The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Mic Pre is more important than microphone Condenser Microphones
Old 8th April 2018
  #61
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by myles View Post
Whenever you use "u" and "ur", it lowers your credibility. And it's cumulative.

Not to mention that you have no idea what you're talking about. But I'm glad you have a nice preamp.
When you make such pompous d-bag statements, it lowers your credibility. And it's cumulative.
Old 8th April 2018
  #62
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaeltn86 View Post
I will start to use paragraphs....

"Sure, for a seasoned engineer that is USED to good sound and has knowledge, the MIC trumps preamps. a good room, sure it trumps the preamps. but not for the inexperienced or the knowledge lacking people." in my first post.

and to all people reading this, I apologize. my posts are just too confusing.
You don’t need to keep apologizing. Your English is good enough to state your ideas clearly. You stated your opinion, which some agreed with, some did not, and some were half-agreeing.
I don’t agree with your opinion, but that doesn’t mean you are wrong (or right). There isn’t a factually correct opinion on this point. If you said the sun revolves around the earth, you would be dead wrong. But if you think a good preamp is more important to you than a good microphone, it is your opinion. It is only contrary to some other opinions, and is not contrary to scientific fact. Thanks for sharing it and reading the responses.
Old 8th April 2018
  #63
Yeah, but sometimes there are obvious answers that have been built up by a collective group of people with years of knowledge from working at the coal face.
When Gearslutz is at it's best, is when people with years of knowledge pass on that knowledge to others with little experience.
People can post whatever opinion they like, but it still doesn't make it good advice to others.
'Michaeltn86' is still wrong. he can think what he likes of course, but if you are entering a debate and disagreeing with several very experienced Gearslutz members, be prepared to be disagreed with.
There are many, many, many affordable mic/pres that with render an honest recording. One of the best equipped and most expensive studios in London has racks of DAV mic/pres. My UAD Apollo has fantastic onboard pres.
If I recorded with my high end vintage pres instead of the Apollo, the margin would be slight compared to the huge difference between good and bad rooms, or appropriate or inappropriate mic choice.
That's just the collective conclusion that has been built up over decades by people thinking about these questions and testing the results.
If you want people to just say "you're right, mic/pre is the MOST important part of the chain", that would just be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaeltn86 View Post
hmmm, well, I'm not a pro engineer but I will say that the most important thing to people getting into music production is the preamp in my honest opinion.

I read several comments about mic / compressor / converters doing a big difference but from my experience the preamp trumps over that (I'm not talking performance / talent / etc).

people entering music production doesn't have the ear trained and they look for information everywhere and they will be often mislead.

not because people are offering "false information", but it's because talent / experience / ear trained / taste will vary too greatly in the beginning.

Sure, for a seasoned engineer that is USED to good sound and has knowledge, the MIC trumps preamps. a good room, sure it trumps the preamps. but not for the inexperienced or the knowledge lacking people.

a good preamp will give a much better picture on how ur room sound, a better improvement over ur performance (as u are influenced by the way u monitor), and it will be a very noticeable difference from ur interface when u are entering music production.

then, u are getting experience and knowledge. and that trumps mic until u think u are good enough. and then, u re-think about the importance of mic / rooms / etc in my opinion.

it's a very interesting topic. I took more than 3 years to buy a preamp, and I regret. it doesn't have to be the best preamp u can afford, but a nice preamp.
Old 8th April 2018
  #64
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
When Gearslutz is at it's best, is when people with years of knowledge pass on that knowledge to others with little experience.
People can post whatever opinion they like, but it still doesn't make it good advice to others.
'Michaeltn86' is still wrong. he can think what he likes of course, but if you are entering a debate and disagreeing with several very experienced Gearslutz members, be prepared to be disagreed with.
There are many, many, many affordable mic/pres that with render an honest recording. One of the best equipped and most expensive studios in London has racks of DAV mic/pres. My UAD Apollo has fantastic onboard pres.
If I recorded with my high end vintage pres instead of the Apollo, the margin would be slight compared to the huge difference between good and bad rooms, or appropriate or inappropriate mic choice.
That's just the collective conclusion that has been built up over decades by people thinking about these questions and testing the results.
If you want people to just say "you're right, mic/pre is the MOST important part of the chain", that would just be wrong.
hi chrisso, I do agree with u in all points and I'm grateful for being able to read Gearslutz with lots of info.

