Microphone upgrade

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann? The
only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on my
voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a Neumann
TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a setup
with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way I'm
gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again and
again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low, distorted,
not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff are a
good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for my
room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other thing
I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than I
am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
are using?
92 answers Last reply
More about microphone upgrade
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
    are using?"

    Not Necessarily. Don't fall into the usual trap of believing that a
    condensor is always better than a dynamic mic, or that a higher price
    tag automatically means "better". Your only requirement seems to be
    finding the mic that is right for your voice. In that case all that
    matters is trying _anything_ different than the mic's that are
    currently not getting you the results you desire. You should exhaust
    the many possibilities with the lower to mid-price mic's before
    committing to spending more. You could be pleasantly surprised to find
    that the mic that's perfect for you is priced much lower than what
    you're willing to spend. Some really good mic's that should be easy to
    rent for comparison are:

    Shure: SM-7
    E/V: RE-20
    Beyer Dynamic: M-88 and M-500
    Sennheiser: MD-421, M-431 and/or MD-441

    I'm sure the r.a.p. regulars will have plenty of great advice and can
    help you find what will best suit your needs without costing you an arm
    and a leg. Please keep us informed about your mic search.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    > I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
    > with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
    > with M147, etc.

    Are you being hired to record "major release CD's"? Since you have to ask
    this question here, I highly doubt it. There are many mics in the Rode
    price range that are no worse than the pricey ones, they're just different.
    Big budget studios are simply expected to carry the more expensive gear.

    First step, upgrade the tube in the K2 to at least a *US-made* JAN Philips
    ECC88. If the stock tube reads JAN Philips it's just a relabeled Russian
    Sovtek 6922. It doesn't substantially change the behaviour of the mic, just
    makes it silkier and more elegant, which may be what you're looking for.

    > I try again and
    > again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
    > instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low, distorted,
    > not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
    > out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
    > difference between them other studios and my studio?

    You're talking about mixing hardware and techniques more than anything.
    "soft", "warm", "blended in with the instrumental" are terms that imply
    compression and coloration. The Eureka's compression and EQ are decent, but
    the "saturate" feature isn't on par with the coloring aspects of better
    processors. Try renting a Distressor and see if that doesn't cure what ails
    you.

    > "So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
    > are using?"
    >
    > Not Necessarily. Don't fall into the usual trap of believing that a
    > condensor is always better than a dynamic mic, or that a higher price
    > tag automatically means "better". Your only requirement seems to be
    > finding the mic that is right for your voice. In that case all that
    > matters is trying _anything_ different than the mic's that are
    > currently not getting you the results you desire. You should exhaust
    > the many possibilities with the lower to mid-price mic's before
    > committing to spending more. You could be pleasantly surprised to find
    > that the mic that's perfect for you is priced much lower than what
    > you're willing to spend.

    Agreed, except for the part about the dynamic mic. It is very rare that a
    dynamic mic is better suited to vocals, and even then it's usually shouting
    rap-like vocals involved. I also wouldn't audition mics like buckshot to
    the barn door. Tell us what properties you dislike about what you're
    getting from each mic, perhaps we can narrow the field.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:

    > I got acoustic treatment for my
    > room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other thing
    > I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than I
    > am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
    > are using?
    >

    What monitors are you using. It looks like you took some of Scott
    Dorsey's previous advice and did some room treatment (who know whether
    it was helpful or not). But I don't think you've ever told us what
    monitors you are using.

    I don't think throwing more money at preamps and microphones is going to
    help you one bit. From what I seem to recall, you have some pretty nice
    gear.

    --
    Eric

    www.Raw-Tracks.com
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Hi Hassan,

    1st of all, I have the Baby Bottle, and a Rode NTK, I also own a
    Nueman TLM 103. All the mics you have listed have been used on major
    record releases, I'm certain of it. I doubt any major recordings have
    been done on the Presonus Eureka though! Your mic pre means much more
    than your mic after you've met a certain threshold, and you have! I
    know the NTK and the Baby Bottle will do fine on your vocal. I've
    heard good things about the Eureka but I doubt Sony Records has ran out
    to purchase one of them for their studios. But, I would wager money
    that they own several of the mics you mentioned.

    The next two questions are, #1. What are you recording into? and
    #2. How are you processing the sounds you have recorded? The mic and
    the pre's will give you a big fat in you're face sound only if you're
    recording into a nice system! I would get a nice mic pre and if your
    using a hard disk system, I would certainly get a UAD Studio Pak card
    for my processing. Good luck Hasasn.


    www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
    > I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
    > decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
    > them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
    > using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
    > would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
    > dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann?
    The
    > only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on my
    > voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
    > voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
    > with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
    > with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a
    Neumann
    > TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
    > should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a setup
    > with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
    > respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way I'm
    > gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again
    and
    > again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
    > instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low,
    distorted,
    > not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
    > out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
    > difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
    > equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff are
    a
    > good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for my
    > room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other
    thing
    > I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than
    I
    > am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big
    guys
    > are using?
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    SongCzar wrote:
    > Hi Hassan,
    >
    > 1st of all, I have the Baby Bottle, and a Rode NTK, I also own a
    > Nueman TLM 103. All the mics you have listed have been used on major
    > record releases, I'm certain of it. I doubt any major recordings
    have
    > been done on the Presonus Eureka though! Your mic pre means much
    more
    > than your mic after you've met a certain threshold, and you have!
    I
    > know the NTK and the Baby Bottle will do fine on your vocal. I've
    > heard good things about the Eureka but I doubt Sony Records has ran
    out
    > to purchase one of them for their studios. But, I would wager money
    > that they own several of the mics you mentioned.
    >
    > The next two questions are, #1. What are you recording into? and
    > #2. How are you processing the sounds you have recorded? The mic
    and
    > the pre's will give you a big fat in you're face sound only if
    you're
    > recording into a nice system! I would get a nice mic pre and if your
    > using a hard disk system, I would certainly get a UAD Studio Pak card
    > for my processing. Good luck Hasasn.
    >


