[adam79]

My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a board that connects
through an interface into the computer. I don't have the money for a big
name, super expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.
I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks would be great, but I guess I'd
rather buy a better sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost
me to get a 24 track of lower quality.. Basically what I'm trying to say
is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go for sound quality rather than
track quantity.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:
My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a board that connects
through an interface into the computer. I don't have the money for a big
name, super expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.
I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks would be great, but I guess I'd
rather buy a better sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost
me to get a 24 track of lower quality.. Basically what I'm trying to say
is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go for sound quality rather than
track quantity.

Yeah, yeah, everybody is on a budget and wants a 24-track
studio. Good luck.

First, recorders have tracks. Consoles have inputs or
channels. Second, the computer has made this whole concept
fall apart for most people. You have a limitless number of
tracks, but the number of tracks you can record
simultaneously is a function of the number of channels that
your audio interface has, and may also be limited by the
program you're using (some "light" versions are limited to
recording 8 tracks in a pass) or by the amount of computer
horsepower you have available.

These days, most people who are on a tight budget (and even
many who aren't) mix in the computer,so if you've recorded
24 tracks, a few at a time, you don't need a 24 channel
mixer to mix them. But a mixer is a very handy thing to have
in the stuido because it gives you a lot of flexibility in
routing and monitoring. Also, today, some mixers incorporate
functions of the audio interface to the computer - in other
words, the mixer connects directly to the computer rather
than going through another box.

It would be a good idea for you to study up on how the
pieces fit together and then you'll be able to figure out
what you need. You might get something out of a few chapters
of The Mackie Compact Mixer Reference Guide, which you can
download from
http://www.mackie.com/support/compactmixer/index.html

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Arny Krueger]

"adam79" wrote in message


My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a
board that connects through an interface into the
computer.

Ever even do any recording with a computer?

I don't have the money for a big name, super
expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
thought I could get some names of quality companies or
specific models. I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks
would be great, but I guess I'd rather buy a better
sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost me to
get a 24 track of lower quality..

Unless you actually have the resources to record 24 different musicians at
one time in your home studio, you're talking about a buying ton more mixing
board than you will actually ever need.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go
for sound quality rather than track quantity.

The acoustics of the room you actually do the recording in is the strongest
influence on sound quality. Then the mics. Then the board.

Actually, with all due respect, the weakest link is likely to be you.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Aug 25, 3:47 am, adam79 wrote:
There are just so many out there that I thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.

Most brands are excellent these days. So buy based on features and
price.

24 tracks would be great

Mike Rivers already explained the difference between tracks and
channels. What you need is a sound card that has enough inputs to
accommodate the number of separate microphone (and DI) sources you
want to be able to record *at the same time*. And unless you're doing
5.1 surround mixing, you only need two outputs. This may help further:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/mixer2daw.html

--Ethan

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Unless you actually have the resources to record 24 different musicians at
one time in your home studio, you're talking about a buying ton more mixing
board than you will actually ever need.

Well, he might have a 5 piece band with four stereo
keyboards, some stereo guitar processors, and a bunch of
mics on the drums. Or he might want to mix hands-on with a
console without screwing with a MIDI control surface. If 16
channels is enough, he could go with a Mackie 1640i or if he
wants 24, a PreSonus StudioLive 24. Those function both as a
mixing console and multichannel computer audio I/O device.
But not a MIDI control surface. That costs a lot more.

Actually, with all due respect, the weakest link is likely to be you.

Shhhh ....

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Aug 25, 12:47*am, adam79 wrote:
My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a board that connects
through an interface into the computer. I don't have the money for a big
name, super expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.
I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks would be great, but I guess I'd
rather buy a better sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost
me to get a 24 track of lower quality.. Basically what I'm trying to say
is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go for sound quality rather than
track quantity.

Thanks,
-Adam

Look at the latest Mackie boards with the firewire interface. That
might work for you. If you want a board that also doubles as a control
surface interface, the easiest are the Yamaha digital boards. The
cheapest being the 01V96 and the DM1000. I'm sure there might be a
cheaper Bheringer out there that would do the job too but, I don't
trust them for anything that has moving parts.

[adam79]

On 8/25/10 8:12 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a
board that connects through an interface into the
computer.

Ever even do any recording with a computer?

Haha. Yes. I'm currently running Pro Tools LE 7.3 with a MBox2 on my
MacBook Pro. This allows me to record four inputs at a time.. I use the
two analog inputs as well as the two SPDIF inputs (the SPDIF is
connected to a KORG D16 multitrack). The D16 has 8 mono channels and 4
stereo channels. If I'm recording more than 4 tracks simultaneously,
I'll transfer the remaining tracks from the D16 into Pro Tools after the
initial tracking process.

