What should be the strongest piece in your chain

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by Rockenberry

Please refer to the picture below where Andy Wallace works.

Put aside his massive desk most of us will not be able to afford and concentrate on the room size shape and the fact that it was designed to be a control room. Notice it has all the things we bang on about here at Gearslutz and why there is a dedicated forum to building and acoustically treating your room!

Bluesdog, there is a difference between Butch Vig and Andy Wallace, don't you think?

Regards,

Rockenberry.

What are you trying to say about Butch Vig? Andy Wallace mostly mixes or engineers and Butch Vig is a producer if that is what you mean by difference. Considering Butch Vig produced a few of my favorite albums ever i would trust whatever he wanted to do as far as rooms, gear, or methods of recording. Kind of funny that you are insulting Butch Vig, i would wager Andy Wallace himself wouldn't question Butch's method since Andy worked with him on one of the best albums ever made.

[Wylekalker]

Originally Posted by deft_bonz

+1

But I may add a "little" thing

You > Instruments/Player&Singer > Room > MIC > Monitors > Effects > Preamp > Converters > DAW

While I disagree with this in general, but I can mostly understand this line of thinking.However, the one thing I can't wrap my head around is why the effects would be more important than the preamp or converters, the latter two I'd argue to be as important or more important than the monitors. Can someone elaborate?

[Julian J. Ludwig]

The instrument/vocal.

Sent from my GT-S5830B using Gearslutz App

[Rockenberry]

Originally Posted by JamesN

What are you trying to say about Butch Vig? Andy Wallace mostly mixes or engineers and Butch Vig is a producer if that is what you mean by difference. Considering Butch Vig produced a few of my favorite albums ever i would trust whatever he wanted to do as far as rooms, gear, or methods of recording. Kind of funny that you are insulting Butch Vig, i would wager Andy Wallace himself wouldn't question Butch's method since Andy worked with him on one of the best albums ever made.

Read the before posts.

The subject was the importance on room acoustics for critical listening and best practices.

I was referring to mixing and whilst I love Butch Vig and his work (fricking genius), Andy Wallace is considerably more proficient at mixing in MY opinion. As mixers, there is a difference between the two (in terms if mixing), and this was a retort to the comment relating to my post.

The entire post was to do with the fact that anyone who dismisses the important of room acoustics and attempts misinform the less knowledgable in these forums using aggravating examples, I feel compelled to tell the masses!

It hurt to trash Butch Vig, but I only used him in the realms of mixing, nothing else.

I hope you weren't too offended,

Regards,

Rockenberry.

[diskreet1]

Originally Posted by Tom Higgins

Been done before:
Google Search...

IMO, room. It improves both tracking and mixing sides

+1 and monitors!

[Rockenberry]

Originally Posted by diskreet1

+1 and monitors!

+1

[Rockenberry]

Originally Posted by Tom Higgins

Been done before:
Google Search...

IMO, room. It improves both tracking and mixing sides

+1

[Bullseye]

Being able to answer the question actually posed would probably help. So if someone asks which is the best car to drive, don't tell them to ride a bike. Likewise, if someone asks out of these three options which makes the most difference, don't give option 4.

Maybe that is something allot of folks should look at. Missing the point never helps create anything "strong".

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by Wylekalker

While I disagree with this in general, but I can mostly understand this line of thinking.However, the one thing I can't wrap my head around is why the effects would be more important than the preamp or converters, the latter two I'd argue to be as important or more important than the monitors. Can someone elaborate?

One thing 15 years of experience now has told me, I can get decent results from equipment manufacturers ranging from behringer to Neve in the pre-amp department not saying for applications I wouldn't prefer the Neve obviously, I can also use something like an echo audiofire in the AD / DA dep and get fantastic results. I can't get decent results if my compressors, delay's, verbs and rest of my effects chain are rubbish.

Some may disagree, but I could never see how a pre-amp would be as important as your critical listening enviroment? To me it doesn't make sense, if you can't hear correctly what your mixing, what's the point?

Just search this site, there is countless threads / shootout's on pre-amps and converter's. Some of it actually hilarious, like ART PRO vs. Great river.. Bask in the amount of people back pedalling when they proffered the ART.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...eat-river.html

Look at the Steinberg Vs. Prism Orpheous, yet again people proffered the steinberg.

Gearslutz.com - View Poll Results

Whilst I do beleive it makes a difference, it's not quite as obvious as people paying lot's of $1000's care to beleive.. It's about the right tool for the job, if you need a classic sounding LA2A you buy one, if you need an RNC you buy one, if you need Neve for your sound you buy Neve etc.

[Wylekalker]

Originally Posted by ShadowAMD

One thing 15 years of experience now has told me, I can get decent results from equipment manufacturers ranging from behringer to Neve in the pre-amp department not saying for applications I wouldn't prefer the Neve obviously, I can also use something like an echo audiofire in the AD / DA dep and get fantastic results. I can't get decent results if my compressors, delay's, verbs and rest of my effects chain are rubbish.

