Members joshcamp Posted March 21, 2011 Members Share Posted March 21, 2011 I am looking to upgrade my setup.I am using a PC with Sonar X1 pro in 64 bit I have a Lynx L22 PCI card, a UA LA610, a MXL V69M mic and a SM57 with a senn e609 on the way. I use AKG monitor headphones and wharfdale monitors (i know, not the best) and i use the headphones in most cases ... That's pretty much it this far.. I do want to upgrade my condensor mic, but what should my next step/addition be ? a converter or sorts ?? ad or da or both ? why in either case ? I mostly go for best value over most expensive.. any thoughts?oh, and i mostly do pop / rock style... mostly use drum loops, and record vox and acoustic guitars mic'd. electric gtrs sometimes micd /sometimes DI / bass almost always DI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted March 22, 2011 Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 If the 2 I/O of the Lynx fits your needs, I doubt there is another converter/interface that would be head and shoulders about it sound wise. Some may be a bit better, but the Lynx Aurora (which is suppose to have the same converters) is already one of the higher end pieces. So that shouldn't be a concern as long as 2 channels is all you need. Next up I would say would be your monitoring situation. If you have the ability a treated room could work wonders for you. I'm not familiar with the Wharfdale monitors, but in a treated room can probably do just fine. Once you have that out of the way, it's all about the mics and pres. You already have a nice pre with the UA610. Maybe add something a bit cleaner ala Grace 101, or punchy like an API? There is also the FMR RNP. Just thoughts. And there are lots of nice condensers. Just kind of depends on your use and budget. Can't hardly go wrong with something like an AKG 414. But there are lots of options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mixwell Posted March 22, 2011 Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 The FMR RNP is a big "no brainer", as it is a low noise "clean" microphone preamplifier that is built well [right in the US] and sounds great for anything. It is a highly affordable product with a way more expensive sound quality. Adjacent to the 610, there will be a totally different result. Less color, no harmonic additions to the sources, and enough gain to drive low output microphones. I would also suggest checking out the API A2D for adding a Complete Front end/AD solution to the Lynx Card, which I think is a great product for the money. It is on the higher end with regard to price tag, so I am not sure if I am recommending hardware outside your budget. I think the L22 will be perfectly acceptable for monitoring [perhaps with an external monitor controller that has some helpful trimmings] and I think you will appreciate the A2D's "weighty" character in a setup like this, but overall has a very high res sound quality and the microphone preamps are certainly different than the 610. They are high gain, high headroom and have a lot of punch and drive where it counts. The instrument inputs are fantastic sounding and I love using them from everything to bass to machine drums and synth. They are wide ranging on input so as to accommodate different sources. The AD converter will add to the channel count of your system, if you plan to continue to use the Lynx ADA. You would attach the the A2D to the AES or SPDIF input of the L22 card and then clock the system so it is aligned. I would probably make the A2D the master, if it steps into the role of being the most important ADC. I hope this is of assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 23, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 23, 2011 I figured the lynx was a good card.. I was thinking on getting better mics - perhaps that's where I'll look. the akg 414 is on my list. I am happy at present with just 2 channels. so no need to expand on that. I do have a safe sound P1 I failed to mention - so that should cover my clean pre territory. and... my room, while small, is treated with with foam in key locations. so, i guess the mics are it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Foam alone does not a flat and accurate room make. Monitoring environments and systems are, IMHO, one of the most crucial, and one of the most commonly overlooked areas of home studios. In your case, I'd say mikes, monitors and control room acoustics. IMO, the trick is to carefully analyze the entire system, and improve the weakest link. But remember, once you do, it may reveal weaknesses in other areas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted March 25, 2011 Members Share Posted March 25, 2011 Foam alone does not a flat and accurate room make. Monitoring environments and systems are, IMHO, one of the most crucial, and one of the most commonly overlooked areas of home studios. In your case, I'd say mikes, monitors and control room acoustics. IMO, the trick is to carefully analyze the entire system, and improve the weakest link. But remember, once you do, it may reveal weaknesses in other areas... Having just started "treating" my room with Rockwool, I can only second this. I too was looking at buying more expensive monitors and/or a subwoofer because my mixes did not translate. Then I did two things: - I changed my listening position so that it was