I like Pro Tools, and have successfully made some quality mixes with it,
but the interface compatibility is a huge annoyance. As I've written in
previous posts, I'm in the process of starting up a home studio. In
order to compete with the local studios, I want to upgrade my
equipment/interface so I can record everything into Pro Tools and bypass
the D16.

I want to buy a nice console/mixer with quality pre-amps; I'm looking at
this long-term. I'm in the beginning stages of looking into what
hardware/software to buy. From what I've read/heard, the 003 Rack+
doesn't have the best pre-amps. Again, this is where Pro Tools LE's
interface compatibility starts to cause problems. My MacBook Pro is a
good computer, 2.44 GHz Intel Duo 2 Core Processor, 4GB of RAM, etc.; it
can handle recording a good amount of tracks simultaneously.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see what it maxes out at because I
don't have access to the equipment I would need to test it out.

I'm recording a friend's band this weekend so I can start have material
for potential clients to listen to and hear what I have to offer (in
terms of the recording quality). If things work out, I'll mostly be
recording local punk/hardcore bands. This means drums, guitar, bass and
vocals. To record everything live, I'll need atleast 8 tracks, but 16
would work out better. I got to this number by figuring that I'll use 4
tracks for drums (2 overheads, snare and kick), 2 for guitar (SM-57
close mic'd and one at a distance [I want to buy a ribbon mic. I've
heard good things about the Cascade Fathead II and the price is fair:
$219. $349 with a Lundahl transformer in replace of the stock one.]), 1
for bass, and 1 for vocals. If there is more than one guitar player I
will need more than 8 tracks. I want to leave myself open for the
possibility of bands with keyboards, horns, etc.

I would appreciate any suggestions on where to start with this..


The acoustics of the room you actually do the recording in is the strongest
influence on sound quality. Then the mics. Then the board.

If I draw out a floor plan of the room I have my equipment set up in,
will you guys give me some feedback on where I have place the equipment,
as well as what type of sound board/foam I should look into buying? I'll
make the diagram in an hour or so.

Thanks for everything; you all have helped me greatly,
-Adam

[adam79]

On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:

If I draw out a floor plan of the room I have my equipment set up in,
will you guys give me some feedback on where I have place the equipment,
as well as what type of sound board/foam I should look into buying? I'll
make the diagram in an hour or so.



Here's the link to the floor plan:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j.../floorPlan.jpg If
you look at it, there is a alcove in the room (at the top right) that
fits the drums perfectly. I was thinking that this would be a perfect
place to put them in the room. If you disagree, please let me know where
you think they would fit best. As well as the placement of amps, etc. I
have other rooms that I could put amps, etc. for isolation.

Look forward to your input.
Thanks,
-Adam

[Sean Conolly]

"adam79" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:

If I draw out a floor plan of the room I have my equipment set up in,
will you guys give me some feedback on where I have place the equipment,
as well as what type of sound board/foam I should look into buying? I'll
make the diagram in an hour or so.



Here's the link to the floor plan:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j.../floorPlan.jpg
If you look at it, there is a alcove in the room (at the top right) that
fits the drums perfectly. I was thinking that this would be a perfect
place to put them in the room. If you disagree, please let me know where
you think they would fit best. As well as the placement of amps, etc. I
have other rooms that I could put amps, etc. for isolation.

Loud sources in small spaces usually don't record well. Looking at the floor
plan, I'd probably try to deaden that alcove entirely, maybe using carpet or
heavy quilts on the walls and ceiling. I think it'd be better to work with
no sound reflection than anything bouncing off walls that close - but that's
just my opinion.

Check out Ethan's site for lots of good info on sound treatment, from a pro.

Sean

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Aug 26, 1:17 am, adam79 wrote:
Here's the link to the floor plan:

Where do you have the mix position and speakers? Nothing in that room
is symmetrical, which is critical for mixing. The best place I see is
the 7' 9-/3/4" alcove at the top. If you put the speakers there,
facing down, you'll have half a shot at symmetry. Even better is to
finish the half-wall at the lower right, then put the speakers against
the 6' 11" wall facing left. Much more he

How to set up a room:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm

Acoustics Basics treatment advice:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_basics.htm

Much more detailed Acoustics FAQ:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Tons more he
http://www.realtraps.com/articles.htm
http://www.realtraps.com/videos.htm

--Ethan

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 9:06 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:

Loud sources in small spaces usually don't record well. Looking at the floor
plan, I'd probably try to deaden that alcove entirely, maybe using carpet or
heavy quilts on the walls and ceiling. I think it'd be better to work with
no sound reflection than anything bouncing off walls that close - but that's
just my opinion.