    I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
    sound with its eq. Then I am running rca outs from the mackie into a
    m-audio audiophile soundcard (the interface might be the problem but
    I've heard soo many good things about this soundcard, and that's why I
    bought it)...I haven't really A/Bd it with any other studio soundcards.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
    > > I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both
    are
    > > decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either
    of
    > > them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
    > > using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
    > > would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
    > > dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann?
    > The
    > > only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on
    my
    > > voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
    > > voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being
    recorded
    > > with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
    > > with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a
    > Neumann
    > > TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
    > > should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a
    setup
    > > with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
    > > respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way
    I'm
    > > gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again
    > and
    > > again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
    > > instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low,
    > distorted,
    > > not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they
    turn
    > > out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
    > > difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
    > > equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff
    are
    > a
    > > good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for
    my
    > > room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other
    > thing
    > > I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff
    than
    > I
    > > am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big
    > guys
    > > are using?
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    I was about to get the RE-20 because it was recommended to me quite a
    few times, but then I was like, wait, will it really be better than my
    Rode K2 tube mic? So I kinda stopped. The acoustication made the room
    dead....and different. I don't know if better or worst is the
    word....just different. The room is more bassy but quieter. I was
    pretty satisfied as it only cost me 2 hours of my time and $70...the
    room looks more professional...lol. There are no places around here to
    rent equipment...I've tried looking for a while and gave up. There are
    studios around...but how would I know it's the mic which is making me
    sound better, not their preamp, compressor, eq, interface, console,
    etc. So I didn't try that either. I compared the Eureka to the Avalon
    and it held its own...I was pretty surprised, so I didn't buy the
    Avalon 737SP.

    Here's the latest sample I have with the Rode K2, Eureka, acoustic
    foam, Mackie goin into a m-audio audiophile soundcard and being
    recorded in Adobe Audition. Don't mind my off pitched voice, I'm sick
    and I wrote that song in some unfriendly notes which my voice doesn't
    like.

    http://abnoticrecords.com/sample.mp3

    The sound is decent, but I WANT BETTER! lol. No, I'm not signed to some
    major label, but I do want to record an album in my studio and release
    about 10,000 copies. So yea, I do need pretty good quality sound. I
    don't want to record in someone else's studio because:

    1) I don't get to keep the equipment
    2) I'm limited to studio time
    3) I don't feel as comfortable recording the same part over and over
    again to get it just right when someone is constantly watching me.
    4)I don't get to keep the equipment.

    lol.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:


    > I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
    > sound with its eq.

    That could very well be your problem.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
    to go into my soundcard? Do I get a new, more versatile interface with
    XLR and 1/4" jacks or is there another way to do it? I tried using a
    m-audio Fast Track to get the Mackie out of the way and tried to follow
    your recommended settings the best I could (even though I didn't get
    some of the stuff you said)....the results were tragic. :-/ I don't
    mean to sound dumb, but...

    Here is a picture of the Eureka:
    http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=live/content/doc_id=91865/base_pid=184130

    You might start with 4:1 and 10 db of
    compression, with attack and release as fast as possible

    Okay, I turned the attack and release knobs all the way to the left
    because that's where is says "fast". I don't know what you mean by 10db
    and 4:1..hopefully not 10db of gain on the compressor...cuz that kills
    the sound....4:1...I have no clue what knob to touch and where to put
    it.

    Then if that
    sounds too smashed, increase the threshold so that you're compressing
    about
    6dB and listen again.

    Okay, I put thresh knob to number 6.

    Or, if it doesn't sound like enough, lower the
    threshold a little or increase the ratio to say 6:1

    Um...what...I see the ratio knob, what number do I put it to?

    You just need to learn
    how to use your EQ and compression; I don't think you've got the
    controls
    down quite yet. Note that what I said is a STARTING POINT, not carved
    in
    stone.

    Yes, I think you're right about me learning to use the EQ and
    compression better. My method is, keep the low end low, mid a little
    higher and the high end usually as much or a little higher than the
    mids. Then mess with all the knobs one by one seeing how the sound
    changes....then put each knob to the place where it sounds the best to
    my ears. Some knobs honestly make so little of a difference to my ears
    (and my friends' ears) that I don't really know where to put them. It
    would really be a nice lesson if you could tell me a little more about
    these things....Eureka is my first compressor....I never used a
    compressor personally before this...I just used a preamp straight into
    the interface with some eq.

    When I go to a studio, they have everything setup, and I just stand
    there and say check as they fix the knobs. I really can't see what
    they're doing. When I come home I need to learn everything by
    experimenting or of course, asking you guys.

    BTW, I was listening to the old recordings and some new recordings, and
    yea, the acoustication did make an improvement...thanks for the advice
    :-)

    I don't know what I would do without the internet and people like you
    helping people like me out with these questions. Yesterday I must have
    been on google groups for about 5 hours straight reading questions and
    replies. lol....I've learned a lot.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    > I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
    > decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
    > them

    The Shure SM-7 costs a LOT less, and will blow all other microphones away.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    > Not Necessarily. Don't fall into the usual trap of believing that a
    > condensor is always better than a dynamic mic, or that a higher price
    > tag automatically means "better".

