danbronson

Then why did it work when you were just playing guitar by yourself? Sounds like a classic case of finding evidence because you want to believe.

Obviously this is a joke. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that a good mix will vibrate a beer can and a bad mix won't. Unless... Oh my god! Turns out all I need to do to turn a bad mix into a good one is turn up the volume! Who'da thunk it?

You're saying that when an empty beer can vibrates with the music, your mix is good?

I like my Shure SM81 I got new for $350. There's one in the gearslutz classifieds right now for $220 iirc. This would make a great mic if you want to capture the guitar very accurately.

Depends heavily on the guitar/player/sound you want. Recently I got surprisingly good results with an Audix i5! The top end is very forward, crisp and rich. Mids are smooth. Bass is not loud, but the response is solid and it goes pretty far down. It was perfect for my guitar, which has a muddy low end and subdued top. On the condenser end of things, try the Blue Bluebird out. Or if you have a bright guitar, an Oktava Mk-319 or Mk-012.

This is very common in the professional world. People regularely measure the response of the monitors at the listening position, then compensate with EQs to get it as flat as possible. That said, make sure the room and monitors are not the cause of the problem before you do anything else.

I'm running Cubase 3 with 512 megs of RAM and I don't run out of memory until I've got 4 or 5 CPU heavy reverbs and tons of compressors/EQs. These days, I typically just use 3 different reverbs and send different tracks to them, so I really have no problems. To be safe however, 2 gigs is all you should ever need.

I read an interview with Neko Case not too long ago where she ranted about autotune. She said she was in a large Canadian recording studio, where many of Canada's pop artists have recorded (yes, we do have a few! Don't forget, Avril and Nickelback are Canadian...no, I'm not proud of this ), and she asked the engineer how many people used autotune. His answer was that she and Nelly Furtado were the only two people he'd recorded in that studio who didn't use autotune. So to answer your question... 99%? As for my opinion (which I'm sure nobody gives a damn about but so help me god I'm going to say it anyway) - I don't think sounding 'perfect' and sounding 'good' are the same thing. I don't want to hear flawless vocal takes, I want to hear REAL vocal takes. Same goes for all other instruments as well. For example, when I listen to Around The Fur by Deftones, I love that I can hear a difference in all the snare hits. They're not replaced with samples like so many are these days. As for fixing really bad sounding vocals. In my experience, if the original takes are so bad that the singing would make me cringe, I usually find that the autotune would be so noticeable and fake sounding that I would cringe equally as much. Conversely, if I wouldn't notice the autotune, I'd also be fine with the vocal pitch as well, even if it's not perfect.

It's been about a month since this started, right? That's not really that much time. I'd say give it at least one or two more before even considering that this might be permanent. Even then, you can still heal. If you do lose some of your hearing, as much as that will suck, is it enough that you have to quit a career that you love? There are plenty of athletes out there who never recovered 100% from an injury, but they still do what they do and they're still good at it. In the meantime, go easy on yourself! Be as healthy as you can possibly be in every aspect you can. Eat right. Get good sleep. Work out. Avoid any cold or flu if you can. And of course don't listen to anything too loud. Good luck! I really hope this is just a matter of time before you're completely fine.

57 pages of

Beautiful rooms! I'm a little bit of gear away from having a 'studio', and even then it'll still just be a basement studio. But I'll post some pics when I get everything together.

I totally agree. At the end of the day, you have to use your ears. For all I know the C1 really is a great mic. But I'm certainly not interested in fake reviews that will point me in random directions. As someone who's not familiar with most of the mics on the market, I rely on these things to get an idea of what's out there.

Ack, that's one of the reviews I read that had me considering the C1. Krank amps did a very similar thing when they were just starting out. Their employees filled the HC reviews section, which got their amps banned from the list for a time actually. Needless to say, tactics like that, as dishonest as they are, work.

Video of C1 mics being used: Drum tracking with C1 pair. I like them but I think there are better mics for the job. They don't seem too bad. But I can't tell for sure until I use it with my own equipment.