I do think the margin of difference preamps is slightly compared to the difference between good and bad rooms. but, when u are just starting out, hearing the room is not particularly easy, and having a nice (it doesn't have to be expensive) preamp u are confident with might improve your performance.
Old 8th April 2018
  #65
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaeltn86 View Post
hi chrisso, I do agree with u in all points and I'm grateful for being able to read Gearslutz with lots of info.

I do think the margin of difference preamps is slightly compared to the difference between good and bad rooms. but, when u are just starting out, hearing the room is not particularly easy, and having a nice (it doesn't have to be expensive) preamp u are confident with might improve your performance.
I would argue that hearing differences between preamps is even more difficult than hearing the room, especially when you are starting out.

From our studios gear, for an example the difference between Midas preamps to our Helios' or GR preamps is definitely obvious. But when you are starting out, those kinda preamps are not a wise investment if you intend to make some money too. The difference of the preamps between those price ranges that we have is still pretty vague to me, even though I've used them for a good few years.

Where it comes obvious to me, is when you're tracking and you're not entirely happy with the sound. Never have I solved that problem by switching preamps. Moving and swapping mics, changing the spot in the room or the room altogether however has almost always solved these issues, excluding the times you need to swap the instrument altogether or throw the drummer out of the studio, of course. The only times I've really swapped preamps must've been some headroom problems, or EQ curves if the preamp has an EQ.

Learning to hear stuff takes time, and most value for your time comes by learning from the source. For me, preamps start to make a difference in the high end budget pres, and that's not a place starters should be spending their money. And even then, the mic makes more difference.

So I'll be a dick here and correct you:
"when u are just starting out, hearing the preamp is not particularly easy, and having a nice (it doesn't have to be expensive) room and mic u are confident with might improve your performance."

But that's just my opinion and I'm definitely not a seasoned pro.
Old 8th April 2018
  #66
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollio View Post
Where it comes obvious to me, is when you're tracking and you're not entirely happy with the sound. Never have I solved that problem by switching preamps. Moving and swapping mics, changing the spot in the room or the room altogether however has almost always solved these issues, excluding the times you need to swap the instrument altogether or throw the drummer out of the studio, of course.
I think your answer was very polite and straight to the point and you are far from being a dick. If someone is just starting out, they have no clue as to what they need or do not need. Like all of us, amateurs as well as Pros, we all turn to the www to do our research as well as get advice. There is a great deal of contradiction online concerning audio issues as well as in this very community.

With that being said, if they have no idea what they may need, I would only assume they have no idea as where to place it. In 2018 you can buy level entry tube pres for under $60.00. If I was just starting out now, I would probably be more confused then when I started many years ago, only due to the fact that all this information/opinions where not available at the time. When I started, it was a Radio Dynamic HighBall into a Radio Shack Mixer into a Radio Shack Recorder. Everything else was just way to expensive for what we needed.
Old 8th April 2018
  #67
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollio View Post
I would argue that hearing differences between preamps is even more difficult than hearing the room, especially when you are starting out.

From our studios gear, for an example the difference between Midas preamps to our Helios' or GR preamps is definitely obvious. But when you are starting out, those kinda preamps are not a wise investment if you intend to make some money too. The difference of the preamps between those price ranges that we have is still pretty vague to me, even though I've used them for a good few years.

Where it comes obvious to me, is when you're tracking and you're not entirely happy with the sound. Never have I solved that problem by switching preamps. Moving and swapping mics, changing the spot in the room or the room altogether however has almost always solved these issues, excluding the times you need to swap the instrument altogether or throw the drummer out of the studio, of course. The only times I've really swapped preamps must've been some headroom problems, or EQ curves if the preamp has an EQ.

