JM350

Just curious, why are you low passing all your electric guitars during tracking? I've never seen anyone do that. High pass is pretty common procedure for guitars, it cuts the mud that might sound ok when soloed but often does mess up the overall mix. Low pass is in my opinion somewhat more unusual but it's sort of the same idea cutting frequencies not really necessary to the guitar sound. Electric guitar is pretty much all about the mids, leave the extreme highs and lows to other instruments that actually cover that sonic territory. A 57 is a cardioid mic and when used close up on any source it has a considerable proximity boost. A high pass filter is usually the best place to start in getting that under control followed by additional low cut if needed.

If you want to try something neat and inexpensive, try a Naint X-Q omni condenser for $39. Of course, being an omni you need a good room.. I would say that's not really true or at least not totally accurate. Omni mics can be placed much closer to the source than directional mics and if you get in close then the room of course matters much less, so don't discount using omni mics just because your room isn't great. Marketing and live sound reinforcement have pushed directional mics heavily and scared many people away from omni mics. When recording at a distance like when recording classical music directional mics can sometimes be a better choice in a not so great room but for something like close up recording of an acoustic guitar don't fear the omni pattern as it can often be a wonderful tool.

What are your monitors and where exactly do you have them placed in the room? If you can get them a bit closer to the wall behind them you can get some reinforcement of the low frequencies. Often this is preferable to using an electronic eq. What eq are are you planning on using? Unless you have a pretty nice one they can do horrible things to your sound.

How much computer you need depends on what you have to spend and what exactly you will be doing with your recording. If all you are doing is recording a track or two at time, say ten or so tracks total with a few effects then even a very old machine with minimal RAM and processor speed may work just fine. Years ago I made recordings on computers that had PII processors with 128 and 256mb of RAM and that could handle a few tracks just fine but I was doing effects as non-realtime renders. So it's really up to what you expect; if forty tracks, several reverbs, compression and eq on every track, and a bunch of other effects as well is what you are after you will obviously need a lot more power than if your projects are far more modest than that. Two GB of RAM is about usual lately but RAM isn't necessarily the most important factor. The first thing to look for in an computer that you will be doing audio on is a machine that is set up and running well. If the computer is crapped up with programs that use up it's power whether that is virus protection, Aero and all the other junk that comes with Vista, or spyware your computer's potential is going to be limited and even possibly in a severe way. Here are some other things I think are important.

I'm hoping this is just a typo... We've tried a few SP C-1's a few times, in a shootout situation, and frankly, it was awful. Don't know why they got hyped so much, as it came in last on everything we tried it on, with everyone who was there. I can tell you why it got hyped so much... Allen Hyatt (of Studio Projects) and Dan Richards AKA "Dot" (self proclaimed audio genius who went on to create one of the largest, most misleading, works of recording "assistance" of all time known as The Listening Sessions. These two guys spent a lot of time on this forum and many others as well hyping the Sh!t out of the Studio Projects C1. Initially the claim was that the C1 was essentially a Neumann U87 for $200.00 Here is a Dan Richards quote from vsplanet.com: Next, I tried and EQ setting I almost always use on every vocal track I've ever recorded w/ a U87 [which is over 20 of them ]. + about 2 db boost at 1K and 8K [ though my usual boost is 10K, but that is not available on the Radius ]. Not quite right w/ this EQ. So, I switched from 8K to 12K. Here it is! This is a U87! No lie. Now, keep in mind that even different U87's sound different, but if I close my eyes and just sing through this mic, I would have said U87. Quite a bit of heated discussion and a little back pedaling from the initial U87 hype BS happened when a lot of people called them on it but the C1 frenzy was launched quite sucessfully anyway. There is no way of proving it but I would say a whole lot of C1 mics were sold because of this very smart but not quite so honest internet ploy.

I think it was called The Positioner. It went onto a regular mic stand so not a lot of up and down or side to side beyond a tilt and rotate kind of thing. It went for something like five or six hundred bucks if I remember correctly.

Several years back there was a robotic mic positioner device on the market but it was pretty pricey and dissappeared rather quickly. It moved the mic around a bit but didn't do the other stuff that the original biological model did like making coffee, picking up lunch, and sweeping the floor. Today the robotic version could probably sell ok if the price was a lot lower than first time around and it was marketed properly, in other words aimed at the home studio where it is more likely someone is working without an assistant.