Yeah, the low ceiling height is lame. I live in a basement apartment;
the one positive is that the ceiling is made up those gridded
tiles/panels, here's a pictu
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...ling_tiles.jpg.
Do these tiles work as sound absorbers, or have I been given wrong
information? Also, would removing the tiles give me more headroom (or
would the grid that holds them up get in the way)? Also, the walls are
made of drywall and the floor has a carpet.

Thanks,
-Adamm

[adam79]

On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:

2 for guitar (SM-57 close mic'd and one at a distance [I want to buy a
ribbon mic, I've heard good things about the Cascade Fathead II and it only:
costs $219. $349 with a Lundahl transformer in replace of the stock one.])

I've been looking into ribbon mics, and the Beyer M160 seems like a way
better choice than the Fathead II (although it's over double the price).
There's a used one for sale from the 70s. The seller says that it is in
perfect working condition, but I have no way of trying it out. I'd be
saving a couple hundred dollars, but there's always that chance that
there could be something wrong with it.. Is the mic design the same now
as it was back in the day (i.e. are the new ones made with inferior
components)?

What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
the Royer R-121?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:
Yeah, the low ceiling height is lame. I live in a basement apartment;
the one positive is that the ceiling is made up those gridded
tiles/panels, here's a pictu
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/j...ling_tiles.jpg.

Drop ceilings are about the worst possible situation acoustically.

Do these tiles work as sound absorbers, or have I been given wrong
information?

The tiles absorb high frequencies but do nothing at lower frequencies
except to create this huge resonant chamber up there.

Also, would removing the tiles give me more headroom (or
would the grid that holds them up get in the way)? Also, the walls are
made of drywall and the floor has a carpet.

Drywall is good, carpet is good. Random shapes are almost always better
than flat surfaces.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:
On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:

2 for guitar (SM-57 close mic'd and one at a distance [I want to buy a
ribbon mic, I've heard good things about the Cascade Fathead II and it only:
costs $219. $349 with a Lundahl transformer in replace of the stock one.])

I've been looking into ribbon mics, and the Beyer M160 seems like a way
better choice than the Fathead II (although it's over double the price).

They are both ribbons but they sound totally different. There is no
connection between them other than that they both use the same basic
technology inside (much the way that a gas oven and a gasoline engine both
use fire).

There's a used one for sale from the 70s. The seller says that it is in
perfect working condition, but I have no way of trying it out. I'd be
saving a couple hundred dollars, but there's always that chance that
there could be something wrong with it.. Is the mic design the same now
as it was back in the day (i.e. are the new ones made with inferior
components)?

The new ones are the same, yes.

What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
the Royer R-121?

They are utterly and completely different in the midrange.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 1:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
the Royer R-121?

They are utterly and completely different in the midrange.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread, I've seen alot of people use
the R-121 and SM57 on guitar cabs (the SM57 right on the cone, and the
R-121 about 4 to 6" away). When using the M160 on guitar cabs, is it
commonly used the same way, or does it like to be close mic'd? From
looking at the frequency response curve of both mics, am I correct in
saying that the M160 would be a better choice for a crunchy, heavy
guitar sound?

I was also reading that it's a good overhead mic, especially for
cymbals. If I end up buying the M160, would it sound better if I just
used one M160 in the middle of the kit, or match it with one of my MCA
SP1s (the M160 on the high hat side and the MCA SP1 on the other). I
know that the best way to figure out what sounds best is to physically
try it, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask for some opinions.

The Cascade Fathead II has been recommended by a few different people. I
could buy a pair of Fathead IIs (one w/ stock transformer and one with
the Lundahl) for the price of one M160. Does anyone have any experience
with the Fathead II (stock and Lundahl versions)?

I found a used M160 from the 70s that is a couple hundred dollars
cheaper than a new one. The mic is described as being in perfect working
order, but I have no way of trying it out before I buy it. I'm not sure
if I have enough money to buy a new one, but if I did, I would spend the
extra $200 just to get the year warranty (and for the piece of mind that
I'm buying it new, rather than just taking someone's word). I'd also
have an extra $200 in my pocket to put towards another mic or piece of
equipment. Do you think it's worth the risk?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
the Royer R-121?