Learning to hear stuff takes time, and most value for your time comes by learning from the source. For me, preamps start to make a difference in the high end budget pres, and that's not a place starters should be spending their money. And even then, the mic makes more difference.

So I'll be a dick here and correct you:
"when u are just starting out, hearing the preamp is not particularly easy, and having a nice (it doesn't have to be expensive) room and mic u are confident with might improve your performance."

But that's just my opinion and I'm definitely not a seasoned pro.
that's actually a great post and offers a great perspective and I agree with ur post 100%. and u are no dick by all means. u actually read the post I wrote and gave a thought and the trouble to write ur knowledge.

a preamp is easy to use and have levels meters. if u are confident with it you are likely to perform better and u don't need to double guess. knowledge and experience take years, and a really big effort (and money too). I understand most people here are at countries that can get affordable and pretty good interfaces at almost any time they want with nice preamps, but that's not necessarily a rule.

a small example from my experience is that I started with a usb condenser mic, and the only thing I could think at the time was "it's not loud enough". lots of clipping and horrible sounding stuff. a nice preamp with meters would definitely have saved time. some could argue that a proper tutoring or knowledge would have made the same thing, but to have such opportunity is not as easy as many would assume. there's the internet, but in my opinion, it's very hard to find good info available that u can understand and "resonate with". a preamp with meters is very easy to understand when the lights go red.

it doesn't need to be the best / noticeable preamp, just some preamp u plug and u are confident with it and u can perform the best u can. thanks for ur post.
Old 8th April 2018
  #68
Gear Head
 

Heh, I remember starting my recording career with a Line6 Toneport, Audacity and a 80€ LDC, and not having a clue what I was doing. And I sounded exactly like that. Had no idea what EQ and compression are. Later upgraded to the cheapest version of PT, Mbox and the cheapest Röde and started researching the internet, including this forum and was quite overwhelmed. Recordings got a bit better, but still sounded, well, weird. But I got lucky, and for some reason I still can't quite grasp, I got employed by one of my countrys top producers. Learned a hell of a lot and got to use some great gear. Would've been one hell of a long road, if I would've had to rely entirely on the internet.

But I remember thinking about my first major investment when I started my own company. I had some decent stuff already, both mics and pres but nothing special and was looking for an upgrade. I was of course GASing through mics, pres, comps etc. reading every thread here with some reliable and not so reliable info. I live in a small town, so I basically have to buy before I try. Luckily I had some experience with high end gear from the previous employment and could talk some sense to myself. I thought about buying either a new mic, a new pre or both but something slightly cheaper to fit the budget. Thought: "Will a high end preamp make my Röde sound better? Probably. Will it still sound like a Röde? Definitely." Ended up spending all my budget on a Manley Ref Gold. And whaddyaknow, sounds like a Manley through every preamp I own.

There's of course nothing wrong with having a decent pre as a beginner, even a high end one if you can somehow afford one. I'm also a firm believer that having great gear that you love make you inspired and affect the results in a positive way, even if the actual sonic advantages would be minimal. And there's no reason to settle for a crap one that doesn't give you good results. Just keeping in mind that while a mic pre is an important piece of the puzzle, it is not the most important one.

IMO of course, there are no facts in the dark arts of recording
Old 8th April 2018
  #69
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaeltn86 View Post
so my comment was based when u don't know all the stuff, and u are entering music production, a preamp, in my experience, will provide a better experience and a faster development.
actually you don't "know" that at all. And you certainly don't know it from your experience, because you had a different experience. You did not get the preamp first, yourself.

You got a good mic first and then you got a good preamp and noticed a big difference.

It is my firm belief that if you had gotten an good preamp and were using cheap mics for the first couple of years, when you got finally got a Neumann, you would have slapped yourself on the forehead and said "why didn't I get a good mic sooner". You would have noticed the mic difference - and for all we know you would now be promoting the virtues of "mic first".

In any case, what you are doing is trying to formulate a general principle, based on what you yourself did not do. That's illogical. Just like wondering whether you should have taken the bridge instead of the tunnel to drive into the city , you can never know for sure what the hypothetical "other you" would have experienced on that day with that traffic.

