|
|
Post by niklas1073 on Jan 10, 2024 15:07:57 GMT -6
To me that sounds like setting yourself up for failure. Doing the homework on the environment where you will lay your tracks and making well educated decisions on gear to use within the framework of availability to you is everything right? Possibly picking the studio from a point of view what you want to achieve. How could you ever produce anything coherent if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment rather than having the environment chosen to suite the production? Thats all great in theory. But that’s not reality. You can do all the homework you want (and I typically come in very prepared) and I can pick a great studio with awesome monitors but it’s impossible for me to know the sound of the room and all the variables that come with it, and then to be able to reliably differentiate each variable from each other? And to do it “now”, as in instantly get to the root of what you’re after. It’s just not happening. Just spend some time auditioning different high end monitors and you’ll see/hear just how different they can be voiced. If the guitar is a little too woofy in the lower mids is it the guitar amp combo? Is it the boutique pre amp your using for the first time? Is it the mic? Is it just the monitors? Is it all of the above? Golden ears or not you don’t really know until you experiment but you almost never have that time. But if it’s a strat into a fender twin, with a 421 into a neve 1073…I know that sound. It gives me a bench mark with which I can better judge the rest of the signal chain. Give me some NS10’s to double check on and it’s even better. So you can think it’s a setup for failure but if you don’t have a method for mitigating these issues, that’s the real receipt for failure. It’s not using proven tools that you know like the back of your hand that is the problem. Yeah I get your situation. From that perspective I totally understand your approach. Makes sense. Would hope for the client to understand the value of your experimentation and pay for some more time give you that opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by kristoferharris on Jan 10, 2024 15:13:22 GMT -6
I’d like to add a new angle to this…as a freelancer, waking into a new studio for a session I don’t really know what I’m going to get. New room, new monitors, new converters etc it’s a lot to take in all at once. If there’s an issue, like a weird resonance, what’s causing it? The acoustics of the room? The monitors? The instrument? So using the “standard” stuff (57 on gtr, fet47 outside kick etc) gives me a baseline that I know well and removes a bunch of variables. It gives me some type of standard that helps me make better judgements. To me that sounds like setting yourself up for failure. Doing the homework on the environment where you will lay your tracks and making well educated decisions on gear to use, within the framework of availability, to achieve the aimed production outcome is everything, right? Possibly picking the studio from a point of view what you want to achieve. How could you produce anything coherent if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment rather than having the environment chosen to suite the production? In an ideal world... sure! I understand your point, but often the options presented are a compromise of some kind, and some cities I've worked in literally have 1 studio to choose from. "if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment" -this sounds like fun to me, honestly! Nothing like a bit of adrenalin to get you through a session. And to the point of the thread. I almost always prefer getting sessions to mix where the drum micing is boring and basic. It works. Instinctively know what to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by niklas1073 on Jan 10, 2024 15:47:05 GMT -6
To me that sounds like setting yourself up for failure. Doing the homework on the environment where you will lay your tracks and making well educated decisions on gear to use, within the framework of availability, to achieve the aimed production outcome is everything, right? Possibly picking the studio from a point of view what you want to achieve. How could you produce anything coherent if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment rather than having the environment chosen to suite the production? In an ideal world... sure! I understand your point, but often the options presented are a compromise of some kind, and some cities I've worked in literally have 1 studio to choose from. "if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment" -this sounds like fun to me, honestly! Nothing like a bit of adrenalin to get you through a session. And to the point of the thread. I almost always prefer getting sessions to mix where the drum micing is boring and basic. It works. Instinctively know what to do with it. Yeah I can see now reading my post I came by a bit provocative and condescending maybe as expressing in text seldom conveys a slight irony. That was really not intentional as I have the deepest respect for exactly what you are describing and those of you who deal with this daily. The reality that really shows off the professionalism in who is able to mc gyver themselves thru a maze of the unknown. Maybe my frustration is derived from just the fact that this is the modern reality of recording environment for most. Especially when the paying clients are the ones who would really win on not pushing the dead lines to that point and know where to invest the money within the production. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Jan 10, 2024 18:42:46 GMT -6