Same as the difference between blue and green. And the
Cascade Fathead is like yellow. The nice thing about buying
a Royer or Cascade mic is that if you don't like it, you can
return it (as long as you don't buy it from Guitar Center,
that doesn't take returns on microphones). Or you can buy
both and pick the one that you like best. The M160 is a nice
mic. I have two of them. But I have about 20 others and
often the M160 stays on the shelf.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:
On 8/26/10 1:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
the Royer R-121?

They are utterly and completely different in the midrange.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread, I've seen alot of people use
the R-121 and SM57 on guitar cabs (the SM57 right on the cone, and the
R-121 about 4 to 6" away). When using the M160 on guitar cabs, is it
commonly used the same way, or does it like to be close mic'd? From
looking at the frequency response curve of both mics, am I correct in
saying that the M160 would be a better choice for a crunchy, heavy
guitar sound?

If you like that technique, you can use anything for it.... pick a random
condenser or dynamic mike with good off-axis response and set it up a few
feet away. The mike will make some difference in the sound, but the position
and the amp will make more difference than the mike.

I was also reading that it's a good overhead mic, especially for
cymbals. If I end up buying the M160, would it sound better if I just
used one M160 in the middle of the kit, or match it with one of my MCA
SP1s (the M160 on the high hat side and the MCA SP1 on the other). I
know that the best way to figure out what sounds best is to physically
try it, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask for some opinions.

Depends a lot on the room.. the M160 is pretty directional which may
allow you to get away with it in a worse sounding room than something
like the SP1. And it's very clean off-axis, which the SP1 may not be.

The Cascade Fathead II has been recommended by a few different people. I
could buy a pair of Fathead IIs (one w/ stock transformer and one with
the Lundahl) for the price of one M160. Does anyone have any experience
with the Fathead II (stock and Lundahl versions)?

I have, and it's a mike with a very heavy ribbon so the top end detail is
not like that of the Royer or the M160. Also, no two of them sound quite
the same. But it's still useful.

I found a used M160 from the 70s that is a couple hundred dollars
cheaper than a new one. The mic is described as being in perfect working
order, but I have no way of trying it out before I buy it. I'm not sure
if I have enough money to buy a new one, but if I did, I would spend the
extra $200 just to get the year warranty (and for the piece of mind that
I'm buying it new, rather than just taking someone's word). I'd also
have an extra $200 in my pocket to put towards another mic or piece of
equipment. Do you think it's worth the risk?

Well, I never buy anything new if I can avoid it, so I would think so,
but it's your call.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 4:47 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:

The M160 is a nice
mic. I have two of them. But I have about 20 others and often the M160
stays on the shelf.


I read somewhere that the M160 was used on most of the guitar tracks for
the Hendrix and Zeppelin records. There's also an Eddie Kramer quote
with him saying that the M160 is the best guitar mic. Taking a step
back, I think these statements are the main reason I want the mic..
having never even heard/used the thing!

Maybe I should take a further step back, and buy a mic that I'll
constantly be using, like a RE-20.

However, this topic has kind of gone off of a tangent if you read my
original post..

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 12:35 PM, Ethan Winer wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:17 am, wrote:
Here's the link to the floor plan:

Where do you have the mix position and speakers? Nothing in that room
is symmetrical, which is critical for mixing. The best place I see is
the 7' 9-/3/4" alcove at the top. If you put the speakers there,
facing down, you'll have half a shot at symmetry. Even better is to
finish the half-wall at the lower right, then put the speakers against
the 6' 11" wall facing left. Much more he


That is the room where I have my equipment set up for tracking. My
bedroom is a perfect square, so once I record, I bring my laptop back
into my bedroom and start working on the mix.

When I put the floor plan up, I was looking for advise on where to setup
the drum kit, amps, etc. One of my friends recently went into the Army
and left me with his Pearl Export Series Kit. I finally got the hardware
he was missing, and now have the complete kit (I've been using a rubber
pad V-Drum kit when working on the material I have written). Now that I
have the kit ready, and got a band booked to come in and record, I'm
trying to figure out where to set everything up (for tracking). Everyone
in this band is a friend of mine. They know that I've just begun the
process of getting everything ready for this home studio business
attempt, so they will be patient.

In my eyes, the most important thing is where I put the Pearl drum kit.
Do you agree with me that I should put it in the alcove that you were
talking about putting the speakers in? Or do you think I should set up
my desk in that spot and put the drums somewhere else?

Please Help!

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

I read somewhere that the M160 was used on most of the guitar tracks for
the Hendrix and Zeppelin records. There's also an Eddie Kramer quote
with him saying that the M160 is the best guitar mic. Taking a step
back, I think these statements are the main reason I want the mic..
having never even heard/used the thing!