You are only looking back from your very specific current point of view and guessing that "it will provide a better experience and a faster development".

To get a more generalized answer to the question, we need to take a wider view. As someone who teaches audio classes and advises a lot of students on setting up their own recording situations, I think I have that wider view. I would have say, if you really cannot get both a great mic and a great preamp at the same time, you should get the mic first and save up for the preamp.

My observations are based on looking at a large number of people, some of whom did it one way and some of whom did it the other way. My observations are also based on engineering in many different studios (and "studios" ) some with great mics and so-so preamps, and a few with great preamps and so-so mics.

I still say start with the mic.
Old 8th April 2018
  #70
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
actually you don't "know" that at all. And you certainly don't know it from your experience, because you had a different experience. You did not get the preamp first, yourself.

You got a good mic first and then you got a good preamp and noticed a big difference.

It is my firm belief that if you had gotten an good preamp and were using cheap mics for the first couple of years, when you got finally got a Neumann, you would have slapped yourself on the forehead and said "why didn't I get a good mic sooner". You would have noticed the mic difference - and for well know you would now be promoting the virtues of "mic first".

In any case, what you are doing is trying to formulate a general principle, based on what you yourself did not do. That's illogical. Just like wondering whether you should have taken the bridge instead of the tunnel to drive into the city , you can never know for sure what the hypothetical "other you" would have experienced on that day with that traffic.

You are only looking back from your very specific current point of view and guessing that "it will provide a better experience and a faster development".

To get a more generalized answer to the question, we need to take a wider view. As someone who teaches audio classes and advises a lot of students on setting up their own recording situations, I think I have that wider view. I would have say, if you really cannot get both a great mic and a great preamp at the same time, you should get the mic first and save up for the preamp.

My observations are based on looking at a large number of people, some of whom did it one way and some of whom did it the other way. My observations are also based on engineering in many different studios (and "studios" ) some with great mics and so-so preamps, and a few with great preamps and so-so mics.

I still say start with the mic.
joeq, I actually read a lot of stuff u wrote through the years at GS and ur knowledge actually was very helpful to me. so I am thankful for that.

I had both experiences, the mic and the preamp u mentioned. I already told myself "oh I finally get that" for the same subject many times over and over (and slapped myself plenty of times. it's almost an habit...). Again, I agree with all what you said, and you're a person who teaches audio and advises student. and I genuinely respect ur posts. but, for those who don't have that opportunity to have mentoring, and go for trial and error and are on a budget, a preamp doesn't get in the way, it's fun, has level meters.

this is just my assumption, but if a person did have the budget and the opportunity to have mentoring / tutoring, I don't think they would go for trial and error and information on GS.

I do think that my first post is confusing and lacking lots of detail and information (read my other posts if u have the time). so I understand why people keep quoting me
Old 8th April 2018
  #71
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaeltn86 View Post
I had both experiences, the mic and the preamp
But you can only have had the experience of one of them First. You got the mic first. Then you got the preamp. That's what I am trying to say.

You can't go back in time and see what it 'would have been' like to get the preamp first. Even if you sold all your gear, and started over, it wouldn't really be "first" because you already had the experience of something else.

While I am a Mic First guy and I disagree with your conclusions, as Bushman said: "there isn’t a factually correct opinion on this point". But I can confidently disagree with the logic you are using to get to those conclusions.

Quote:
, it's fun, has level meters.

It sounds to me like you have a new toy. Maybe you need to wait until the newness wears off a bit before you decide how important it is to the bigger picture.

I would also add that microphones are fun, too. You can put them here or you can put them there, right or left, close or far. Some of them have switches that you can flip to change the polar patterns and bass roll-offs.

Last edited by joeq; 8th April 2018 at 09:08 PM..
Old 8th April 2018
  #72
Lives for gear
 
dights's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaeltn86 View Post
a preamp doesn't get in the way, it's fun, has level meters.
I've got a hi-fi that doesn't get in the way, it's fun, and has level meters...

Is it important in my recording process? Not so much.