To me that sounds like setting yourself up for failure. Doing the homework on the environment where you will lay your tracks and making well educated decisions on gear to use within the framework of availability to you is everything right? Possibly picking the studio from a point of view what you want to achieve. How could you ever produce anything coherent if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment rather than having the environment chosen to suite the production? Thats all great in theory. But that’s not reality. You can do all the homework you want (and I typically come in very prepared) and I can pick a great studio with awesome monitors but it’s impossible for me to know the sound of the room and all the variables that come with it, and then to be able to reliably differentiate each variable from each other? And to do it “now”, as in instantly get to the root of what you’re after. It’s just not happening. Just spend some time auditioning different high end monitors and you’ll see/hear just how different they can be voiced. If the guitar is a little too woofy in the lower mids is it the guitar amp combo? Is it the boutique pre amp your using for the first time? Is it the mic? Is it just the monitors? Is it all of the above? Golden ears or not you don’t really know until you experiment but you almost never have that time. But if it’s a strat into a fender twin, with a 421 into a neve 1073…I know that sound. It gives me a bench mark with which I can better judge the rest of the signal chain. Give me some NS10’s to double check on and it’s even better. So you can think it’s a setup for failure but if you don’t have a method for mitigating these issues, that’s the real receipt for failure. It’s not using proven tools that you know like the back of your hand that is the problem. Plus there are times in the life of a freelancer that they aren't included in the decision process of where the record is being done. An engineer hired by a producer shows up to the studio (possible the artist's or producer's home studio) and does their job. Maybe the bring some kit with them so that they can 'tried and true' to that engineer to eliminate some variables. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 10, 2024 18:54:22 GMT -6
Thats all great in theory. But that’s not reality. You can do all the homework you want (and I typically come in very prepared) and I can pick a great studio with awesome monitors but it’s impossible for me to know the sound of the room and all the variables that come with it, and then to be able to reliably differentiate each variable from each other? And to do it “now”, as in instantly get to the root of what you’re after. It’s just not happening. Just spend some time auditioning different high end monitors and you’ll see/hear just how different they can be voiced. If the guitar is a little too woofy in the lower mids is it the guitar amp combo? Is it the boutique pre amp your using for the first time? Is it the mic? Is it just the monitors? Is it all of the above? Golden ears or not you don’t really know until you experiment but you almost never have that time. But if it’s a strat into a fender twin, with a 421 into a neve 1073…I know that sound. It gives me a bench mark with which I can better judge the rest of the signal chain. Give me some NS10’s to double check on and it’s even better. So you can think it’s a setup for failure but if you don’t have a method for mitigating these issues, that’s the real receipt for failure. It’s not using proven tools that you know like the back of your hand that is the problem. Plus there are times in the life of a freelancer that they aren't included in the decision process of where the record is being done. An engineer hired by a producer shows up to the studio (possible the artist's or producer's home studio) and does their job. Maybe the bring some kit with them so that they can 'tried and true' to that engineer to eliminate some variables. And I’ve even been the first freelancer to work a new room. Good luck researching that! Guy I worked with recently brings his Apollo desktop, laptop, and Audeze cans wherever he works just to level the playing field a bit. That way he has a trusted source and all his plugins. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 10, 2024 19:18:32 GMT -6
Plus there are times in the life of a freelancer that they aren't included in the decision process of where the record is being done. An engineer hired by a producer shows up to the studio (possible the artist's or producer's home studio) and does their job. Maybe the bring some kit with them so that they can 'tried and true' to that engineer to eliminate some variables. And I’ve even been the first freelancer to work a new room. Good luck researching that! Guy I worked with recently brings his Apollo desktop, laptop, and Audeze cans wherever he works just to level the playing field a bit. That way he has a trusted source and all his plugins. Totally forgot to mention bringing your own headphones! Such a small thing can be so valuable! |
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Jan 10, 2024 21:14:06 GMT -6
421's sound great on toms.... Until a cymbal is hit 57's - that is another story  That's why god invented gates |
|
|
|
Post by eyebytwomuchgeer on Jan 10, 2024 23:45:11 GMT -6
I often think that many of the sounds we associate with, for instance, “snare drum” or “guitar” or “cymbal” all came from basically a handful of people in the late 50s-80s using the same simple pieces of gear. And not really “specific” gear for the sake of that exact gear, but, rather just the gear they had on hand. It worked well a few times, and some hit records were made, so they just kept doing it, with the same people playing the same gear, and with the same engineers and producers recording and making the records, and it all coincided with mass production of the music industry as a whole.
Like, how many records did Steve Gadd (or any of those famous studio drummers) cut with an SM57 on a Ludwig Supraphonic and Zildjian cymbals? I’m sure it was an absolute ton. That coincided with the world starting to listen to music in their cars, homes, stereos, boomboxes, etc (versus needing to go to a live show). Basically this huge access to music that didn’t really exist before at that scale. From the 60s on, I think a lot of people just grew up and lived life not realizing what a snare drum sounded like, but yet, they all somehow knew exactly what a "snare drum" sounded like. We all grew up knowing that. And for whatever reason, a lot of that subliminal hearing probably involved, at some stage, a 57 on a Supraphonic (for instance). So, whether or not a 57 accurately captures what a snare drum really sounds like, that’s what your ear has associated with “snare drum”
So, perhaps that’s why certain things sound “right” or why things "sound like a record." Its not necessarily the gear, but its that we've all heard the gear so much, and its largely been consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Jan 10, 2024 23:58:27 GMT -6
I often think that many of the sounds we associate with, for instance, “snare drum” or “guitar” or “cymbal” all came from basically a handful of people in the late 50s-80s using the same simple pieces of gear. And not really “specific” gear for the sake of that exact gear, but, rather just the gear they had on hand. It worked well a few times, and some hit records were made, so they just kept doing it, with the same people playing the same gear, and with the same engineers and producers recording and making the records, and it all coincided with mass production of the music industry as a whole. Like, how many records did Steve Gadd (or any of those famous studio drummers) cut with an SM57 on a Ludwig Supraphonic and Zildjian cymbals? I’m sure it was an absolute ton. That coincided with the world starting to listen to music in their cars, homes, stereos, boomboxes, etc (versus needing to go to a live show). Basically this huge access to music that didn’t really exist before at that scale. From the 60s on, I think a lot of people just grew up and lived life not realizing what a snare drum sounded like, but yet, they all somehow knew exactly what a "snare drum" sounded like. We all grew up knowing that. And for whatever reason, a lot of that subliminal hearing probably involved, at some stage, a 57 on a Supraphonic (for instance). So, whether or not a 57 accurately captures what a snare drum really sounds like, that’s what your ear has associated with “snare drum” So, perhaps that’s why certain things sound “right” I think there's a lot to this line of thinking. We all have records we've heard a ton of times, especially when radio was a prominent way we digested music. There are songs I know back and forth that I've never owned a copy of, but her on the radio a million times. We get used to those sounds, and so do listeners. I do believe its up to use as producers, and engineers to represent sounds the way we want them heard, not necessarily as people expect. You are right, many listeners don't know what a snare drum sounds like. But if pop and hiphop production shows us, snare can be any number of sounds. Some of them from actual snare drums, some from mind of someone who is looking for something different. People will react to the backbeat either way. I know what many snare drums sounds like. I know how I want snare drums to be represented in projects I'm involved in. I choose to use various snares and various mics. And if the player is playing well, and the drum and tuning we chose work, people will know it's a snare drum. The masses might not know what that is, but they will hear it's addition to the production. They might notice is any one of those things mentioned weren't a good choice, but if the choices work together, they'll just go about their day. |
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Jan 11, 2024 1:51:25 GMT -6
421's sound great on toms.... Until a cymbal is hit 57's - that is another story That's why god invented gates So some toms that are gated have extreme hi frequency spill ? - and others not? No thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by kbsmoove on Jan 11, 2024 14:16:33 GMT -6
I had a day off today and decided to shoot out all the usual suspects on guitar cab: Sm57 MD421 M160 R92 M201 M88 R121 KSM44 Soyuz Bomblet At the end of the shootout, convinced I was going to discover the "ultimate" set up, I ended up liking the 57/421 combo best.....(though the Bomblet with either gets a strong honorable mention). I generally like all the "standards", but i generally lean into using different stuff. I prefer condensers basically anywhere on a drumset, though i most often use dynamics on snare top and inside kick. Love condensers, esp sony c38 on guitar and bass cabs - from clean to high gain. if i'm working fast, double tracking guitars with the same rig panned L/R, it will basically always be a 57 panned to one side and c38 or m88 on the other side. and as always, mic choice is source dependent. I love both m160s and sm57s on guitars, but do they both sound "right" on the same rig? almost never. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 11, 2024 14:43:25 GMT -6
421's sound great on toms.... Until a cymbal is hit 57's - that is another story That's why god invented gates Bill? |
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Jan 11, 2024 15:14:28 GMT -6
I often think that many of the sounds we associate with, for instance, “snare drum” or “guitar” or “cymbal” all came from basically a handful of people in the late 50s-80s using the same simple pieces of gear. And not really “specific” gear for the sake of that exact gear, but, rather just the gear they had on hand. It worked well a few times, and some hit records were made, so they just kept doing it, with the same people playing the same gear, and with the same engineers and producers recording and making the records, and it all coincided with mass production of the music industry as a whole. I think there is definitely some of this going on but also I think some of the classic, utilitarian mics do compliment the source in their way as well. A 57 has a particular 1khz-ish thing that makes a dirty electric guitar snarl and pop out in the mix. That said, a 421 has a certain rattiness up top that can either be annoying or "kinda cool" because it sounds like some vintage guitar tones. 421's sound great on toms.... Until a cymbal is hit This is true... bleed is not nice but I usually cut up my toms, replace with samples from the session if the cymbal bleed is too awful (or audio suite an EQ to that particular clip), etc.. anyway. Toms are often hit so seldom in comparison to other parts of the kit that if the character/tone of a particular mic seems to work for that session, I don't mind a little extra work. M201s , M88s, and ATM25s can have more rejection, yes, but they can be a little bit more picky about the drum or the vibe. ATM25s, for example, are very much ROCK. More hyped, which is awesome if it fits the bill, but can sound a tad aggressive for some things. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 11, 2024 15:41:12 GMT -6
That's why god invented gates Bill? He's a doctor, not a deity, as much as I love my Silver Bullet. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 11, 2024 16:13:28 GMT -6
(Best DeForest Kelly/Star Trek voice) "Dammit Jim!"
"I'm just a simple Country Doctor".
"Not a Deity!"
|
|
|
|
Post by ironinthepath on Jan 11, 2024 20:28:52 GMT -6
I bought a U87ai recently (good deal, local purchase, used) to compare to some of the "nicer" mics I own or have access to (U67RI, Upton 251 & C12, Heiserman H47tube, Coles 4038, and AEA R44CX). Having never used one myself and considering all the threads about it over the years I expected that it would sound so bad I'd want to throw that thing in the trash. Quite the opposite, sounds great! Wish I had bought one earlier!
Maybe I just have low expectations, but it seems like it would "just work" in many circumstances and is a really nice mic overall. BUT...I never heard the U87i either (aside from samples). Having said that, in many circumstances I'd likely reach for one of the other mics first...but the 87ai still sounds totally "pro" to my ears and a big step up from my old Rode mics (and I'm not even bashing Rode, great bang for your buck in my opinion, NTK especially). I'm actually considering keeping my eye out for a second 87ai for stereo.
-Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Jan 12, 2024 8:27:22 GMT -6
I bought a U87ai recently (good deal, local purchase, used) to compare to some of the "nicer" mics I own or have access to (U67RI, Upton 251 & C12, Heiserman H47tube, Coles 4038, and AEA R44CX). Having never used one myself and considering all the threads about it over the years I expected that it would sound so bad I'd want to throw that thing in the trash. Quite the opposite, sounds great! Wish I had bought one earlier! Maybe I just have low expectations, but it seems like it would "just work" in many circumstances and is a really nice mic overall. BUT...I never heard the U87i either (aside from samples). Having said that, in many circumstances I'd likely reach for one of the other mics first...but the 87ai still sounds totally "pro" to my ears and a big step up from my old Rode mics (and I'm not even bashing Rode, great bang for your buck in my opinion, NTK especially). I'm actually considering keeping my eye out for a second 87ai for stereo. -Chris I think the majority of the criticism was centered around the ones with the daughter board when Neumann couldn't get the proper FET, as they tended to be a bit brasher/sibilant and its general value vs. its cost. They are still very good mics and useful. I just stuck one up recently on a sax with a brass capsule C414EB and both the client and I were very pleased. |
|
|
|
Post by ironinthepath on Jan 12, 2024 10:41:50 GMT -6
I did make sure when purchasing that this one used the single JFET and not daughterboard (visual inspection of the PCB and also serial number shows version 6 and a couple years old), so maybe that helps.
Countering that though, I asked a friend of mine having a U87ai daughterboard version his opinion --> for reasons he couldn't explain, for his voice, he actually prefered the daughterboard! (He compared to a friends earlier model). I guess it's like most things: source dependent. Also, it could be that he happens to have a "nice capsule" in his mic.
-Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 13, 2024 13:40:57 GMT -6
A local best friend, has an OG/70's U87.
For selling purposes unfortunately, unbeknownst to him...
It was modded to be "brighter/more open".
But it does sound great on his voice.
IIRC it's around $1400-1500, to get it back to original/in spec.
Chris
P.S. Individually, the AI has a degree of that Upper Mid Bite...
Where I prefer OG87 (more "relaxed") or even mellower/lusher like a OG 67 style.
|
|