Yup, you're definitely a people like you. There's nothing
bad about taking advice from people like Eddie Kramer, but
remember, he had more money than you and if he didn't like
the mic he was using at the moment, he had five or six more
to try.

Maybe I should take a further step back, and buy a mic that I'll
constantly be using, like a RE-20.

I suppose if I could have only one mic, and it couldn't be a
condenser mic because I didn't want to waste the batteries I
had with me on the desert island on phantom powering, I
suppose I would be happy with an RE20. But an SM57 is more
likely to work after being dropped into the water.




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 8:28 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
adam79 wrote:

I read somewhere that the M160 was used on most of the guitar tracks
for the Hendrix and Zeppelin records. There's also an Eddie Kramer
quote with him saying that the M160 is the best guitar mic. Taking a
step back, I think these statements are the main reason I want the
mic.. having never even heard/used the thing!

Yup, you're definitely a people like you. There's nothing bad about
taking advice from people like Eddie Kramer, but remember, he had more
money than you and if he didn't like the mic he was using at the moment,
he had five or six more to try.


Atleast I'm starting to recognize when I'm in this mode.

Maybe I should take a further step back, and buy a mic that I'll
constantly be using, like a RE-20.

I suppose if I could have only one mic, and it couldn't be a condenser
mic because I didn't want to waste the batteries I had with me on the
desert island on phantom powering, I suppose I would be happy with an
RE20. But an SM57 is more likely to work after being dropped into the
water.


What I ment by that comment is that I already have a SM57, the two MCA
SP1s, and a SM87 beta. The next logical choice for my mic locker would
be something that has good bass response (i.e. works with kick drums and
bass amps) and is also versatile.

-Adam

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 26, 7:14*pm, adam79 wrote:
On 8/26/10 12:35 PM, Ethan Winer wrote:

On Aug 26, 1:17 am, *wrote:
Here's the link to the floor plan:

Where do you have the mix position and speakers? Nothing in that room
is symmetrical, which is critical for mixing. The best place I see is
the 7' 9-/3/4" alcove at the top. If you put the speakers there,
facing down, you'll have half a shot at symmetry. Even better is to
finish the half-wall at the lower right, then put the speakers against
the 6' 11" wall facing left. Much more he

That is the room where I have my equipment set up for tracking. My
bedroom is a perfect square, so once I record, I bring my laptop back
into my bedroom and start working on the mix.


A cube is a perfect way to create standing waves, dead spots and comb
filtering...it is the worse place in the world to mix....even with the
best of monitors, it is a train wreck.

Bass traps and ancillary room treatment will be needed...placement of
you monitor will depend on your treatment...
Ideally, you would have a rectangle with a 3:1 ratio (or golden
section or short wall plus 38% for the long wall). You could then
place some treatment at the back and place your desk along the long
wall.

Square and Cube = Bad

-CS

[adam79]

On 8/27/10 9:25 AM, Cyberserf wrote:

A cube is a perfect way to create standing waves, dead spots and comb
filtering...it is the worse place in the world to mix....even with the
best of monitors, it is a train wreck.

Bass traps and ancillary room treatment will be needed...placement of
you monitor will depend on your treatment...
Ideally, you would have a rectangle with a 3:1 ratio (or golden
section or short wall plus 38% for the long wall). You could then
place some treatment at the back and place your desk along the long
wall.

Square and Cube = Bad


DOH! So I assume the best place to put the drums be on the way right of
the room, so they're facing the other side of the room? The room in the
floor plan is common area that's connected to the kitchen (that's what's
on the other side of the wall at the bottom of the plan). This means
that there's open room on the right and left side of the kit. The one
obstacle would be the wall that separates the room and the kitchen.
Maybe I could rent a few of baffle to put around the kit. I'm in an
apartment so I can't start ripping the place apart. There must be
someway for me to make this work.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

DOH! So I assume the best place to put the drums be on the way right of
the room, so they're facing the other side of the room?

Sometimes drums can work out OK if you set up in a corner
with the drummer facing toward the center of the room. I
didn't look at your floor plan, but if you have a corner,
you might give it a try.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/27/10 8:18 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
adam79 wrote:

Sometimes drums can work out OK if you set up in a corner with the
drummer facing toward the center of the room. I didn't look at your
floor plan, but if you have a corner, you might give it a try.


Setup so the drums back is to the corner, right? Is the distance from
the corner more of a trial and error process.. I guess I'm asking for an
initial spot since placement is so important.