Honestly my advice would be to spend some money to go to a big studio for a day that has lots of mic and pre-amp choices and try out combinations. Then you'd have a point of reference, and it'd be a great learning experience.
Old 8th April 2018
  #73
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
But you can only have had the experience of one of them First. You got the mic first. Then you got the preamp. That's what I am trying to say.

While I am a Mic First guy and I disagree with your conclusions, as Bushman said: "there isn’t a factually correct opinion on this point". But I can confidently disagree with the logic you are using to get to those conclusions.
yeah... you're definitely correct regarding that. I didn't take the time to actually read and think that way. also didn't pay the proper attention to check my writing (English is not my first language).

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
It sounds to me like you have a new toy. Maybe you need to wait until the newness wears off a bit before you decide how important it is to the bigger picture.

I would also add that microphones are fun, too. You can put them here or you can put them there, right or left, close or far. Some of them have switches that you can flip to change the polar patterns and bass roll-offs.
hehehe. well, I think the songwriting and performance are the most important. as of now, I see that as the bigger picture. the preamp was a revelation. but, eventually, I found out that the difference was not that big. but I stopped double guessing and I could focus on songwriting and performance. and it's not a fancy nor expensive preamp, just a nice one.

I'm still far to being barely good (and it's hard to acknowledge that). but, just to share my experience, the Neumann mic I had was the km184. I bought it used. my band drink and smoked in the room (I'm a smoker too). the mic in the country I live cost 5-10X against the cost of it in the USA (I did get used, so the price was much less). did it sound good? it sounded awesome. but I couldn't stop worrying about it. it's sensitive and needs care compared to a sm57 / sm58. I didn't have knowledge at the time. I clipped audio all the time. sometimes people from my band would say that it was impossible to sing through it as they said the mic was too sensitive (and they were literally screaming in front of it after I adjusted the preamp for other stuff at the interface). so, you can get a general idea on the trial error stuff.


Old 8th April 2018
  #74
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
actually you don't "know" that at all. And you certainly don't know it from your experience, because you had a different experience. You did not get the preamp first, yourself.

You got a good mic first and then you got a good preamp and noticed a big difference.

It is my firm belief that if you had gotten an good preamp and were using cheap mics for the first couple of years, when you got finally got a Neumann, you would have slapped yourself on the forehead and said "why didn't I get a good mic sooner". You would have noticed the mic difference - and for all we know you would now be promoting the virtues of "mic first".

In any case, what you are doing is trying to formulate a general principle, based on what you yourself did not do. That's illogical. Just like wondering whether you should have taken the bridge instead of the tunnel to drive into the city , you can never know for sure what the hypothetical "other you" would have experienced on that day with that traffic.

You are only looking back from your very specific current point of view and guessing that "it will provide a better experience and a faster development".

To get a more generalized answer to the question, we need to take a wider view. As someone who teaches audio classes and advises a lot of students on setting up their own recording situations, I think I have that wider view. I would have say, if you really cannot get both a great mic and a great preamp at the same time, you should get the mic first and save up for the preamp.

My observations are based on looking at a large number of people, some of whom did it one way and some of whom did it the other way. My observations are also based on engineering in many different studios (and "studios" ) some with great mics and so-so preamps, and a few with great preamps and so-so mics.

I still say start with the mic.
If I get arrested by the audio police, I want joeq for my lawyer. He’s got the logic and the eloquence. Newbie, you should stop arguing and try to understand the reasons your opinion is not the majority opinion.
Old 8th April 2018
  #75
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by dights View Post
I've got a hi-fi that doesn't get in the way, it's fun, and has level meters...

Is it important in my recording process? Not so much.

Honestly my advice would be to spend some money to go to a big studio for a day that has lots of mic and pre-amp choices and try out combinations. Then you'd have a point of reference, and it'd be a great learning experience.

that's a great advice. but, when I was starting out I thought that a big studio was "expensive" and not worthy the cost. at the time, I thought music was easy and that I sounded pretty good.

eventually I understood how wrong I was. music is excruciating hard.
Old 9th April 2018
  #76
Mic matters... I plugged a into my bae and while it sounded good, doesnt sound nearly as good as my telefunken copperhead... You can definitely tell the difference between a 300 dollar mic and a 1300 dollar mic, especially through a nice pre.
Old 9th April 2018
  #77
Lives for gear
 
myles's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
When you make such pompous d-bag statements, it lowers your credibility. And it's cumulative.
Yeah, I know. The sk8tr boy crap just drives me nuts. But it's the way of the world, so...