    Right, as I have proven to other engineers, and also magazines like MIX and
    RadioWorld have also shown, the Shure SM-7 dynamic mic for around $400
    blows away $3000 mics like Neuman condensers.

    > you're willing to spend. Some really good mic's that should be easy to
    > rent for comparison are:
    >
    > Shure: SM-7

    There you go.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Truth wrote:

    > Right, as I have proven to other engineers, and also magazines like MIX and
    > RadioWorld have also shown, the Shure SM-7 dynamic mic for around $400
    > blows away $3000 mics like Neuman condensers.

    So the SM-7 creates some kind of huge wind?
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    agent86 wrote:

    > www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:

    > > I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
    > > sound with its eq.

    > That could very well be your problem.

    This is a job for the RNP from FMR. <g>

    --
    ha
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Truth wrote:

    > > I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
    > > decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
    > > them

    > The Shure SM-7 costs a LOT less, and will blow all other microphones away.

    That's why it's nicknamed "The Typhoon"...

    (Are you on a roll or just too many Spudnuts?)

    --
    ha
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Hassan Ansari wrote:
    > Did you guys listen to the sound from the link I posted? That might
    > help....

    First, you should be using the Mackie ONLY to mix your keyboards and drum
    machine, and possibly to monitor your soundcard. Don't use the Mackie EQ
    (or the Mackie at all) after the Eureka. Did you get the digital out card
    on the Eureka? If so, use it. Just switch between analog and digital ins
    in Audition, not a big deal, and you'll get a very clean path.

    Your vocals are muddy and have inconsistent level, so you need to work on
    your EQ and compression. Try starting with +4 @ 3.5k and +6 @ 12k, all
    bandwidth at 1 octave, and see if the vocal opens up for you. Don't add
    bass. Less bass = sharper imaging.

    Make sure you're a good 6-8" from the mic, and a foot back would not hurt.
    That'll clean up the low end.

    Hit the compression a little harder. You might start with 4:1 and 10 db of
    compression, with attack and release as fast as possible. Then if that
    sounds too smashed, increase the threshold so that you're compressing about
    6dB and listen again. Or, if it doesn't sound like enough, lower the
    threshold a little or increase the ratio to say 6:1. You just need to learn
    how to use your EQ and compression; I don't think you've got the controls
    down quite yet. Note that what I said is a STARTING POINT, not carved in
    stone. YYE. Learn.

    You don't need a new mic, and you don't need another channel strip. The K2
    and Eureka will get you there IF you learn how to use them. It just takes
    patience and practice. Run the Eureka *directly* into your computer,
    whether using the analog or digital ins. A veil will be lifted overall,
    and -- particularly -- you'll decrease the variables needed in achieving
    your sound.

    Mackie EQ is a last resort, and you should be far, far from that point with
    the Eureka. Make sure you are monitoring flat: no Mackie EQ, no bass or
    treble controls, no "loudness" control. Just as plain-jane as possible.
    Soundcard to amp would be ideal.

    And finally. The importance of good monitors cannot be overstated. A $3000
    channel strip or more expensive mic will be worthless if you can't hear what
    you're doing. And incidentally, with the VoxBox you are stuck with a set
    3:1 compression ratio. It's not the most versatile tool on the planet. If
    the EQ and compression starting points I gave you above don't sound like an
    immediate and drastic improvement, you need new monitors. A pair of JBL
    LSR-8s or Mackie 824s would be a good set to learn.

    The room sounds better.

    Jeff Jasper
    Jeff Jasper Productions, West Funroe, La.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <jZJzd.6535$za4.2704@bignews6.bellsouth.net> jakethedog@backyard.net writes:

    > > I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
    > > sound with its eq.
    >
    > That could very well be your problem.

    The Mackie mixer (in general)? The EQ? Or his ears?


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
    lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
    you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
    and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:02:42 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote
    (in article <znr1104113720k@trad>):

    >
    > In article <jZJzd.6535$za4.2704@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
    > jakethedog@backyard.net writes:
    >
    >>> I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
    >>> sound with its eq.
    >>
    >> That could very well be your problem.
    >
    > The Mackie mixer (in general)? The EQ? Or his ears?

    Yes.

    Smiles,

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Mike Rivers wrote:

    >
    > In article <jZJzd.6535$za4.2704@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
    > jakethedog@backyard.net writes:
    >
    >> > I'm running the preamp into a mackie 1202 which to my ears improves the
    >> > sound with its eq.
    >>
    >> That could very well be your problem.
    >
    > The Mackie mixer (in general)? The EQ? Or his ears?


    In another post, in another thread, he said that the Eureka sounded almost
    as good as an Avalon "to his ears".