As far as covering the ceiling tiles, is that the first priority when
setting the room up for acoustics (everyone has terrible things to say
about them). Can I get away with just covering the tiles that are
directly over the kit, or should I cover it a bit past the kit; I don't
have the cash to do the whole ceiling.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

Setup so the drums back is to the corner, right? Is the distance from
the corner more of a trial and error process..

Everything about source and microphone placement is
trial-and-listen. There's no real error, just better or
worse than some other setup. You could agonize over it by
measuring the distance of each drum from its closest wall
and figure out what frequency will be canceled (even
multiples of a quarter-wavelength) and what frequency will
be reinforced (odd multiples of a quarter wavelength) by the
reflection and make some decisions based on that. But it's
easier to just set up and try it.

One of the reasons for setting up drums in a corner is that
it makes it easier for the drummer to hear himself. A
drummer who complains about not being able to hear himself
is a drag because they're so damn loud you don't know how to
best help him.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/28/10 6:41 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
One of the reasons for setting up drums in a corner is that it makes it
easier for the drummer to hear himself. A drummer who complains about
not being able to hear himself is a drag because they're so damn loud
you don't know how to best help him.


This is going to be my first "official" recording for the studio I'm
trying to start I'm still in the beginning stages of getting equipment;
I'll only have 4 mics. The drums will be the only instrument being mic'd
(making noise). The guitar/bass will be done with a POD XT and Sans Amp
as a scratch track. They'll all be wearing headphones..

I have enough money to buy a couple mics; I'm gonna rent them first (for
the recording) to make sure they're the right fit. Like I've said
before, I have 2 MCA SP1, 1 SM57 and 1 SM87. I need a mic that is good
with low frequencies (something for the kick and bass amps). I was
thinking of the RE20 for this. Do you agree that it would be the next
logical mic for me to buy? I have 600 to spend; I'm gonna buy the mics
used, which knocks alot off the price.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

I have enough money to buy a couple mics; I'm gonna rent them first (for
the recording) to make sure they're the right fit. Like I've said
before, I have 2 MCA SP1, 1 SM57 and 1 SM87. I need a mic that is good
with low frequencies (something for the kick and bass amps). I was
thinking of the RE20 for this. Do you agree that it would be the next
logical mic for me to buy?

There are so many mics available today that I hesitate to
recommend any one. The RE20 is a good all-around microphone.
Just about any mic has good enough low frequency response
for a kick drum or bass amplifer, it's just that today
people feel more comfortable having vocal mics, kick mics,
acoustic guitar mics, drum overhead mics, and so on so the
industry and the community have accommodated. Try your SP1
on the kick, or even your SM57. These days when I have to
mic drums it's usually for PA, and it's usually with someone
else's equipment. And the PA company usually has an RE20,
MD421, or something like that like the mic that Audix or
Sennheiser makes for kick as part of a drum kit mic set. I
never have an opportunity to compare them, but generally the
drummer feels better if he doesn't see an SM58 in front of
his drums so I use the designated kick mic. But I suppose if
you want to get fussy about it, what's a great mic for one
kick, or one song, may be wrong for another.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/28/10 12:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
adam79 wrote:

There are so many mics available today that I hesitate to recommend any
one. The RE20 is a good all-around microphone. Just about any mic has
good enough low frequency response for a kick drum or bass amplifer,
it's just that today people feel more comfortable having vocal mics,
kick mics, acoustic guitar mics, drum overhead mics, and so on so the
industry and the community have accommodated. Try your SP1 on the kick,
or even your SM57. These days when I have to mic drums it's usually for
PA, and it's usually with someone else's equipment. And the PA company
usually has an RE20, MD421, or something like that like the mic that
Audix or Sennheiser makes for kick as part of a drum kit mic set. I
never have an opportunity to compare them, but generally the drummer
feels better if he doesn't see an SM58 in front of his drums so I use
the designated kick mic. But I suppose if you want to get fussy about
it, what's a great mic for one kick, or one song, may be wrong for another.


I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
MD421 and one other to see which one I like best. Also, are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
does w/ the SM57?

Thanks,
-Adam

[PStamler]

On Aug 28, 11:57*am, adam79 wrote:
On 8/28/10 12:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:



adam79 wrote:

There are so many mics available today that I hesitate to recommend any
one. The RE20 is a good all-around microphone. Just about any mic has
good enough low frequency response for a kick drum or bass amplifer,
it's just that today people feel more comfortable having vocal mics,
kick mics, acoustic guitar mics, drum overhead mics, and so on so the
industry and the community have accommodated. Try your SP1 on the kick,
or even your SM57. These days when I have to mic drums it's usually for
PA, and it's usually with someone else's equipment. And the PA company
usually has an RE20, MD421, or something like that like the mic that
Audix or Sennheiser makes for kick as part of a drum kit mic set. I
never have an opportunity to compare them, but generally the drummer
feels better if he doesn't see an SM58 in front of his drums so I use
the designated kick mic. But I suppose if you want to get fussy about
it, what's a great mic for one kick, or one song, may be wrong for another.