Also, I never had any credbility to begin with...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman View Post
You don’t need to keep apologizing. Your English is good enough to state your ideas clearly.
It's not your English, that's excellent (aside from my already-recorded objections ), it's your assumptions, or your (lack of) experience or knowledge, or all three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaeltn86 View Post
when u are just starting out, hearing the room is not particularly easy,
To add something constructive to the thread, here are two ways to hear your room, even "when u are just starting out", one slightly more important for tracking, one slightly more important for mixing, but both are revealing, and should be used together:

1. Put a mic up in the middle of your room (a stereo mic would be even better). Stand about a meter away and sing something for a couple of minutes. Then, get up about 2 inches from the mic and sing (adjust your mic pre gain if you need to). Play them back, listening for the difference between the two. This will give you some idea of the mid-range coloration of your space. If you're still learning to hear what frequencies are what, throw a parametric eq across the distant track, cut (or boost) somewhere around 800Hz, then sweep the frequency to see where the most annoying ones are.

2. Mix a song with the bass balance exactly where you think it should be, judging it from your mix position on your monitors. Take your mix and play it back on as many different systems in as many different places as you can. How does the bass balance sound? The results will be all over the place, but if you take a mental average, you'll have a better idea of what problems you have in the low end in your room - at your mix position and using your monitors. You can do the same test in reverse by taking your reference tracks of released albums, and seeing how they sound at your mix position in your room, on your monitors, and comparing the general results to your preferred mix of your work. Come as close as you can with level matching - an iPhone SPL app will work fine for this.

If you have Room EQ Wizard or Fuzzmeasure and a measurement mic (the cheap Behringer works pretty well), you can then measure from your mix position and see if the results back up what you're hearing. To really get an idea of how bizarre your room is (and it will be), run the tests from various spots around the room. But the listening test will get you a long way toward understanding what's happening.

You can also see what modes the size of your room will naturally have - go to amroc - THE Room Mode Calculator, enter the dimensions of your room and see where the modes are. If you're confused about what modes are, the link up at the right top of the page is very helpful: Room Modes Theory - What are Room Modes?

Now, maybe you mean something different by "hear your room" than how I understand it. If you do, let us know and it will help us understand what you're trying to do.

Last edited by myles; 9th April 2018 at 08:50 AM..
Old 9th April 2018
  #78
Two things......
I’ve been at this for 30 years and have recorded in most of the best studios in the World.
If you played me a guitar part or saxophone recording I honestly couldn’t tell you if it was recorded on a $100 mic/pre or a $1000 mic/pre. It’s really ALL about the performer and the performance.
Secondly, I remember clearly when I first started home recording. I had an Mbox (cheap Pro Tools with interface). It sounded OK, not great. I progressed to a Mackie 1604. Again very cheap, very different to an Api or Neve console.
But I still have those tracks I made, the mixes. You wouldn’t listen to them and say they were flawed because of the mic/pres, you just wouldn’t.
They sound fine.
Old 9th April 2018
  #79
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Two things......
I’ve been at this for 30 years and have recorded in most of the best studios in the World.
If you played me a guitar part or saxophone recording I honestly couldn’t tell you if it was recorded on a $100 mic/pre or a $1000 mic/pre. It’s really ALL about the performer and the performance.
Secondly, I remember clearly when I first started home recording. I had an Mbox (cheap Pro Tools with interface). It sounded OK, not great. I progressed to a Mackie 1604. Again very cheap, very different to an Api or Neve console.
But I still have those tracks I made, the mixes. You wouldn’t listen to them and say they were flawed because of the mic/pres, you just wouldn’t.
They sound fine.
And this my friends, gets the "REPLY OF THE POST" award! Very well said and very truthful indeed!
Old 11th April 2018
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Two things......
I’ve been at this for 30 years and have recorded in most of the best studios in the World.
If you played me a guitar part or saxophone recording I honestly couldn’t tell you if it was recorded on a $100 mic/pre or a $1000 mic/pre. It’s really ALL about the performer and the performance.
Secondly, I remember clearly when I first started home recording. I had an Mbox (cheap Pro Tools with interface). It sounded OK, not great. I progressed to a Mackie 1604. Again very cheap, very different to an Api or Neve console.
But I still have those tracks I made, the mixes. You wouldn’t listen to them and say they were flawed because of the mic/pres, you just wouldn’t.
They sound fine.
I don't know about you, but I'll pick an album purely from the quality of the sound a lot of times. As long as the performance is on a certain level, I'll choose to listen to the album that sounds sonically better, 9 times out of 10. If someone is REALLY good then maybe I'll listen based on the performance, but I prefer both a great performance and quality
Old 11th April 2018
  #81
But 99.9% of people don't.
To choose sound quality over the material and the way the material is presented (performance) is not normal, and actually quite weird.
Old 11th April 2018
  #82
Lives for gear
 