So say you're using a Mbox for your pre-amp and AD/DA conversion, it's all good because you've got your slammin' LA2A? Obviously that's an extreme situation, but I still think having a lackluster preamp or converter is going to bust your recording much more than a mediocre compressor. And since this scenario is within in the digital realm, the DAW more than likely has adequate plug-ins already.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by Wylekalker

So say you're using a Mbox for your pre-amp and AD/DA conversion, it's all good because you've got your slammin' LA2A? Obviously that's an extreme situation, but I still think having a lackluster preamp or converter is going to bust your recording much more than a mediocre compressor. And since this scenario is within in the digital realm, the DAW more than likely has adequate plug-ins already.

This is the prime issue trying not to get too pedantic on the subject, as many a wise person has said to me. I would rather have a guy with skill and an MBOX than a guy who doesn't have the skill, I know a guy who has a Mackie Mixer on FW who can do some of the best recordings and mixes I have ever heard.

It's nothing on a an Orpheus spec's wise but more than capable of doing a professional track, I do honestly say without a shadow of a doubt.. Seeing it, hearing it and beleiving it.. If you could not get a professional sounding mix with them Mackie pre's and AD / DA it ain't the gear it is 100% you.

There are obvious exceptions, some very cheap and badly made gear can be a hinderence but it's becoming rarer in this marker, at least one thing came good out of this economy. It all depends on what you want, for rock mixes I paid the extra for API because it was the sound I wanted.. I sculpt therefore I am. It's a tool in my aresenal that a neutral / clean mackie pre can not provide.

On the effect's, use the stock plugs in Pro tools and the stock plugins in Samplitude pro X and then tell me it didn't make a big difference to your mixes. I know for sure it did for me, but I'm a sucker who can't live without Protools so hey ho I went back to it with some outboard and some UAD.

P.S I own an MBOX and I like it because I can't fit my mixing desk in my backpack.

[Unclenny]

I still use my MBox 1. Really.

But....I upgraded everything else together....with RME converters in front of the MBox, good preamps and compressors in front of that and good microphones at the front end.

You need to consider your input chain as a system. One piece should not be the strong point...spend you money on everything together and upgrade your entire chain rather than your individual pieces.

[Astrain]

Talking about mbox and bottlenecks.. these guys test vintage u47s and very expensive mics connected straight to an mbox1... I find it funny but I have to admit that the mics sound great even connected to the mbox.

Testing the Flea 48 and 47 straight to an mbox1,

Tube Tests Show Ep.21 "FLEA U47 and U48 Microphones" Recording Services and Supply - YouTube


Now I want a Flea 47

[NBarnes21]

Besides the source being the most important part, I'd say preamps. You can get a good sound with a low budget mic and nice pres, but a nice mic through crappy pres doesn't tend to work as well.

Edit: I'm referring to low end sub $1k gear here

[BAZzZMAN]

As a long time singer songwriter i would say this. There is no greater feeling than hearing a reasonable recording of your own performance. I have strived to do this and have slowly ended up buying a shit load of gear that gradually took all my money.! I did get myself an RME 9632HDSP and enjoyed that untill i realised that the one crucial thing i missed from my sound was the warmth of analogue. So i switched to an analogue onyx mixer with firewire in order to fix this. Now my sound is warm and enjoyable. Enjoyment is the key. What aspect of your sound do you most value? With me for many yrs it was my vocal and so the mic was my important kit. If i cant get the true mirror image of my voice then it was always going to be wrong for me. I have a neuman u87 and works good especialy with my neve channel pres. (added later) the most annoying issue you can ever have with a home rig is your sound never sounding right on any other speakers but your monitors. I learned that having the most accurate uncoloured sound monitoring possible is absolutely crucial to your finished mixes. I would have to say that this would definitely be my most important link in my chain. One thing i must say too is that if you are recording in an untreated room because you like the acoustics, this will without a doubt create serious issues with your recordings. You wont be hearing any of your recordings without a mish mash of room acoustics jumping in the way of your judgement. I do hope you realise too that buying just one good bit of kit is kind of pointless because you just wont get the best from it without complimentary hardware too. Out of interest what gear do you already have?

[Vintageidiot]

In a bad room you are screwed. Without very good monitors to hear that you have a bad room you are again screwed. But MONITORS first for me!

[Rudiger]

I struggled with bad rooms for a long time with decent equipment. If you had me choosing between a nice setup in a bad room and a XP laptop with built in soundcard in an excellent room, I'd take the last one.

It does make a difference, unfortunately one that we realize after hitting the head hard for a couple of years.

[Rockenberry]

Originally Posted by Rudiger

I struggled with bad rooms for a long time with decent equipment. If you had me choosing between a nice setup in a bad room and a XP laptop with built in soundcard in an excellent room, I'd take the last one.

It does make a difference, unfortunately one that we realize after hitting the head hard for a couple of years.

+1.

In a bad room, this entire thread contributes to a mute argument..........