Thanks for the responses everyone. Those Oktavas look pretty good, I'll look into those.

Is it all it's hyped up to be? I'm looking for a pair of mics that can deliver a bright, rich drum overhead sound at a low price. The mic should let the cymbals punch through the mix without being harsh. I also plan to use the mic(s) on vocals and probably guitars as well but my main concern at the moment is drum overheads. So far I've had the opportunity to use an Oktava MK-319 and (very briefly) an Audio Technica AT3035. The 319 sounds nice and strong in the high end, but could use more 7-8000 Hz maybe to sound more full if that makes any sense. The 3035 is full and fat sounding, but lacks enough high end to mic cymbals in my opinion (and doesn't take well to an EQ when I try to brighten it up). Perhaps I just need to spend some more time with the 3035 however. I've only made one recording with it. Is the C1 worth looking into for these applications?

At the end of the day it comes down to "what sound do you like?" If you like to hear recordings with dynamic range, you can do this and it will take some skill to get it right. If you like to hear recordings that sound really loud and intense (despite the fact that it might not even sound like people are capable of making music like that), you can do this too and again, it will take some skill to get it right. A lot of bands/artists want everything to sound slammed into the speaker with compression. Listen to a band like In Flames, if everything wasn't so compressed, it would sound like just some band playing in a room. A band like that wants to sound like a super-human, aggressive force. Compress away! I'd also like to hear some good dynamics and I agree, there is too much of this "compress everything as much as possible" mentality. But I do understand it and think it has it's place.

Thanks for the responses guys. If I hit the snare less hard, it will not sound the way I want it to. It's not unbearably loud, I just want to isolate the cymbals from the snare as much as possible. So hitting less hard isn't really a compromise I'm willing to make unfortunately. I'm definitely not going to highpass at 1k! My cymbals would sound incredibly thin. I do highpass overheads, but no higher than 500 Hz. The snare and cymbals occupy a lot of the same frequency range, so EQing the snare out is not going to work if I want my cymbals to sound good. I will try raising the overhead(s) higher. The distance the mic sounded best at was probably about 6 feet from the kit. It was at head height (about 6 ft), I'll try nearer the roof, though in the room I'm using that's still only about 8 ft. gsHarmony, turn your reverb mix up higher. If you like the snare in the overheads, then turn the reverb to 100% on just the snare track and use the volume of that track to determine how much reverb you want. Essentially you're losing your snare track, but if you're fine getting all the snare out of the overheads anyway, there's no real loss.

Anyone have any suggestions for getting less snare in the overheads? I seem to get less when my mic (yeah, just one for now) is further back in the room. But I prefer the character of a closer mic for my personal drumming style. I like a more immediate sound and my room doesn't sound that great anyways. Still, I want to get as much cymbal to drum ratio in the overheads as possible without resorting to EQing. Any ideas? I'm using a large diaphragm condenser (a friend's Oktava MK-319) and was planning to end up with a couple LDCs of my own but maybe a set of pencil condensers would help instead?

Come on guys, I need this! Just let me win! My wife thinks I'm a loser and I need to prove her wrong...

EVERYONE who posts after this will be cursed (with the exception of myself)...I'm consulting a witch doctor now actually.

I made sure you didn't win, so I'm a winner All you won was the complete waste of space award.

The next person who posts is a complete waste of space.

Originally posted by Dale B. The serial numbers just run in sequence and don't refer to any year. The "R" just means Rectifier or Recto I'm guessing. Your friend's amp was the 30,110th Recto ever made. My Dual Rectifier is R-00246. It just signifies that it was the 246th Recto made. Mesa used to date the inside of the chassis. That is how some people know when their Rectos were made. Other than that, you have to call Mesa with the serial number. Dale Cool. Thanks.

Originally posted by JamesPeters Your amp is COLLECTIBLE!!! omgz time for ebay