symmetrical in the room (strange room layout made this seem illogical before I tried it) - I bought a single bale of Rockwool Delta 212 to make some basic bass traps. I haven't even opened the bale yet, it's sitting in a corner of my room. It's already making a BIG difference to the bass response. Is it flat? No way, but the difference is very marked. Getting my DIY skills out this weekend to turn those slabs into traps. That bale of rockwool was under Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted March 25, 2011 Members Share Posted March 25, 2011 Foam alone does not a flat and accurate room make. Monitoring environments and systems are, IMHO, one of the most crucial, and one of the most commonly overlooked areas of home studios. In your case, I'd say mikes, monitors and control room acoustics. IMO, the trick is to carefully analyze the entire system, and improve the weakest link. But remember, once you do, it may reveal weaknesses in other areas... I'll whole heartedly second this. IMO average monitors can get you by in a well treated room. However even the best monitors will lie to you in an untreated room. And yes as you upgrade the weakest link, you will probably find the next "weak link". It's definitely an ongoing battle but you will get there. The worst part is when you realize you are the weakest link lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 28, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 28, 2011 thanks guys. how about a DAC unit ? I was looking at these: TL Audio fat trackor a dangerous music unit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I'd agree that you already have pretty darned good converters with the Lynx. That includes both the A/D and the D/A (DAC). I'd go for better monitors, acoustic treatment or a nice condenser microphone before worrying about improving the DAC. What type of music are you doing, and what type of sound sources are you recording? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 28, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 28, 2011 thanks again, phil. here's my setup: PC DAW using Sonar X1 64 bit Lynx L22 --> outs to a SM pro M-patch for monitor control (unfortunately there's no headphone amp on this thing so I route to a behringer mx602a for its headphone out) I mainly record (pop/rock) vocals and acoustic gtrs via the UA LA610 pre and sometimes I mic up my electric gtr amp. the signal goes direct into to Lynx from the pre. so I'm not as concerned there. I've been using a MXL V69 mic for vox and acosutics and a sm57 for gtr amps - I have just upgraded to a AKG c414 and a Sennheiser e906. My main concern is in mixing. I am having difficulty getting a clear recording upon mixdown and then onto a CD. I realize that I don't have a pro setup but i've heard some other people's recording sound great with similar or lesser gear. Usually what I hear when mixing via my wharfdale speakers or my AKG headphones (I forget the model but they are decent quality), is not what I'll hear on the CD I burn from that mix... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 The next question is... is the problem with the mix translating, or is the problem with the transfer from DAW to CD? I suspect it's the former - where you think it sounds good while you're mixing but when it gets out into the "real world" and is played back on other systems, it doesn't sound the same. Is that the problem you're having? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 29, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2011 yes, that is sort of my dilemma. perhaps its my monitors then... would analog summing help get a better sound ? that is, routing my mix out of the box to a D/A converter, then back into the DAW for final processing and mastering ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted March 29, 2011 Members Share Posted March 29, 2011 yes, that is sort of my dilemma. perhaps its my monitors then... It might be, but there's so many variables. It might be your room. It might be your monitors. It might be you. would analog summing help get a better sound ? that is, routing my mix out of the box to a D/A converter, then back into the DAW for final processing and mastering ? Possibly, but if I were you, I'd focus on getting a monster mix ITB, which can be done, and figure out what exactly the issue is with your mixes not translating to other speakers. If you are like a lot of people, you have difficulty with your mixes not sounding clear enough and being too tubby in the bottom end when you hear it on other people's speakers. This could be for a variety of reasons, including that your monitors don't play back the lower frequencies very well, or you're fighting your room. Or it could be that the instruments aren't tracked very well in the first place and lack definition and physicality. None of this, at this point, has to do with analog summing...so what I'm saying is that you potentially have a lot of issues to address before you start worrying about analog summing. I don't want to be mean here, but if you are mixing on speakers and headphones and your mixes are not translating and you have decent gear, the main issue is probably on you. I've heard people get fantastic sounds on rather modest equipment. By this I mean that everything is performed well, tracked well, and mixed well on