"The best one is the one that sounds best to your ears, in your room, on your particular source." ^^^Answer I was trying to avoid with the post, but my boy JM350 came up strong. Hey, give me some credit. I managed (initially anyway) not to suggest a dynamic mic. I have to admit though my first thought was that a $250.00 budget would cover an SM57 and a Marshall V67. The "right choice" (if there really is such a thing) here depends on the particular situation. The right mic for someone who already owns some mics might be different for someone just starting out who doesn't even own a single mic yet. The "best $250.00 LDC mic" might be a $100.00 LDC and a $100.00 SDC or a $100 LDC and a dynamic mic. I've found the NT1 to be a bit brash sounding for my taste so I wouldn't recommend it but there are lots of people who like them in that price range. I guess what I am trying to say is that the original question itself is flawed, there is no best mic for $xxx.xx.

The best one is the one that sounds best to your ears, in your room, on your particular source. Best screwdriver under $3.00 anyone???

You're an idiot. A little blunt but true. Audacity and Krystal are free. Reaper is $40. What the hell are you thinking :confused:

this is just an audio interface... goes into my PC via USB, then through Sonar, then OUT of my computer into my speakers. With a PCI soundcard. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding how this thing works... Yes, you are misunderstanding things here. An audio interface like your Fast Track does everything your soundcard does and more. If you have an audio interface you have no need for a soundcard. Simply plug the outputs of the Fast Track to either powered speakers or an amplifier connected to unpowered sspeakers and you are set.

Originally posted by MarkGifford-1 That was my main point. Anything at that mid-level or above is not going to hinder you from getting great sound, if you know what you're doing. Exactly... I wasn't really trying to disagree with what you said but simply to play off it and add my take on things. Sometimes I just have to break out the microscope and beat all the dead little horses.

Originally posted by MarkGifford-1 Let's put it this way... Define "professional." It definately depends who you ask and your definition of the word as well. If by "professional" you mean a small project studio that has paying clients then yes. If you mean what I would call "a real studio" that has high end mics (U47's and the like) and a console that costs a lot more than a few thousand dollars then no. The Delta 1010 is what I would call semipro gear. That used to be the term applied to stuff like Tascam eight track tape machines or the mixers that went with them. Semipro gear today has got closer to the real high end expensive pro gear and in some cases (for instance noise specs) a semipro digital recorder will even surpass a professional tape machine. Originally posted by MarkGifford-1 Bruce Springsteen recorded "Nebraska" - the followup to "Born in the USA" on his Tascam Portastudio. The album is only acoustic guitar and vocal, if there was more than that it's pretty sure it would have sounded a lot worse. The album also had some serious help after the fact from high end gear to people who really knew what they were doing like Bob Ludwig. Honestly the sound quality on the album is not all that great but it is indeed impressive considering what was used initially (a couple of 57's and Teac 144) and the fact the recordings were not originally intended for release. " Originally posted by MarkGifford-1 Jagged Little Pill" was recorded on blackface ADATs. 19 million copies later... A Blackface ADAT was used but also a bunch of high end vintage gear as well from an AKG C12 to an La2a and probably other stuff too. Unlike Nebraska, the recordings on Jagged Little Pill were intended for release. Originally posted by MarkGifford-1 Any of the interfaces available today will not hinder your ability to make great-sounding recordings. The song/arrangement, player and instrument are the big 3, importance-wise. The space and the mic choice/technique have something to do with it, too. After the big three comes number four: an engineer who knows what he is doing. Knowing what a good sound actually is, were to put the mic, and where to set the knobs is a way bigger deal than most people understand. Most budget gear is capable of way better sound than the average home recordist can get out of it. Many people have no idea what to do with compression and limiting but when the recording doesn't sound big up close and in your face they blame the gear rather than the fact they don't really know what they are doing.

Originally posted by Fiery Furnace Do you listen to music on your monitors? It's more fun than listening to test tones. Listening to music that you like on quality studio monitors is a very good idea, that way you can understand what things are supposed to sound like as opposed to what recordings sound like when played back on common low quality consumer speakers. Listening to well recorded music on your monitors allows you to learn your monitors. Do lots of this (at reasonable volumes) it's good for you and fun too.

Originally posted by Evilchippy My products are unique because: 1) They sound similar to a cranked 100W Marshall at apartment appropriate volume levels 2) They are 1 watt, Class-A, tube products (2xECC83, 1x6N1P) 3) They have a high-gain, chunky, Marshall JCM 800 type of distortion 4) Are awesome for recording at low volume levels [/url] Unique? Not really... I guess you somehow managed to miss the ZVex Nano and the Gerhart Gilmore which are half watt amps. The Nano is called a micro-Marshall in ZVex own description of the amp and the Gilmore even uses the 6NP1 tube and has a Marshall look to it.