    I'm not one of those Mackie bashers. I've got 2 use them regularly. But
    taking the output of most any standalone channel strip (with its own
    compression & EQ) & running it through most any budget mixer & adding more
    gain & more EQ is seldom going to improve things.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Yes, it does. I never said the Eureka's sound is bad...it's actually
    very impressive for the price....I'm just trying to improve it even
    further or get the best sound possible out of it. These guys keep
    telling me to take my Mackie out and make my life much harder :-(. lol.
    But hey, they know more than I do...so yea...
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Is there some mixer or interface I can use which would allow me to keep
    everything hooked up like I have it on the Mackie and at the same time
    not ruin the Eureka's quality? The Eureka has an XLR out and a TRS jack
    for outputs. I have my monitors, speakers, headphones, rca outs from my
    soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked up to the Mackie...how
    would I hook all of them up without the Mackie there? The Eureka
    doesn't have any head phone jacks either. Is there a way to hook up the
    Eureka to my Mackie and bypass the EQ or some mixer or interface which
    would work like the Mackie but not jeopardize my quality?
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Is there some mixer or interface I can use which would allow me to keep
    everything hooked up like I have it on the Mackie and at the same time
    not ruin the Eureka's quality? The Eureka has an XLR out and a TRS jack
    for outputs. I have my monitors, speakers, headphones, rca outs from my
    soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked up to the Mackie...how
    would I hook all of them up without the Mackie there? The Eureka
    doesn't have any head phone jacks either. Is there a way to hook up the
    Eureka to my Mackie and bypass the EQ or some mixer or interface which
    would work like the Mackie but not jeopardize my quality?
  21. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
    run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
    and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
    up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
    hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface which
    would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
    and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
    Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
    insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my Mackie's
    XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
    all my stuff organized and hooked up?
  22. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Okay, I did what you said immediately... I got the adapter and got the
    Mackie out of the way. Then I recorded the same thing through the
    Mackie without touching any settings on the Eureka. Here are the
    results:

    With Mackie:

    http://www.abnoticrecords.com/mackie.mp3
    http://www.abnoticrecords.com/nomackie.mp3
  23. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Sorry, I made a mistake...

    With Mackie:

    http://www.abnoticrecords.com/mackie.mp3
    No Mackie:

    http://www.abnoticrecords.com/nomackie.mp3
  24. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <vPOzd.24819$yv2.13740@fe2.texas.rr.com> machovox@jam.rr.com writes:

    > Your vocals are muddy and have inconsistent level, so you need to work on
    > your EQ and compression.

    How about working on microphone position and vocal technique? I see
    nothing that could be instantly improved by changing gear.
    Experimenting with compressor settings (and learning what each change
    does to the sound) would be quite helpful, too. A good way to learn
    about this is to record the vocal with no compression, being careful
    to set the level so that it doesn't clip and not worrying about the
    level being visually low on the DAW. Then put the compressor in the
    signal path on playback and playing with the knobs until things start
    sounding better.

    > You don't need a new mic, and you don't need another channel strip. The K2
    > and Eureka will get you there IF you learn how to use them. It just takes
    > patience and practice.

    Yup. And even with the best equipment, it takes a good singer to make
    a good sounding recording of a singer. As you listen to your
    unadultereated vocal recordings, you'll eventually turn out better
    recordings. But it takes months or even years, not just the time to go
    to your local music store and buy something.

    > And finally. The importance of good monitors cannot be overstated. A $3000
    > channel strip or more expensive mic will be worthless if you can't hear what
    > you're doing.

    Also, a $3,000 monitor system will not be much better than what you
    have if there is an acoustical problem in your listening room. But
    even with less than stellar monitoring you can make a reasonable
    comparison between your recordings and commerical recordings that you
    like. It's not a good single way to make final judgements, but you can
    learn what the knobs do by listening this way.


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
    lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
    you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
    and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  25. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <1104137013.169466.74080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> AbnoticCo@aol.com writes:

    > Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
    > to go into my soundcard? Do I get a new, more versatile interface with
    > XLR and 1/4" jacks or is there another way to do it?

    You get adapters or cables that match the connectors on the Eureka
    output on one end and match the connectors on your sound card on the
    other end. I would suggest a patchbay as a good solution that will let
    you easily experiement with various pieces of gear in different
    arrangements. That way, you only need to make or buy cables to connect
    each piece of gear to the patchbay. Then, you need only one kind of
    cable to connect between patchbay jacks.


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
    lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
    you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
    and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  26. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    hank alrich Dec 27, 1:32 pm show options

    Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
    From: walki...@thegrid.net (hank alrich) - Find messages by this author

    Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:32:56 GMT
    Local: Mon, Dec 27 2004 1:32 pm
    Subject: Re: Microphone upgrade
    Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
    original | Report Abuse


    www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy <Abnoti...@aol.com> wrote:

    > Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
    > run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
    > and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
    > up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
    > hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface
    which
    > would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
    > and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
    > Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
    > insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my
    Mackie's
    > XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
    > all my stuff organized and hooked up?


    Speck LiLo mixer.

    http://www.speck.com/lilo/lilo.shtml


    --
    ha


    Very funny...will you buy it for me? lol. The thing does look pretty
    interesting though.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    >
    >Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
    >to go into my soundcard?

    Take the output of Your Eureka directly into the sound card. Don't use the
    Mackie for the recording part.

    Do I get a new, more versatile interface with
    >XLR and 1/4" jacks or is there another way to do it? I tried using a
    >m-audio Fast Track to get the Mackie out of the way and tried to follow
    >your recommended settings the best I could (even though I didn't get
    >some of the stuff you said)....the results were tragic. :-/ I don't
    >mean to sound dumb, but...
    >
    >Here is a picture of the Eureka:
    >
    >http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=live/content/doc_id=91865/base_pid=
    184130

    That looks like a pretty decent piece of gear, and you should read the manual
    thoroughly and learn what each of the functions does.


    >
    >You might start with 4:1 and 10 db of
    >compression, with attack and release as fast as possible


    A starting point, but not the end point. That will provide compression that you
    can hear, but the best compression is usually very transparent.

    >
    >Okay, I turned the attack and release knobs all the way to the left
    >because that's where is says "fast". I don't know what you mean by 10db

    10dB of Gain Reduction Yoour unit has a button for GR to meter.