equipment like yours or, in some cases, noticeably worse...and they are still gettin' it done. If I were you, I'd pick up a book or two on mixing. The "Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Book" and Wayne Wadham's "Sound Advice: a Musician's Guide to the Recording Studio" can help. Absorb it and it can help a lot. And then listen. And listen some more. And tweak. And listen. And listen to recordings you admire. And listen. And tweak. The books can take you pretty far (anybody who says you can't learn mixing or recording from a book is, quite frankly, a bloomin' idiot), but in the end, it will take a lot of listening. And tweaking. And listening. And more listening. Really listening. Listening to how different instruments' frequencies overlap each other. How cutting frequencies open up sound. How compression affects the tone and "shape" of a sound. How high-pass filters open up the bottom end when you apply them to many of your tracks. Stop getting hung up on gear, and start listening with what you have. After you've listened and truly found any inadequacies in your equipment - the weak link(s) - then start purchasing. Don't just start thinking, "Okay....new monitors! Okay...my mixes still blow. I know...analog summing!" No. Slow down, listen, learn, listen, listen, listen, tweak, listen, pan, listen, listen, tweak, EQ, listen, listen, listen, mix, listen, listen, compare, listen, listen, read about techniques and EQ, listen, listen, listen, listen while sticking microphones in front of things, listen, listen, compress, listen, listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted March 29, 2011 Members Share Posted March 29, 2011 Oh, and did I mention that you should listen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted March 29, 2011 Members Share Posted March 29, 2011 Wayne Wadham's book is out of print, by the way, but you can get it used through Amazon. It's creative, easy to read, and he frequently contradicts himself to insert opinions by other engineers, the sure sign of someone who actually has a brain, knowledge, and confidence. It takes the ego out of it since he realizes that there are many many different philosophies to recording, and he gets that, an extremely open-minded, creative, and intelligent approach that you find people with fragile or insecure egos avoiding. It's creative and useful even though it was written a while back...the techniques for tracking and EQing still apply, and they're still useful whether using a console or recording ITB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 29, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 29, 2011 thanks ustad. i am thinking that my monitoring control is lacking. i am using a sm pro audio m-patch for my monitors and then a behringer mx602a for headphones. neither sound great.even tho the m-patch is passive. i was thinking on maybe getting the dangerous music d-box for monitor control and its headphone amp. also, i thought maybe it would be nice for analog summing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted March 30, 2011 Members Share Posted March 30, 2011 What don't you like about your mixes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted March 30, 2011 Members Share Posted March 30, 2011 Josh, One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that you really need to listen to some material with your current setup, with which you're intimately familiar. Find some favorite CDs that you've heard a million times and which in your opinion are really well recorded and well mixed (maybe Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon or whatever your personal benchmarks are), and listen to them on your existing setup, then compare them with your own mixes. Does the reference CD sound just as good on your existing setup as it does when you crank it in the car or other favorite listening environment? What sounds different about it? What do you hear in that mix that's lacking in your mixes? Keep in mind that you should do an immediate comparison - rapidly switching back between your mix and the reference CD so you can immediately ascertain the differences, as our "auditory memories" are short-lived. This is known as "ear training" and it will help you make adjustments in your mixes based on a known reference. Lots of people have trained themselves to become familiar with their own setup in this way, even if it's a less than ideal setup, to the point where they can still get accurate mixes because they've trained their ears to compensate. Comparing your own mixes to "the greats" in the same environment also helps you learn where yours need improvement, and where the weaknesses in your listening environment are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 30, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 30, 2011 great responses ! Ustad - my mixes sound cluttered, even with just the basics in rock music -ie, guitar, bass, vox, drums... Lee -yes, I need to do just as you suggest. I haven't done that. I will try to post an example of one of my mixes here, if possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted March 31, 2011 Members Share Posted March 31, 2011 Yes, Lee's suggestion is good. This is what I mean in part by listening. BTW, I got uncluttered mixes when I was using my stereo speakers. While obviously great monitors