The max SPL of a mic is the point that the mic's electronics will distort not the point that the mic is damaged. The max SPL probably won't be an issue anyway with most condensers if you are 10-15cm away. What is often an issue in this situation is the mic overloading the micpreamp. The solution to this is a pad (attenuator) either built into the mic, the micpre, or an inline model placed between the mic and preamp.

Originally posted by jchas I'm referring to my experience on 2 occasions, trying identical mics, and getting very different results. I know i've read many a thread by those with a plethora of mics to choose from who say "no 2 u67's are the same" or "no 2 414's are the same" etc, but i'm talking a fairly discernable difference. It may be that the low-grade electronics they use make the difference, or the fact that the workers only make about $1 per mic they assemble and don't give a {censored} about detail (for a dollar a unit I doubt I would either). But it's rather hard to say just how good a product is if it's inconsistent. There are some inconsistancies, many of the cheaper mics use cheaper components FETS and capacitors are not exactly the best available and capsules are not easy things to make really well especially if you are just cranking them out. In spite of all this these mics can sound quite decent especially considering the price tag involved. Some of these companies have been and are working at improving the consistancy but you just are not going to get the best components on a condenser mic that only cost a hundred or even a few hundred dollars.

Originally posted by Paul J. Edwards Thanks to all for the insight. I have to think it is user error on my part. I am just having a tough time with this stuff. Thanks again. Get Reaper, I think you might find it more straight forward than Logic and it's free. http://www.reaper.fm/

There are many difficulties you can have trying to use a computer to record audio, the toughest ones to deal with are usually noises and dropouts from a computer that isn't running smoothly and might be caused by fragmented hard drives, spyware, driver conflicts, an old tired OS, plugins that don't play well with your other stuff, simply asking the computer to do too much at once or a whole host of other things. Latency shouldn't be as nearly a difficult thing to solve especially if you have a decent interface using asio drivers. Are you live monitoring (listening to what the computer is doing to your live signal) or are you using no latency monitoring where your interface is simply sending your analog signal back to you? If you are trying to use "no latency" monitoring and you are getting latency something is really wrong there. I would probably start by reinstalling the device drivers and if that didn't work getting in touch with the manufacturer of your interface. If you are having problems with live monitoring the first thing to look at are your buffer settings. If you want to be able to live monitor through the computer, in other words using soft synths or software effects, you will need to have your buffers set low enough that you have less than 20ms of latency. Whether your computer setup can handle that is a whole other question but you need to at least ask computer to do such a thing by setting the buffers low. You have to be willing to take this kind of stuff on if you want the advantages that a computer can offer over stand alone recording devices.

Get Reaper it's as straight forward as anything and it's free. Don't be put off by the free part it's quite good and getting better by the moment. http://www.cockos.com/reaper/

If you are going to do real drums you will probabaly want an interface that can record at least four tracks at the same time. Presonus Firebox (about $300.00) along with two additional channels of micpre will do that. If your budget is tight you could get by with only two mics on the drums (overhead and kick) but just one is tough. When using a computer you total number of tracks is governed by how powerful your computer is. Sometimes the recording software limits your total number of tracks but usually that's only with some light versions, in other words software that comes free with some hardware. Software effects will suck up your computer's processing power much faster than track count, so it's not really how many tracks but how many effects.

Originally posted by DontLetMeDrown what does YMMV stand for? Your mileage may vary... In other words you might experience things differently.

The M-Audio DMP3 is still a good solid choice for a two channel micpre in that price range.

Some gear sounds a bit better at 48k but it's a get the magnifying glass out and look really hard kind of better. I would say in most cases it doesn't justify resampling, most people seem to record at 24 bit 44.1k and dither to 16 bit. Does your gear do 48k ? If so try it out, then listen for yourself if it makes any sense for you to bother.

Wow, the amount of misinformation in this discussion is amazing. 44.1 is hardly obsolete, last time I looked CD's were still the major release format and it continues to be used pretty commonly for tracking from the home studio to professional ones. 48k is alive and well too. Anyone who does audio for video will tell you that it's not only common but is actually king in that area. If you are using 96k and are not running out of processing power with even a good computer you are not running a whole lot of effects or you are running ones that don't need much. A good reverb could easily use 8% of your computer running at 96k. The only place I see that 96k is standard is in the sale of new gear and just because it is capable of it doesn't necessarily mean people are actually making use of it.