    >and 4:1..hopefully not 10db of gain on the compressor...cuz that kills
    >the sound....4:1...I have no clue what knob to touch and where to put
    >it.
    >

    >Then if that
    >sounds too smashed, increase the threshold so that you're compressing
    >about
    >6dB and listen again.
    >
    >Okay, I put thresh knob to number 6.
    >
    >Or, if it doesn't sound like enough, lower the
    >threshold a little or increase the ratio to say 6:1
    >
    >Um...what...I see the ratio knob, what number do I put it to?

    Start with 4 then turn to 6 and see what it does

    >
    >You just need to learn
    >how to use your EQ and compression; I don't think you've got the
    >controls
    >down quite yet. Note that what I said is a STARTING POINT, not carved
    >in
    >stone.
    >
    >Yes, I think you're right about me learning to use the EQ and
    >compression better. My method is, keep the low end low, mid a little
    >higher and the high end usually as much or a little higher than the
    >mids. Then mess with all the knobs one by one seeing how the sound
    >changes....then put each knob to the place where it sounds the best to
    >my ears. Some knobs honestly make so little of a difference to my ears
    >(and my friends' ears) that I don't really know where to put them.

    First, you need to actually listen to what you are hearing. Setting EQ knobs
    and compressors requires a great deal of practice in order to obtain a decent
    sound, and that is only useful after you have obtained the best sound available
    from microphone choice and placement.

    Many of the people who post here could make a very professional recording using
    SM 57's with a decent preamp. (Probably not Mackie because they don't work well
    with 57's) They could make stellar recordings with your microphones and Eureka
    channel strip.

    You can't mix or record according to a formula and you won't learn how to do it
    in a couple of days on RAP.

    Buy Bobby Owinski's book on engineering and attemp to understand what he is
    teaching.


    It
    >would really be a nice lesson if you could tell me a little more about
    >these things....Eureka is my first compressor....I never used a
    >compressor personally before this...I just used a preamp straight into
    >the interface with some eq.


    You don't necessarily need to compress and you can use your Eureka as a preamp
    straight into your interface.


    >
    >When I go to a studio, they have everything setup, and I just stand
    >there and say check as they fix the knobs. I really can't see what
    >they're doing. When I come home I need to learn everything by
    >experimenting or of course, asking you guys.
    >
    >BTW, I was listening to the old recordings and some new recordings, and
    >yea, the acoustication did make an improvement...thanks for the advice
    >:-)
    >
    >I don't know what I would do without the internet and people like you
    >helping people like me out with these questions. Yesterday I must have
    >been on google groups for about 5 hours straight reading questions and
    >replies. lol....I've learned a lot.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Richard H. Kuschel
    "I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
  28. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
    > Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
    > run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
    > and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
    > up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
    > hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface
    which
    > would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
    > and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
    > Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
    > insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my
    Mackie's
    > XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
    > all my stuff organized and hooked up?

    I believe that the title "Prodigy" is one best left
    bestowed on one by someone other than one's self.

    RD
  29. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Yes, and if you noticed, I changed it to Writer / Singer / Rapper /
    Producer before you even posted. In addition, I have several emails and
    mails from fans telling me I'm a teen prodigy...

    What I'm posting on this board is nothing but trash I'm recording in 20
    seconds to get a feeling of the recording quality. You should hear some
    of my studio recorded tracks if you like hip hop or r&b...they are as
    good as any mainstream artist my age...and again...those aren't my
    words...I've been told that by hundreds, if not a few thousand people.

    But that's not what this post is about...I'm seeking help to gain more
    knowledge from more experienced people than I and improve sound quality
    in my own studio.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Hassan,

    Let me start by saying, anyone who makes ignorant statements like my
    Shure SM-7 smokes his U87 or my $275 ART pre-amp blows away your $2000
    Universal Audio 6176 etc. etc. are fools to be ignored! There are
    100's of big time releases done on Shure SM57's! If you're only
    cursing into it and melody, arrangement and vocal intimacy aren't an
    issue why blow your money? If you're recording a Marshall stack you
    might not find a better mic than a $75 SM57! If Sting comes to your
    studio to record a vocal track, he's not even going to let you pull out
    a Shure! He's going to want to hear the mucous on his lungs dripping
    down into his bowels and he's knows he's always gotten that with his
    U87.

    As for your comparison between the Eureka and the Avalon 737. I can
    tell you now, the Avalon like the UA 1176, or the UA LA2A or the
    Pultec Eq are no longer up for higher criticism. As long as you have
    Sony Records, Disney Productions, The Record Plant, MCA Records and all
    the giants they've recorded standing behind the sound quality
    delivered by these vintage pieces of gear, our opinions don't much
    matter when stacked up against their results!

    If I were you, I would focus on creating inspired music with the best
    equipment I could afford. Buy fewer pieces of higher quality. And
    most of all, be different! Only fools have idols and use their own
    life to emulate another's persona! If singing through a toilet paper
    roll for compression works for you, do it! And if you ever wonder if
    something is of any value, go to Ebay and type it in. Type in any
    major microphone name or pre-amp. You'll get a pretty good gage on
    what's vintage and what chipmunk hype!


    Joe Sensor wrote:
    > Jim Kollens wrote:
    >
    >
    > > You, unquestionably, are the greatest teen prodigy I know. It is a
    great honor
    > > to know you and I don't even know you. There should be a song
    written about
    > > knowing you. If I knew you, I would offer you my finest cognac,
    but then, you
    > > are, after all, a teenager. Pity.
    >
    > A teenager with a big head. Seems like there are too many of those
    > lately. I think talent is a better trait.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer"
    <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1104172691.151656.186970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Is there some mixer or interface I can use which would allow me to keep
    > everything hooked up like I have it on the Mackie and at the same time
    > not ruin the Eureka's quality? The Eureka has an XLR out and a TRS jack
    > for outputs. I have my monitors, speakers, headphones, rca outs from my
    > soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked up to the Mackie...how
    > would I hook all of them up without the Mackie there? The Eureka
    > doesn't have any head phone jacks either. Is there a way to hook up the
    > Eureka to my Mackie and bypass the EQ or some mixer or interface which
    > would work like the Mackie but not jeopardize my quality?

