby made some nice stuff...Manely--and theirs even had a Chinese cap...Soundelux (now Bock) made some ok stuff...AudioTechnica made the same thing they made for needles--bright and consistently "ok" MICS.
I have Definately come off wrong to some degree...tools matter...to any craftsman...look at how many different kinds of (pick a literal tool-hammer, etc) there are...but, my initial point, that we've strayed from is that the tool doesn't posses some inherent "tone"...like "oh I can tell that's a Neve preamp"--a Neve preamp sounds different, in use...sit it here with a Millenia, I'll show you two different sounds...but, it's like...well--not one good one bad...or that the quality is SO overwhelming you can just pick it out. "oh that's Definately an la2a on that bass"...
What I was trying to get the Purple Site guy to discuss was the actual value of professional tools...because there IS...in the context of a project studio--some matters...some doesn't...but, he was insistent on the extreme "gear doesn't matter at ALL"...which is so obviously not right...else we'd all just record everything with 57 knockoffs and Maudio interface preamps. But, since his whole premise was that people believed that boxes held "the sound" and could be picked out through different performances, mixes, process, and levels...I said that was kind of a straw man argument, because who believes the box has some inheirent tone that transcends anything done with it? So...I thought I'd ask here in a smaller community....and I saw MJB's thing about Lovett and the 67. Kinda my OCD connect the dots...you constantly tweaking on the cv4, and previous swapping colorful preamps and compressor under the assumption the cv4 wasn't the part making you not dig the tone you're getting...
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 13, 2014 17:53:09 GMT -6
Oh - I agree...I don't think there's any stock LDC under $2500 that can compare to those vintage mics...but I'm telling you, man. Shannon made this CV4 a really, really serious mic. And he's even dialed in his process even more since I last gave him mine. BUT - I like my CV4 enough that I don't want him to touch it anymore. It's still a little bright - and he could tweak that out - and he could apply the newer process that he's done on most of the other mods, but I'm kind of like, "why fix what ain't broken?" You're right - they're tools - and this tool is absolutely working for me...
I was in a session yesterday with Chad Cromwell and he told me the C7's that Shannon modded for him are just unbelievably great. I had heard the first incarnation - when he was dialing them in for Chad, but Chad said what he ended up with was just stellar. "Really sounds like old 67's"...
Hey - I'm all for vintage mics - I'd LOVE to be able to sink some money in one or two...but there's GOT to be a reason they sound like they do...and I think the capsule is the MAJOR part of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 13, 2014 19:48:05 GMT -6
There's nothing wrong with Brauners and Manley and Korby and that ilk now. Neumann's QC is sketchy on the 149s, but when you've got a good one, that's a fine mic, IME. It doesn't have to be vintage...it's just that LDCs are seriously expensive to make well....for some reason. I think the capsule IS god of a LDC....it's got to be...it's what's different about them versus all the other mics that people seem to be able to make well AND consistently. The body/grille/circuit can be easily made consistent like any other metal/PCB work...it has to be the capsule. I know it is for new 87s...cause I've gutted the electronics--bad ones still suck with Innertube guts...and SOME 87AIs have been everything I'd expect from an 87...and some simply weren't mediocre...and some were downright terrible...meanwhile 70s era 87i? I've had 4 or 5 here t a time that I couldn't tell apart...and they sounded just like every other one I ever used over the years.
BTW...the thing about 67s...they're a VERY unique tool. I don't actually dig on vintage stuff that much...grand scheme...the 67/M269 just has no modern equal-functionally. At least until this past year....there have been a few clones made now. Would love to check them out...
|
|
...because the mic, or their ability to mix(just meaning treat the mic in the mix), is the problem. 