myles's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kangking View Post
I don't know about you, but I'll pick an album purely from the quality of the sound a lot of times. As long as the performance is on a certain level, I'll choose to listen to the album that sounds sonically better, 9 times out of 10. If someone is REALLY good then maybe I'll listen based on the performance, but I prefer both a great performance and quality
You're involved in recording music. That makes you unusual.

You deleted the part of your post about records going to #1 because they were remixed. You neglected the part about the promotional campaign the second time around.
Old 12th April 2018
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by myles View Post
You're involved in recording music. That makes you unusual.

You deleted the part of your post about records going to #1 because they were remixed. You neglected the part about the promotional campaign the second time around.
i deleted part of the post because i felt it was extra. i started writing a lot but felt like i covered what i wanted to say already.

but yes the quality of the mix has made records successful. No question. There's a famous one which I was referring to "Flo Rida - Low Ft. T Pain". No extra promotion campaign as far as I know. Song was on the charts for weeks then remixed with the right mix went #1 .

I can vouch because I definitely noticed the mix quality of that record at the time. I was in the club when that song was out actually, and the bass was banging harder than anything out at that time.

From sound on sound:
Quote:
One would have imagined that Marasciullo ended up mixing Flo Rida's 'Low' through his connection with T–Pain, but apparently this was not the case. Instead, explained Marasciullo, he was called in because the original mix wasn't happening in the charts. "Mike Caren, the A&R guy, thought that the record could be a big hit, so he wanted me to have a shot at it. But the producer, DJ Montay, who is from Atlanta, hadn't even heard of me. Getting the files was a big ordeal, because the other engineer was reluctant to give me the right stuff. There were also different versions. They weren't sure that T–Pain would be cleared, so they had two different versions of the hook, one with T–Pain and one with another singer. Then they decided that they wanted a new hook, and so on. They continued tracking while I was mixing, and I actually mixed the song six times. These were not recall mixes, these were mixes that I began from scratch. By the time I had the correct files, I had been in the studio for six days!"
Excerpt from wikipedia:
Quote:
The song debuted at number 91 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 for the week of November 6, 2007, and reached number one for the week of December 30, 2007.[3] The song generated the second greatest one-week digital sales in the history of Billboard's Digital Songs chart (behind Flo Rida's "Right Round"), with 467,000 digital copies in one week. "Low" was number one on the Billboard Hot 100 for ten weeks and remained in the top ten of the chart for 23 weeks,[4] making it both T-Pain and Flo Rida's most successful single to date. The song stayed on the Hot 100 for 39 weeks, before dropping out in June 2008.[5]
Old 12th April 2018
  #84
Lives for gear
 
myles's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kangking View Post
i deleted part of the post because i felt it was extra. i started writing a lot but felt like i covered what i wanted to say already.

but yes the quality of the mix has made records successful. No question. There's a famous one which I was referring to "Flo Rida - Low Ft. T Pain". No extra promotion campaign as far as I know. Song was on the charts for weeks then remixed with the right mix went #1 .