    Here is the dirty little secret of audio engineering: Every piece of active
    circuitry you put into the audio chain degrades the signal. Everything.
    Sometimes the degradation is subtle enough to be inaudible (but it's usually
    measurable), sometimes it's audible. The tradeoff is that sometimes the
    piece of gear that's causing the degradation does enough good things to the
    sound (like compressing the way you like, or EQing the way you like) to
    outweigh the degradation. Sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time, I'd put
    the Mackie in the latter category. The only thing it's gaining you is a
    semblance of convenience. It's losing you lots of sound quality.

    Yes, there are boards out there which degrade the sound much less than the
    Mackie. They cost a lot more -- a LOT more -- than the Mackie, and it's
    worth noting that these days many studios, even though they have boards
    (consoles) that cost more than the average house, still run from the
    microphone preamp directly into the recorder or computer, bypassing the
    board completely.

    To go from your Eureka to your sound card, what you need is a cable. That's
    all. Well, since TRS is a balanced circuit and the soundcard you have is
    unbalanced, you need a bit of adaptation. So do this: Go down to Radio Shack
    and buy an adapter with a stereo 1/4" male plug (that's TRS) and two RCA
    female jacks. Connect an RCA-RCA cable from the white RCA jack to the input
    of your soundcard. Don't connect anything to the red jack. You now have the
    Eureka connected as cleanly as is possible in this imperfect world. Keep an
    eye on the meters in your recording program, making sure you don't overload
    the sound card by driving it too hard; the meter on the Eureka, in this
    application, is useful for indicating gain reduction on its compressor, but
    as far as output level is concerned, believe the meters in your software,
    not the one on the Eureka.

    You can, if you like, keep using the Mackie for monitoring. In the long run,
    though, you may decide to run the outputs of the sound card through
    something like a passive volume control to the power amp for your monitors,
    and use the Mackie only as a headphone amp. But start out by connecting the
    Eureka to the soundcard as outlined above. My guess is that your sound
    quality will suddenly improve dramatically.

    Peace,
    Paul
  32. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy" <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1104172199.631882.150660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
    > run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
    > and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
    > up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
    > hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface which
    > would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
    > and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
    > Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
    > insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my Mackie's
    > XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
    > all my stuff organized and hooked up?

    Oh yeah, that's another thing. The XLR out on the Eureka is at "line level",
    which is way the hell hotter than the Mackie is expecting to see at its mic
    input, so you're probably causing horrendous distortion in the Mackie by
    doing this. But you really don't need to have the Mackie in the recording
    chain at all; see my other post in this thread.

    Peace,
    Paul
  33. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer wrote:


    > What I'm posting on this board is nothing but trash I'm recording in 20
    > seconds


    Well thanks much. Now I am glad I didn't take the time.


    > You should hear some
    > of my studio recorded tracks if you like hip hop or r&b...

    Guess I'll have to pass on that as well. Besides, you already been told
    100's or 1000's of times. I am but just one lowly opinion.


    > But that's not what this post is about...I'm seeking help to gain more
    > knowledge from more experienced people than I and improve sound quality
    > in my own studio.

    Trial and error. And of course ears. You gots em or you don't.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    So, can you hear any difference? If not, it doesn't matter.

    Al

    On 27 Dec 2004 12:33:51 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
    / Rapper / Producer" <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

    >Sorry, I made a mistake...
    >
    >With Mackie:
    >
    >http://www.abnoticrecords.com/mackie.mp3
    >No Mackie:
    >
    >http://www.abnoticrecords.com/nomackie.mp3
  35. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

    > Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
    > run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
    > and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
    > up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
    > hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface which
    > would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
    > and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
    > Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
    > insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my Mackie's
    > XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
    > all my stuff organized and hooked up?

    Speck LiLo mixer.

    http://www.speck.com/lilo/lilo.shtml

    --
    ha
  36. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Thanks for the help Mike...I appreciate it a lot. I will try to get
    someone who knows about wiring to make me something like that. And
    while reading your post I was thinking...there are 2 chanels on the
    Mackie where you can pretty much bypass the eq and they have 1/4"
    inputs. I can take my Eureka's TRS, put it into those jacks without any
    eq so the sound is nuetral and get it out to my soundcard....I don't
    know if that's the same thing you said, but while reading your post I
    kinda got that in mind.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    I can deffinetly hear a difference...the sound going into my Mackie
    sounds better on singing and without the Mackie it's more fuller and
    better for my hip hop vocals....well that's how it sounds to me.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    And thanks playon, these guys are making a big deal out of nothing...

    I'm not thick headed people, I just have a lot of confidence in my
    talent.

    When was the last time a 15 year old came by and posted a thread like
    this and took all the advice given asking one question after another
    and showing respect to all the people helping him out? I'm just trying
    to learn.