I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
MD421 and one other to see which one I like best.

Try a Beyer M88. But I bet you go with the RE20 or MD421.

By the way, make sure the MD421 you get is the old one, NOT the Mk II.
The MK II is a completely different mic, with a shrieky high end and
none of the original's virtues.

Also, are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
does w/ the SM57?

Nope; you can use either mic into just about any preamp or console
input and they'll sound the same, and adding resistors doesn't change
the sound.

Peace,
Paul

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 27, 5:39*pm, adam79 wrote:
On 8/27/10 9:25 AM, Cyberserf wrote:



A cube is a perfect way to create standing waves, dead spots and comb
filtering...it is the worse place in the world to mix....even with the
best of monitors, it is a train wreck.

Bass traps and ancillary room treatment *will be needed...placement of
you monitor will depend on your treatment...
Ideally, you would have a rectangle with a 3:1 ratio (or golden
section or short wall plus 38% for the long wall). You could then
place some treatment at the back and place your desk along the long
wall.

Square and Cube = Bad

DOH! So I assume the best place to put the drums be on the way right of
the room, so they're facing the other side of the room? The room in the
floor plan is common area that's connected to the kitchen (that's what's
on the other side of the wall at the bottom of the plan). This means
that there's open room on the right and left side of the kit. The one
obstacle would be the wall that separates the room and the kitchen.
Maybe I could rent a few of baffle to put around the kit. I'm in an
apartment so I can't start ripping the place apart. There must be
someway for me to make this work.

Thanks,

Adam,

IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
cube", which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
from his site.

Cheers, CS


http://www.realtraps.com/

Regards, CS

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands

That's not really my thing so there may be some favorite
mics for those kinds of bands. I'd probably get a couple
more SM57s, and maybe a Neumann TLM-102 when you can afford
it, or maybe a Studio Projects C4 or two for drum overheads
or acoustic guitars. A Beyer M88 is a nice versatile mic,
too, if you can find the original version (not the TG-88).

Also, are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor does w/ the SM57?

No, not really. This one just happens to be a discovered
fluke. There are a few mic preamps that have adjustable or
selectable input impedance that allow you to play around
with how it affects whatever mic you have connected to it,
but most of them seem to follow the rumor that ribbon mics
are supposed be connected to a low impedance (which isn't
really true). So you might find a 300 ohm switch position,
then 500, then 1.2k and 2.5 k, kind of missing the SM57's
sweet spot. Somebody really should make a preamp with an
SM57 switch, but that's really a Paul Stamler invention, not
a Shure invention. I don't know what Shure thinks of it.
They probalby say it makes the mic not sound like an SM57
any more which, to the company that makes it, is not a good
thing.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:
I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
MD421 and one other to see which one I like best. Also, are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
does w/ the SM57?

Three people have said this already. The RE20, MD421, and the like
are not sensitive to loading. They can drive just about anything from
a short to an open without changing their sound much. This is a side
effect of the low coupling which also produces fairly low output compared
with the SM-57.

There are lots of good general purpose mikes out there, including the
MD441 and the EV N/D 468... and there are a lot of very directional
vocal mikes as well which will be something you will find very useful
in this kind of situation. The AKG D880 is a good first pick on a
budget, with the Neumann KMS105 being a big step up. Punk bands will
like to at least record a guide vocal and the better the vocal you can
get with the band, the better the end sound will be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Danny T]

On Aug 28, 7:19*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
adam79 wrote:
I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
MD421 and one other to see which one I like best. Also, are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
does w/ the SM57?

Three people have said this already. *The RE20, MD421, and the like
are not sensitive to loading. *They can drive just about anything from
a short to an open without changing their sound much. *This is a side
effect of the low coupling which also produces fairly low output compared
with the SM-57.

There are lots of good general purpose mikes out there, including the
MD441 and the EV N/D 468... and there are a lot of very directional
vocal mikes as well which will be something you will find very useful
in this kind of situation. *The AKG D880 is a good first pick on a
budget, with the Neumann KMS105 being a big step up. *Punk bands will
like to at least record a guide vocal and the better the vocal you can
get with the band, the better the end sound will be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I bought a handful of the akg d880's and for the price they are indeed
a good mic. I got mine for something like 30 bucks each.

[adam79]

On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
cube", which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
from his site.