assists in this, you can still get uncluttered mixes. I got these because I can mix really well. So much of this is on you. That's why I really think you should get the books on mixing and recording that I suggested earlier, or something else that will help you out. While it's not ideal, me and many others have managed to get by on {censored}ty monitors and headphones, getting used to how it sounded, and getting uncluttered mixes. So much of it is how you track and what to do. Do you see what I'm trying to get at? I want you to think in terms of what YOU are doing instead of looking to throw money at everything else. More than anything else, it's YOU who determine the sound. At any rate, to unclutter mixes, this is mostly about EQ, not about panning or anything else. High pass filter is your friend. Cut frequencies that are overlapping. Think of this as a sonic jigsaw puzzle, and really think about overlapping frequencies and how to minimize this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Josh, please do post a mix (or link to one) so we can have a listen; that should at least help us narrow down the possible issues so we can make better suggestions to you on how you might be able to improve things. Make sure you post something that s fairly representative of the types of issues you're normally running into. Maybe your mixes are cluttered sounding due to arrangement issues, or maybe it's due to the way you EQ and filter, or maybe it's your monitoring environment "lying" to you. You should also definitely consider what Ken (Ustad) and Lee were saying about listening. Occasionally referencing some well-recorded commercial CDs that you're very familiar with (and that are similar in genre and instrumentation and arrangement to the material you're recording) while you're tracking and mixing can not only help you "dial in" your tones and serve as a "benchmark" or reference / reality check, but it can also help you identify potential problems in your monitoring environment. For example, if you notice a specific bass note on a CD really booms out at you (or disappears) in your mixing room, but it sounds fine in the car or in another room, then chances are better than good you have a modal issue with your room at that particular frequency. Knowing that can help you avoid boosting (or cutting) those frequencies in an effort to compensate for the inaccurate sound you're hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 31, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 31, 2011 thanks again, Ken (Ustad) ! I can tell you are very passionate about this stuff ! I will post an example of a recording of mine later today (after work)... Also, one thing I have been paying attention (only very recently) to is the gain stagin of my mixing. I've noticed a drastic and positive change in clarity and fidelity when turning my track faders down (ITB) to about -12db, while the master bus is at 0 -or clse to it without clipping.. This could have been the problem all along... I will take all these bits of advice, especially the -listening- bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members joshcamp Posted March 31, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 31, 2011 also - thanks again phil ! i will pay close attention to how my room affects certain frequencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted March 31, 2011 Members Share Posted March 31, 2011 thanks again, Ken (Ustad) ! I can tell you are very passionate about this stuff ! I will post an example of a recording of mine later today (after work)... Also, one thing I have been paying attention (only very recently) to is the gain stagin of my mixing. I've noticed a drastic and positive change in clarity and fidelity when turning my track faders down (ITB) to about -12db, while the master bus is at 0 -or clse to it without clipping.. This could have been the problem all along... I will take all these bits of advice, especially the -listening- bit Sounds like you may be tracking too hot also. If you will bring the gains down, your converters will be more in their "sweet" spot and can give you a much better overall mix. Tracking in 24-bit is also important to make this work. FWIW in most of today's DAW's yellow is the new red. Try to keep you signals just below the yellow part of the meter when setting your gain. I know this works well in Pro Tools and I would think would be similar in Sonar. An occasional bump into the yellow is okay, but lower definitely is better than too hot. And if your input meter has a level indicator, I believe -18 to -12 is roughly where you want the signal to be. That will get you well above the noise floor and keep from pushing your converters too hard. At least IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted April 1, 2011 Members Share Posted April 1, 2011 Sounds like you may be tracking too hot also. If you will bring the gains down, your converters will be more in their "sweet" spot and can give you a much better overall mix. Tracking in 24-bit is also important to make this work. FWIW in most of today's DAW's yellow is the new red. Yes, well said. If Josh is noticing a big difference by lowering the faders, then yes, he's probably overloading the mix buss, and as you said, probably recording too hot as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.