    AND OF COURSE I AM NOT GOING TO RECORD TRACKS FOR 2 HOURS EACH JUST TO
    HEAR THE QUALITY OF THE RECORDING! I'm recording the vocals raw without
    adding any adlibs, reverb, eq, compression, etc in my software. If I
    took those recordings I posted the links to, made a nice instrumental
    to them and polished them up with VST plug-ins...of course they gonna
    sound much better. This is my raw work...what do you expect? Yea, I'm
    talkin to you Joe....do you want to hear my vocal abilities or my
    studio's quality? My studio's quality is easily heard with these
    "trash" recordings...and no, they are not my best work...they are just
    recordings to get a hint of the sound quality...not a hint of my talent.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    >Sorry, I made a mistake...
    >
    >With Mackie:
    >
    >http://www.abnoticrecords.com/mackie.mp3
    >No Mackie:
    >
    >http://www.abnoticrecords.com/nomackie.mp3
    >
    >

    The Mackie sounds a lot thinner. It's brighter, but that I would expect.

    Richard H. Kuschel
    "I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
  40. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Teen Prodigy: << ...I've been told that by hundreds, if not a few thousand
    people. >>

    You, unquestionably, are the greatest teen prodigy I know. It is a great honor
    to know you and I don't even know you. There should be a song written about
    knowing you. If I knew you, I would offer you my finest cognac, but then, you
    are, after all, a teenager. Pity.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jim Kollens wrote:


    > You, unquestionably, are the greatest teen prodigy I know. It is a great honor
    > to know you and I don't even know you. There should be a song written about
    > knowing you. If I knew you, I would offer you my finest cognac, but then, you
    > are, after all, a teenager. Pity.

    A teenager with a big head. Seems like there are too many of those
    lately. I think talent is a better trait.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Hey Hassan it's a tough crowd around here. I liked your little
    throw-away rap... most of these guys are getting old and grumpy so
    take it with a grain of salt & don't let them rain on your parade.

    Al

    On 28 Dec 2004 01:33:40 GMT, jimkollens@aol.com (Jim Kollens) wrote:

    >Teen Prodigy: << ...I've been told that by hundreds, if not a few thousand
    >people. >>
    >
    >You, unquestionably, are the greatest teen prodigy I know. It is a great honor
    >to know you and I don't even know you. There should be a song written about
    >knowing you. If I knew you, I would offer you my finest cognac, but then, you
    >are, after all, a teenager. Pity.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "SongCzar" <songczar@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1104203786.890059.197160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >If Sting comes to your
    > studio to record a vocal track, he's not even going to let you pull out
    > a Shure! He's going to want to hear the mucous on his lungs dripping
    > down into his bowels and he's knows he's always gotten that with his
    > U87.

    So what's the best mic for under $200 to record dripping mucous?

    :D

    Neil Henderson
  44. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    My first response would be that looking at the end you sing into, which
    appears to be a couple of fine mics, is the wrong starting point. A) if you
    move the Eureka out of the line and like the Mackie by itself better (as you
    said), then at least that's one step forward. B) if you want even better,
    then look at the pres and see what might benefit you if you absolutely HAVE
    to spend money (like money burning a hole in your pocket), but for all
    practical purposes if you can't get a good recording with your existing
    equipment then I'd start looking at your gain staging and your recording
    methods, your placement of the mic in the room (which you mentioned is now
    dead) and the placement of yourself as you sing into the mic.

    But if you can't get something good with what you have, it's not the
    equipment that's the problem.

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio

    "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy" <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1104047478.886220.256770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
    > decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
    > them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
    > using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
    > would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
    > dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann? The
    > only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on my
    > voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
    > voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
    > with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
    > with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a Neumann
    > TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
    > should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a setup
    > with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
    > respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way I'm
    > gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again and
    > again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
    > instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low, distorted,
    > not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
    > out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
    > difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
    > equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff are a
    > good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for my
    > room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other thing
    > I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than I
    > am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
    > are using?
    >
  45. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I'm sick too. Ok, climbing into
    the Wayback Machine...

    Hassan Ansari wrote:
    > Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
    > to go into my soundcard?

    The easiest way, and one which allows you to avoid building a patch panel,
    is go to Radio Shack and get the 4-pushbutton input A/V switch box with the
    3 RCAs per input, and connect it between the Mackie and Eureka and the
    RCA-ins on your sound card. While you're there, also get an XLR
    Female-to1/4" Male transformer adapter to convert the XLR-out on your Eureka
    to unbalanced 1/4". Then use a 1/4" female-to-RCA male to connect the
    Eureka to one of the inputs on the switch box. You can have the Eureka on
    Input A and the Mackie on Input B and easily punch between them as needed.
    I'll probably get flamed for telling you to use Radio Shack transformers,
    but they're cheap and they work. While you're at Radio Shack, make sure you
    have whatever adaptors and cables needed to make it work, probably at least
    a couple more RCA-RCAs. Radio Shack stuff isn't the best, but it's
    convenient and if you get a bad cable you can take it back.

    > Okay, I turned the attack and release knobs all the way to the left
    > because that's where is says "fast". I don't know what you mean by 10db
    > and 4:1..hopefully not 10db of gain on the compressor...cuz that kills
    > the sound....4:1...I have no clue what knob to touch and where to put
    > it.

    You got the attack and release right. Put the ratio knob on 4:1. Set the
    VU meter to gain reduction. Then while singing into the mic, adjust the
    threshold knob until the meter kicks back to around -10dB on the loud parts.
    I also suggest you push in the "soft knee" button for smoother compressor
    action.

    > Okay, I put thresh knob to number 6.

    No, you have to use the meter, ignore the markings on the threshold knob for
    now.

    > Some knobs honestly make so little of a difference to my ears
    > (and my friends' ears) that I don't really know where to put them.

    The EQ control marked "Q" is the bandwidth control. It adjusts the width of
    the response peak or dip and can come in handy after a lot of practice. But
    for now, just leave them all set on 2, the mid position, as the other
    controls will have much more impact at this point.