I can vouch because I definitely noticed the mix quality of that record at the time. I was in the club when that song was out actually, and the bass was banging harder than anything out at that time.

From sound on sound:


Excerpt from wikipedia:
Interesting, especially in that the environment let people hear the difference in the low end in the new mix.

However, this also has a bearing: "Then they decided that they wanted a new hook, and so on. They continued tracking while I was mixing..."

So, maybe we're both right.
Old 12th April 2018
  #85
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But 99.9% of people don't.
To choose sound quality over the material and the way the material is presented (performance) is not normal, and actually quite weird.
the only people I know who do this are the Audiophiles. People who are not really listening to music, so much as they are listening to their systems.

I remember a guy who listened to a lot of Barbershop Quartet music. I don't know if he even liked that stuff, but he was very proud of his system's capability to create a convincing audio image that there were four men actually standing there in his listening room.
Old 12th April 2018
  #86
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the only people I know who do this are the Audiophiles. People who are not really listening to music, so much as they are listening to their systems.
Usually in a crap room.
Old 12th April 2018
  #87
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

The truth is that actual LISTENING (for whatever reason) is quite "out of style" these days:

I am old enough to remember it being pretty commonplace for folks to listen to music as a primary activity.

Today, the idea of listening to music as a primary activity is quite a foreign concept to most folks.

(You would think this statement would be off-topic to this thread, but its really not.)
.
Old 12th April 2018
  #88
Lives for gear
 
myles's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the only people I know who do this are the Audiophiles. People who are not really listening to music, so much as they are listening to their systems.

I remember a guy who listened to a lot of Barbershop Quartet music. I don't know if he even liked that stuff, but he was very proud of his system's capability to create a convincing audio image that there were four men actually standing there in his listening room.
If he was able to do that, it would mean the BQ was well-recorded, regardless of what he listens to, for, or how, no?

I have a small weakness (i.e., I don't pursue it, but enjoy it when something random comes my way) for vocal quartet music. Especially when the harmonies are complex, it can get pretty out there. And the guy singing bass is usually pretty astounding.

But even further OT. Sorry.
Old 12th April 2018
  #89
Lives for gear
 
myles's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
The truth is that actual LISTENING (for whatever reason) is quite "out of style" these days:

I am old enough to remember it being pretty commonplace for folks to listen to music as a primary activity.

Today, the idea of listening to music as a primary activity is quite a foreign concept to most folks.

(You would think this statement would be off-topic to this thread, but its really not.)
.
First thing I did when I had cash as a 17-year-old was buy a good hi-fi system. My daughter lives in this strange audio space between laptop speakers, earbuds and monster systems in clubs. It's not conducive to actually listening, and it seems to be the norm.
Old 12th April 2018
  #90
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by myles View Post
If he was able to do that, it would mean the BQ was well-recorded, regardless of what he listens to, for, or how, no?

I have a small weakness (i.e., I don't pursue it, but enjoy it when something random comes my way) for vocal quartet music. Especially when the harmonies are complex, it can get pretty out there. And the guy singing bass is usually pretty astounding.

But even further OT. Sorry.
yes, I certainly don't know for a fact that his interest in Barbershop Quartet music was insincere or based solely on its ability to demonstrate the awesomeness of his system. But when I was over there, the sonics seemed to be his focus. He played me a lot of short excerpts with comments like, "listen to how the tympani come in here" "or check out the detail in these strings"

He did not for example, point out the complex harmonies, it was more about the imaging. I have to agree with chrisso that this is not the Norm. While a really terrible mix might turn me off, I would never be like kangking and

Quote:
Originally Posted by kangking
pick an album purely from the quality of the sound
and I am a Sound guy. A friend and I were once hanging out with a Grammy winning engineer who was playing us some recordings he thought we would find interesting as fellow engineers. ('this is a good example of last year's snare drum sound' ) Then he put on a record and said "this band sucks, but it is really well recorded" - he played it for 30 seconds and then took it off and said "nah, screw that".
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump