|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 21, 2020 3:39:20 GMT -6
Call me crazy, but I think the company that actually invented and built the mic is capable enough to select the appropriate tube. Any tube change will mean a sligh change in gain. If the tube I put in is even a half dB hotter, it's going to sound "better". It's a very difficult experiment to make.
However, I agree that I might just pop a new tube in, love it, and that would be it. I'm not ruling it out...
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 20, 2020 14:36:06 GMT -6
Before I decide to mess around with tubes for my U67 I would need to get a second one and put them side by side. Only THEN I could swap a tube and hear for myself if it really made a useful difference. I can't think of any other way to test this that doesn't involve the use of laser meters, creating a test recording with a measurement mic, playing it back through a flat monitor, etc. Way too complicated!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 20, 2020 14:22:32 GMT -6
Whatever came in the U67 reissue. Ain't broke, don't fix!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 18, 2020 2:57:38 GMT -6
I do. Mike Campbell model. It looks great but I never really loved it. Despite the looks, it’s a very modern sounding guitar. Mind you, I have a lot of great guitars, so it faces stiff competition. I even put it up for sale once but no one bit. I recently strung it with flats and that’s a very interesting sound, though.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 17, 2020 17:17:13 GMT -6
You can’t avoid hard panned main instruments if you mix twin guitar rock or metal LCR so the balance just changes drastically in a car. If you’re doing pop that’s a vocal and a backing track, then yeah you can get away with it. Twin guitars? Well if you balance it for mono, it will be bad in stereo and vice versus, especially if they’re higher gain or fuzzy. Toeing them in slightly makes it easier but 100 and 85 pannings if double tracked or 90 if single tracked isn’t LCR anymore. Many records that seem LCR When listening aren’t LCR when you mono them. That never happens to me. Maybe it’s my car? I do tend to favor the driver’s seat when mixing, by the way This short article by Mike Senior agrees with you: www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-are-there-any-panning-rules-maintaining-mono-compatibility
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 17, 2020 17:04:31 GMT -6
Very cool!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 17, 2020 13:04:33 GMT -6
I don't think any mixing technique can/must/should be strict. So in that respect, I'm in agreement with everyone here. I also think that everyone that's chiming in has tried to mix LCR and either liked it or not. So - we're not going to change anyone's point of view. Although it might be a fun experiment: once you're done with the mix, pan everything LCR for a laugh, see what happens. It might inspire you! But if you hate it, don't show it to the client... they might like it and then you're screwed!!! In the spirit of the thread, the condensed version of my mixing tip would be: Try mixing in LCR. It just might be the shortcut to a clear, wide, punchy mix. You might just realize that some of your favorite records were mixed this way. However, make sure to check your mix in mono, and avoid "big mono" ("big mono": tons of hard-panned stereo tracks). And by all means, break the rule if it gets you a better mix!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 17, 2020 10:41:24 GMT -6
As for examples, I'll add Eric Sarafin (Mixerman) and Tom Petty's "Wildflowers" (my favorite, although I'm pretty sure all his albums ever since are LCR too).
I'd like to hear the opposite: an album where it's cristal clear that guitars are panned 90% and not 100%, and then there's another instrument at 80%, another at 40%, etc. I don't think you can find that at all. Maybe I'm wrong!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 17, 2020 10:37:32 GMT -6
I can hear any subtle panning movement too, as long as I'm looking at the panpot My monitoring is fine, really. Purpose-built room designed by a professional, pretty decent monitors, Sonarworks to correct a few dBs, all kinds of metering, and absolutely no translation issues. But yes, I agree with you on its importance. To me, LCR mixing is similar as saying "oh, the drum sound is mostly on the overheads". It's the general philosophy, a starting point, and oftentimes the destination (well at least for LCR!). It also assumes a few things: that you know what a true stereo recording with spatial information is, that you understand what many people call "big mono", etc. I don't think any of that is news to anyone on this board that's not a total beginner. That mult thing... I hope you're talking about some silly YouTube video. If not, I don't know what kind of people you hang with!!!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 17, 2020 2:33:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 17, 2020 2:07:57 GMT -6
I’ll make a list of my favorite mixes and see if any are not LCR. The thing is, and that’s the key part, that we think we can hear the panpot when we work it but we can’t. There’s quite a bit of literature about it but it’s better to hear for yourself. Close your eyes and get someone else to move the panpot, hear what happens. I’ll concede there’s a blurry zone between the speaker and the ghost center but it takes a LOT of panning for your brain to register that change. Try it. I was skeptical when I started reading about LCR. I tried it and it was like a secret door into the great mixes.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 16, 2020 16:17:59 GMT -6
LCR mixing makes no sense to me. I'm sorry, I can't really sugarcoat it in any way. I find it extremely unappealing to listen to. It's bad enough in front of a decent set of speakers, set up correctly, but just forget about listening on headphones or in a car. Please convince me otherwise. Examples of what you consider great mixes done LCR are very welcome. I’d say that most great mixes are LCR. Why would you not use the full stereo available to you? Any panning position that’s not LCR will shift with even the smallest head movement of a listener. Your carefully chosen pan positions are essentially random once a listener is between a pair of speakers.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 14, 2020 8:10:30 GMT -6
Molly is a delight. We work a lot of shows together on the circuit. Proud to see her doing so well. Fantastic songwriter as well, I love her album!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 14, 2020 2:41:44 GMT -6
I suppose you’ve seen this already...