The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of
ceiling tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering
the area directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel
or other sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the
material(s) I should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned
some sort of fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow
and figure out where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself.
There is alot of great information on his site.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 28, 8:34*pm, adam79 wrote:
On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:



IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
cube", *which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
from his site.

The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of
ceiling tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering
the area directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel
or other sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the
material(s) I should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned
some sort of fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow
and figure out where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself.
There is alot of great information on his site.

Thanks,
-Adam


I'm certainly not gonna argue too long about it...I'm glad to hear you
don't plan to mix in a square or cube...but this is the response you
gave
in response to Ethan's question asking you where you are mixing:

Speaking of the alcove you mentioned: "That is the room where I have
my equipment set up for tracking."
You then went on to add: "My bedroom is a perfect square, so once I
record, I bring my laptop back into my bedroom and start working on
the mix."

My comment is:"Perfect squares" are bad for mixing

S'all I'm saying...if your bedroom has suddenly grown along a wall or
you were mistaken about your mix position, I apologize for the
confusion.

The material is typically called RockWool...you might also google
Auralex Foam

Hunt up some past issues of Sound on Sound...look for the Studio SOS
featurette (it's in most issues). The theme of mix position treatment
is a recurring one.

Luck, CS

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 29, 5:55*am, Cyberserf wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:34*pm, adam79 wrote:



On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:

IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
cube", *which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
from his site.

The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of
ceiling tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering
the area directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel
or other sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the
material(s) I should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned
some sort of fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow
and figure out where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself.
There is alot of great information on his site.

Thanks,
-Adam

I'm certainly not gonna argue too long about it...I'm glad to hear you
don't plan to mix in a square or cube...but this is the response you
gave
in response to Ethan's question asking you where you are mixing:

Speaking of the alcove you mentioned: "That is the room where I have
my equipment set up for tracking."
You then went on to add: "My bedroom is a perfect square, so once I
record, I bring my laptop back into my bedroom and start working on
the mix."

My comment is:"Perfect squares" are bad for mixing

S'all I'm saying...if your bedroom has suddenly grown along a wall or
you were mistaken about your mix position, I apologize for the
confusion.

The material is typically called RockWool...you might also google
Auralex Foam

Hunt up some past issues of Sound on Sound...look for the Studio SOS
featurette (it's in most issues). The theme of mix position treatment
is a recurring one.

Luck, CS

Oh, BTW, I should correct some misinformation I provided in a previous
post. I mentioned that if you were mixing in a rectangular room you
could place your desk along the long wall...I should have said along
the short wall, this give the sound someplace to go other than back at
you. Some Auralex to the right and left of your listening position as
well as forward and back if necessary...bass traps in the corner. A
proper surface to place your monitors is also a factor (solid stands
(if they are hollow, fill them with sand)...your speakers and your
head should form an equilateral triangle. Beware of reflective
surfaces in between as they may blur the stereo
field...etc...absorbers and diffusers are your friends in a small
space.

-CS

[Sean Conolly]

"adam79" wrote in message
...
On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
cube", which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
from his site.


The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of ceiling
tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering the area
directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel or other
sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the material(s) I
should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned some sort of
fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow and figure out
where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself. There is alot of
great information on his site.


Again, a cheap but not pretty way is hang a quilt or comforter from the
ceiling over the drums. You can find them cheap enough at Walmart, and tie
the corners the existing frame for the ceiling tiles. Hopefully you can find
a drum it to try it out with, you really need to hear the effect on test
recordings to figure out if you're going the right direction.

Also, although you may not be able to get rid of the ceiling tiles entirely,
you can still take out the tiles themselves, which will be a big
improvement. I've seen this done in a home tracking room, with the addition
of some fairly sheer fabric draped loosely across the ceiling. The
recordings I did there on drums don't have the comb filtering in the
overhead mics that you usually get with a low tile ceiling.

Sean

[Anahata]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:57:53 -0400, adam79 wrote:

are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
does w/ the SM57?

No, probably not. I think Paul's article says he tried it on several
other mic types but the SM57 was the only one which showed a clear
improvement with this trick.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Scott Dorsey]

Anahata wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:57:53 -0400, adam79 wrote:

are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
does w/ the SM57?

No, probably not. I think Paul's article says he tried it on several
other mic types but the SM57 was the only one which showed a clear
improvement with this trick.

The EV664 is another example of a mike that is sensitive to loading.

In general, the higher the output of a moving coil dynamic, the more
sensitive to loading it's going to be. That's kind of a rough generalization,
admittedly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."