$500 Audio chain upgrade?

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

Hi all, I'm looking for recommendations on upgrading my audio chain.
My current signal path goes like this:

AT 4040 or SM 57 -> Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro preamps using the channels
insert outputs to skip the Mackie's EQ, etc -> Echo Mia card ->
Cubase SX1 running on Windows XP.

My initial gut feeling is that I should upgrade my preamp to a real
preamp and am looking at getting a RNP, but wanted to check here to see
what other people thought.

More details:

I am not unhappy with my current recordings, but I know that I am using
entry level equipment and feel the time has come where I should upgrade
my equipment.

I only record one or two channels at a time- I do not track drums at
home as I do not have a proper room for drums. I only track guitars,
bass, vocals, etc. The type of music that I make is rock. I use some
soft synths.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

Thanks,

~jason

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

Well...
If you have $500 burning a hole in your pocket, the RNP is hard to beat
for a preamp selection. I also like the Grace 101 preamp. You may find
your SM57 sounds better with those preamps than with your Mackie pre's.

Another suggestion is to get your hands on a few more microphones.
Having a few different dynamic mics at your disposal can help you catch
some different kinds of sounds. For $500, you could get several great
mics.

Scott's suggestion about your monitoring environment is the gospel
truth, however you might not be able to accomplish much in that area
with $500 except maybe some sonic treatments to walls / floor.

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

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

Geetar Dave wrote:
>
> Scott's suggestion about your monitoring environment is the gospel
> truth, however you might not be able to accomplish much in that area
> with $500 except maybe some sonic treatments to walls / floor.

.... which would be a VERY wise place to spend your hard-earned cash.
<http://www.realtraps.com/>

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

Jason wrote:
> Hi all, I'm looking for recommendations on upgrading my audio chain.
> My current signal path goes like this:
>
> AT 4040 or SM 57 -> Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro preamps using the channels
> insert outputs to skip the Mackie's EQ, etc -> Echo Mia card ->
> Cubase SX1 running on Windows XP.
>
> My initial gut feeling is that I should upgrade my preamp to a real
> preamp and am looking at getting a RNP, but wanted to check here to see
> what other people thought.
>
> More details:
>
> I am not unhappy with my current recordings, but I know that I am using
> entry level equipment and feel the time has come where I should upgrade
> my equipment.
>
> I only record one or two channels at a time- I do not track drums at
> home as I do not have a proper room for drums. I only track guitars,
> bass, vocals, etc. The type of music that I make is rock. I use some
> soft synths.
>
> Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~jason

Jason,
The 1202 pres aren't to bad. I replaced my Echo Gina24 with a Lynx
L22. I think the Lynx sounds better. I agree that you should consider
your room acoustics. I have some Auralex diffusers and 4 Real Trap
bass traps.
Check the http://www.realtraps.com/ web site for some ideas about
setting up your room properly. Great gear won't sound good in a bad
room. I'd spend the $500.00 on room treaments.

DaveT

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:24:56 GMT, "Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Those mics are fine and the VLZ's are fine, especially for what you pay for
>them. That being said the SM57->VLZ is one the most horrible combinations
>I've ever had the displeasure of hearing. I wouldn't even want to use it for
>live sound.

This keeps being said. What are the characteristics of this
nastiness? Presumably it also applies to the SM58? I guess we're
not talking audiophile nit-picking here, so the incompatibility is
measurable and we know the reason? What is the reason?

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

Laurence Payne <lp@laurenceNOSPAMpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:24:56 GMT, "Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Those mics are fine and the VLZ's are fine, especially for what you pay for
>>them. That being said the SM57->VLZ is one the most horrible combinations
>>I've ever had the displeasure of hearing. I wouldn't even want to use it for
>>live sound.
>
>This keeps being said. What are the characteristics of this
>nastiness? Presumably it also applies to the SM58? I guess we're
>not talking audiophile nit-picking here, so the incompatibility is
>measurable and we know the reason? What is the reason?

The reason is that the SM-57 (and the SM-58, which is the same thing with
a wad of foam in front) wants to see a very low-impedance load that is
slightly inductive. If it sees a resistive 5K-or-so load, the diaphragm
is not damped down enough. Dynamic mikes rely on the load impedance of
the preamp to provide some of their damping; the more efficient a mike
is, the more this is usually the case. So changes in the load impedance
will result in changes in the frequency and width of the main diaphragm
resonance.