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 13, 2020 12:10:57 GMT -6
Unless for special effect, I don't do LCR toms either. The drums start from the overheads, so if I choose to augment that with extra mics, I pan them to their actual stereo positions.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 13, 2020 6:37:26 GMT -6
So my tip here would be: if you are going to break the LCR rule, don’t do a tiny change. Find a place in the stereo field where that track needs to live, where ever that is.
Another tip if you get “LCR scared” is to send everything to a subtle room reverb that diffuses the stereo field a bit, just enough for a headphone listen to feel good.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 13, 2020 6:33:20 GMT -6
I've found this out the hard way. Don't mix truly LCR if you have twin guitars with only L and R tracks. Do 90% L and R. If they were double tracked, you can spread them out 100 and 95. Don't worry about what CLA does. CLA has never mixed any twin guitar rock or metal that sounded good or like a real band. If you hard pan the guitars, you'll destroy the balance in a car or small speakers. Your mix will go from guitar music to vocal and drum focused like a pop record. Mastering can fix it with compression and eq but that will change the sound and wreck the depth that you mixed in. Check your mix in mono all the time. Mash the mono button or get an Auratone 5C or Fostex 6301 to not be seduced by low end or good sound. I like both better than the Avantones. I respectfully disagree. For me it’s LCR or death I did the 90% thing way back. It just reduces the stereo spread for no tangible benefits. My opinion only.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 12, 2020 15:26:39 GMT -6
I think if you're a real "A-List" pro and you really really know what you are doing, after a lot of experimentation you can arrive at an ITB solution that allows you to put out decent work and satisfy the endless need for recalls, etc. The rest of us can simply plug some hardware and get the job done easily with great sonics and tactile feedback, take some pictures, and do the recalls by hand when we need to.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 12, 2020 4:11:54 GMT -6
Okay, okay! JUST ONE MORE... This is it, I swear. That's the coolest video I've seen in a long, long time. I bet you'd sound great on ANY mic. And I'm buying your record!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 11, 2020 5:47:56 GMT -6
And a little video deomstration. I appreciate all the good vibes from everyone in the forum. No buyer's remorse! That was just incredible, but... it's not the mic!!! (or the preamp) Congratulations.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 6, 2020 14:27:46 GMT -6
Once you know more or less what's the relationship between 0 VU and dBFS on both interfaces, you can compare the interfaces. As an idea, you could play a test recording on your monitors and record it with your vocal chain. It could even be a "neutral" vocal track of some kind. Same analog level, then into the two interfaces. Align the recordings, compensate the volume difference (I think the Apollo will be 5dB hotter, but you need to test that) and then you can A/B the recordings, even phase invert them to hear the difference if you align them well.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 6, 2020 14:22:58 GMT -6
Ok, but what are the levels? If you are hitting 0VU on the ACME output meter, how much digital level does that get you in your DAW? Just plug into the Dangerous first and then into the Apollo. It'd be great to do it with a signal generator of some kind.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 6, 2020 7:30:06 GMT -6
I can see the output of the ACME is just an attenuator and it has a meter, so you’re all set. Are you setting the output so it only goes into the red within reason?
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 6, 2020 7:27:40 GMT -6
I still think you have a gain staging problem, not a converter problem. If you could measure the output of your analog chain with a VU meter you’d get a lot of insight. You also need to know what a +4dB signal reads on both interfaces when it reaches the DAW. From the specs, probably -16 dBFS on the Apollo (line input). I guess it reads -21 on the Dangerous but I couldn’t find the specs.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jul 5, 2020 17:14:24 GMT -6
I’m getting a good sound, but I hate the sound of the analog input stage of the Apollo. I have my vocal chain set perfect for the Convert and when I use the analog inputs of the apollo I can’t keep my chain where I like it. When I use the analog inputs of my Apollo, I have to turn everything down considerably to get an acceptable level. The Dangerous can take much more input level and sounds great. The Apollo can’t take much level before I Peak it. Curious if something is wrong with it. I’m coming from Apogee and Lavry and I really liked the way they sounded. I’m not getting a bad sound, but I do want to up my converter quality, and I’m not sure if I want to stay Apollo or go a different direction If you are clipping the Apollo with a vocal track something is definitely wrong. What’s the chain? How and where are you measuring your analog levels? Your vocal should come into the Apollo at around 4-7 dBU, plenty of headroom! If you plug into the Convert, does it come in at around -20dBFS (digital level in your DAW)?
|
|