    The effect of the "soft knee" button is somewhat subtle until you know what
    you're listening for. Just know for now that you'll get a smoother sound
    with it engaged. The "saturate" knob is useless marketing bull, and make
    sure it is always on 0 for a clean sound. The "impedance" knob should be
    all the way to the right unless you're using a ribbon mic. You can play
    with the effect of input impedance later as it is also rather subtle.

    So lets make sure you've got this thing set up for good gain structure.
    We'll move left to right across the front panel.

    First put the impedance knob all the way to the right and the saturate knob
    all the way to the left. Now you can set the input gain on the preamp.
    While singing loudly, increase the gain knob until the 0 dB LED blinks. The
    clip LED should never blink, it is a true warning light.

    Now get some initial settings on the compressor. A starting point. Push in
    the "GR to Meter" button at the far right so that the meter will switch to
    gain reduction mode. Compression is the automatic reduction of gain. Set
    the side chain high pass knob all the way to the left to take it out of the
    circuit for now. Set the attack and release all the way to fast. Engage
    the "soft knee" button. Set the ratio control to 4:1. Now, while singing,
    adjust the threshold knob until the meter is kicking back to about -10 dB on
    the loud parts. This will make the overall volume lower, so you may have
    to turn up the compressor output "gain" knob some to compensate.

    Now set the EQ. My usual preference would be to have the compressor before
    the EQ, so leave the EQ>Comp button out. Turn all the Q controls to 2. Set
    the low freq to 80 for future use, but set the low gain to 0, no boost or
    cut. Set the mid freq to 2.8kHz and the mid gain to +4 dB. Sorry I didn't
    know the mids only went up to 2.8k before. Just go with it for now. Now
    set the high freq to 12kHz and the high gain to +6. These settings will
    sound VERY bright in your headphones, but will make the vocal sit better in
    the mix. And remember, we're just creating a starting point right now. You
    can play with variations later to get a feel for what's going on.

    Now the Master output gain (level). You can leave the "GR to Meter" button
    engaged, as you need to adjust the output gain while looking at the meter in
    Audition, not on the Eureka. While singing loudly, adjust the output gain
    so that the meter in Audition hits up to about -10 to -6 dB, and never hits
    0 dB. That'll give you a good playback level, but with some margin of error
    for the loudest parts. Some of the guys will be more conservative and tell
    you to set it even lower; I'm just telling you what I like.

    Now you're set to a good starting place. The input preamp won't hiss or
    distort, the compressor will be quite obviously riding gain on your voice,
    and the EQ will be very bright to match the clarity of your backing tracks.
    Try recording a full song with these settings and see how the vocal now sits
    in the mix more clearly. Then try changing one knob at a time and listen to
    the effect that knob has. That's the way to learn.

    Somebody mentioned getting Bobby Owsinski's book, and that's a good idea.
    The more your read and experiment, the more will gel in your mind about
    what's going on with your controls. It also pays to read the Eureka manual
    more than once; it should be regular bathroom literature until you know it
    inside out. At Results Video, we called that the Christian Science Reading
    Room due to the number of epiphanies causing guys to call Jesus' name in
    exclamation. At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;-)

    Mike Rivers is a little sensitive about people dissing Mackie, as he's done
    a lot of good work for those guys and they do make good gear. I've used a
    lot of Mackie gear myself, and still use an 8-bus to monitor and for non-mic
    inputs. Having the switchbox to select between the Mackie and the Eureka
    just helps keep your soundcard input path as clean as possible. If you had
    a bunch of separate components you really would need a patch panel instead,
    but the switchbox is really, really convenient. I've also used one as a
    SMPTE sync router to sync my workstation to various video sources, but
    that's not something for you to bother with unless you're doing audio for
    video.

    Happy Editing.

    Jeff Jasper
    Jeff Jasper Productions, West Funroe, La.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 25 Dec 2004 23:51:18 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
    <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

    >I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
    >decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
    >them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
    >using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
    >would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
    >dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann?


    Better equipment will maybe add a few percent to an otherwise great
    recording. Look to your performance, the room and your recording
    technique. What are you doing right on the good recordings you've
    made? What are you doing wrong on the bad ones? Sort that out before
    throwing money around. The problem isn't the gear.

    CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
    "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
  47. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 27 Dec 2004 00:43:33 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
    <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

    >Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
    >to go into my soundcard?

    What a strange question :-)

    Indeed, if you insist in feeding the soundcard from the Mackie RCA
    outs, that is what you'll feed it from. Maybe you could feed it
    from something else?

    CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
    "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
  48. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 27 Dec 2004 00:43:33 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
    <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

    >Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
    >to go into my soundcard? Do I get a new, more versatile interface with
    >XLR and 1/4" jacks or is there another way to do it?

    Adaptor cables. Or a patchbay.

    CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
    "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
  49. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 27 Dec 2004 11:05:56 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
    <AbnoticCo@aol.com> wrote:

    >Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
    >run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
    >and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
    >up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
    >hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface which
    >would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
    >and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
    >Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
    >insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my Mackie's
    >XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
    >all my stuff organized and hooked up?


    Is the Eureka's XLR out a mic level signal? I suspect it's line
    level, which will overload the Mackie mic input. Use the jack
    output to Line in on the Mackie.

    You seem over-concerned with the connector type. You should worry
    more about what electrical signal it carries. Adaptor cables are
    easy to make. An XLR may be carrying line level, mic level (or a few
    other things). So may a 1/4" jack.

    CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
    "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Microphone Audio