I am willing to bet that an LC shunt network across the input of the
preamp would fix the problem nicely but I haven't actually tried it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

Agent 86 <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:
>
>According to the MAckie manual, the mic input impedance of the XDR preamps
>is 1.3K (resistive I presume). I seem to recall Dan Kennedy posting here
>that the mic input impedance of the original GR is around 1.2K. Granted,
>there's a transformer in there & we're talking apples to oranges, but as
>far as actual impedance numbers, that doesn't seem like a really big
>difference, which would imply the inductance part might be the more
>important issue. But since there's a transformer in the mic, doesn't the
>cartridge see an inductive load anyway? And if you put another transformer
>after it, why wouldn't THAT transformer need to see an inductive load as
>well?

In a perfect world, the transformer perfectly reflects the load that it
sees on the secondary. In the real world, that doesn't really happen
but it's very clear that the secondary load does affect the primary
source impedance.

Take an SM-58 ball off and tap on the diaphragm and feel it. Then short
pins 2 and 3 on the jack and tap on it again. It feels physically much
harder.

You can do the same thing with a speaker and it's much more dramatic,
but if you do it on an SM-58 it at least shows you how the transformer
inside doesn't change the effect all THAT much.

>> I am willing to bet that an LC shunt network across the input of the
>> preamp would fix the problem nicely but I haven't actually tried it.
>
>Certainly cheaper than buying a bunch of different transformers until you
>find the right one.

I can mention a bunch of "right ones" including the Jensens that the
original GR uses.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news9ebpf$ec3

>
> I am willing to bet that an LC shunt network across the input of the
> preamp would fix the problem nicely but I haven't actually tried it.


Or a 820R resistor ?

geoff

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

In article <GKKdnYNPtcLCdSffRVn-sQ@comcast.com> mylastsigh@comcast.net writes:

> Interesting that Mackie, who seems targeted to low-end home/rock recordists
> with the 1202, 1402, etc, would make a pre that sounds so crummy with the
> most popular home/rock recording microphone!

They like the sound because it cuts through a mix better than a nice
warm, smooth vocal.

The Mackie Onyx 800R (8 preamps in a box) has an impedance switch on
the first two channels. It covers a pretty wide range, 300 to 2400
ohms, all with inductors, capacitors and resistors - not a transformer
in sight. I find that every mic that I have sounds best on the 1300 or
2400 ohm positions. I don't have any SM-57s, but I have some assorted
dynamics and Beyer ribbons, as well as transformer and transformerless
condenser mics.


--
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

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

On 24 Jun 2005 17:32:03 -0700, "Jason" <jpulp@yahoo.com> wrote:

>My current desires for improvement are:

> 2) Recording my voice. I think this might be a mic issue with the
>AT 4040- my voice sounds pretty dark in the recordings and I end up
>adding a bit in the 2-3k range in EQ.


And you say the SM57 doesn't sound good either? The presence peak on
the 57 sounds like just what you might need to bring out the 2 - 3 kHz
range. If you want to spend most of the $500 on a single mic, you
might try an SM-7.


>My biggest vice is that my computer constantly crashes, but I blame
>that on the fact that I am sharing my recording PC with my wife, who
>uses it for homework, surfing the net, etc. I am going to be getting a
>seperate computer for recording in the next couple of weeks (I got a
>bonus at work and am using that toward computer/upgrades).

Great idea. Newer XP machines are so stable I find myself reading
e-mail surfing the net working ms word or any number of things while
I'm recording or processing non-critical audio, ie minidiscs transfers
and stuff. I don't get any crashes or gaps in the audio or anything
like used to happen on my old 98 machine if I tried to do anything
while recording. I still don't recommend screwing around with other
programs for anything that matters, just an indication you will be
very happy with your new computer.

>
>I know I have a very limited mic selection, but honestly, I almost
>never use the SM 57 because I don't like the way it sounds on anything
>I record with it- the 4040 always sounds better.

Given only 2 mics to choose from these 2 are a good choice. Still,
I'd probably get something else too. Not necessarily the SM-7. I'd
rather change the mic first instead of adding eq if I'm not getting
what I want out of a mic.

>However, I do not know if that mic is the best mic for my voice, but I
>guess my fear is that I am not getting what I can get out of my mics by
>not having a quality preamp, and I would fear adding any more mics
>without having that base taken care of first.

I didn't get what you were using as preamp.

I may be wrong, but I get the learning to mix part may be what to
focus on.

>As far as monitoring, I am not sure how much I would be
>able to upgrade from Tannoy Reveals for $500- any ideas? Any thoughts
>about my microphone/preamp quandary?

I like Tannoys. Get better Tannoys? Better effects? I don't know
what you are already using for preamps?

Julian