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
That Sheen Condenser Microphones
Old 21st July 2014
  #31
Lives for gear
 
MusicJesus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
what is that "sheen" i hear on commercial mixes? [/B]
A professional doing it.
Old 21st July 2014
  #32
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Here are a couple of mixes. I would love suggestions on what I might do to improve them.
Attached Files

Sweet Communion.mp3 (6.54 MB, 1188 views)

Joseph's Lullaby 7 no comp L2.mp3 (5.12 MB, 692 views)

Old 21st July 2014
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
I always like to listen to Dire Straits Brothers in Arms through my studio setup and sure enough regardless of how low life my gear is it still sounds VERY POLISHED LOL.
There is a big difference between listening to a cd for enjoyment through a D/A unit as opposed to monitoring during mixing and tracking for real through the same unit.

For 1.... the CD you are listening to was professional recorded in a great studio...and 2..... It's mastered in a professional mastering house. If you know anything about mastering you'll remember part of the mastering process is to process and EQ it to perfection so it sounds good in virtually any listening environment through virtually any equipment.
Old 21st July 2014
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Here are a couple of mixes. I would love suggestions on what I might do to improve them.
Honestly, the problem is 100% your converters. They have a "hard" quality to them.
Old 21st July 2014
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Not trying to be snobby I just think (in general) the difference between mass the produced stuff and the boutique stuff can differ greatly in audio quality.
Don't really know how to respond to that. "Mass produced" doesn't necessarily imply lesser quality than something handmade; and vice-versa. I think the Lavry Gold qualifies as "mass produced; I'm pretty sure the Burls aren't hand made in the same way a boutique guitar amp might be.

"differ greatly" - well, i'm sure there's an audible difference. Whether or not that's evident to a guy making records in a home studio with sub-par monitoring is up for debate. The point about passing a "sheen"-y mix through FF800 converters is a good one - do you really think that would "lose" the sheen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Apogee is different in the sense that they were before the pack. They were designing boutique converters 20+ years ago. Back in the day lots of big studios retrofitted their Mitsubishi digital multitracks with apogee converters. They have been at it a long time and at one time were arguably the leaders in this area. not so much today but they still make great products better than RME.
That is as they say a matter of opinion. I'm sure you can find people who prefer RME to Apogee. Yes - AD8000s were preferred to 888s in "posh" studios. Doesn't mean that a 2nd hand Rosetta is going to give the "Sheen" the OP is looking for, and I don't think it's fair to imply to him that it will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Yeah and I stated that too. Big studios have LFCs and all the great outboard, this is a big deal for that pro sound. For a small home studio I think top of the a line interface is perhaps MORE important because they are ITB.
I see why you're saying that, but I don't necessarily agree! If you want a better sound from a home studio....buy a better front end. I have an N-word LFC at the studio I work at; I don't use it half the time, and to be honest the preamps and compressors I have as outboard are "better" to me. The OP has UA and Daking front end - I'd say that was fine. I don't know the mics apart from the SM7B, but I'm sure I've recorded with worse. However, he's got budget (ish) mackie monitors and I have no idea of the monitoring or recording environment. OP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
It will give your tracks a sheen though. It sounds amazing.
Maybe. I don't think it's the solution the OP is going to be looking for. I've barely used a Burl, and I hope I've managed the "sheen" - at least, no-one's complained it's missing!
Old 21st July 2014
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
Honestly, the problem is 100% your converters. They have a "hard" quality to them.
Honestly, it's not.
Old 21st July 2014
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Honestly, it's not.
OK
Old 21st July 2014
  #38
Led
Lives for gear
 
Led's Avatar
Something you don't mention is experience.... the tunes sound good musically. Definitely doesn't need more compression, I can hear a fair bit going on. There's a lot of little things that add to the polish and cohesiveness of tracks, things like early reflections adding some depth and sparkle that I don't hear in those mixes, also eq'ing things to fit together, layering things eq wise. I do think you can getter better top end boosts on things like vocals from hardware. You would be surprised how much top end some elements need added to sound like a record. At the same time you need to leave space for them..surprising how one element with the right sparkle to it makes the rest of the track not need much at all and the track still sounds right. I wouldn't be too hard on it, you yourself are able to hear what you think is lacking so you are better off than a lot already.
I don't agree about the converters either, I think it's more a mixing issue but that sort of stuff takes time, and then as soon as you think you have it sorted you will be chasing some other improvement. For as long as you are doing this.
Old 21st July 2014
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Here are a couple of mixes. I would love suggestions on what I might do to improve them.
For me, the opening of that 2nd tune sounds really good - it's certainly ballpark. A little bit of EQ in the right places, maybe some subtle saturation, and you'd be there. Guitars are great, strings nice (occasionally a bit of synth strings raises it's head too obviously perhaps?).

The vocals don't sound great sonically to me. Too filtered, not sweet enough top end. Which mic are you using? I'd try a different one...they sound too hard limited, and the ambiences aren't working - maybe some delayed plate/chamber to help things out?

It's the vocal sound that lets things down for me. Maybe you're just overprocessing a bit?

Chainrule might be right in that the transformers in the Burl preamp might help your tracking. But you should be able to achieve a similar effect without spending that much money - there's nothing wrong with the actual "conversion" you have, you might just need to smooth things and flatter them elsewhere.

Assuming the vocal wasn't recorded that hard limited and filtered, I'm sure a "sheen"-filled mix could be achieved with this tracking.

I wouldn't compare this to "brothers in arms" either - that's a bit of a dated reference, overpolished and nothing like the same style as this!
Old 21st July 2014
  #40
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Heres a little more info:

First mix:

most every element was tracked through NTK and 2-610
non treated room

Second mix:

vocal was sm7 through daking
violin and cello were a stereo pair of 57s through the 2-610
non treated room

Thats me singing and playing keys in the second mix. We tracked this live in one take and I added some fake strings...a little too much in places. This was just a rough track for rehearsal, but I liked it so I gave it a shot and tried to polish it up.

Im sure my non treated room and mediocre monitoring arent helping things.
Old 21st July 2014
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Heres a little more info:

First mix:

most every element was tracked through NTK and 2-610
non treated room

Second mix:

vocal was sm7 through daking
violin and cello were a stereo pair of 57s through the 2-610
non treated room

Thats me singing and playing keys in the second mix. We tracked this live in one take and I added some fake strings...a little too much in places. This was just a rough track for rehearsal, but I liked it so I gave it a shot and tried to polish it up.

Im sure my non treated room and mediocre monitoring arent helping things.
I don't think the SM7 suits your voice - I'd try the Shure instead.

If that's 57s on the live strings, you've done pretty well there - and yes, the fake strings don't really blend. If you're trying to enhance live strings, it helps to double things exactly - don't let some lines be live, and some be fake.
Old 21st July 2014
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Dr. Mordo's Avatar
 

Those are very solid mixes IMO.

Some things you might try:

A touch more reverb. I get that you want things sparse, but you should try adding more until it's definitely noticeable, then back off again a bit. This will glue everything together a bit. Experiment with different lengths, but I'd start with a long dark plate.

De-ess the vocal more. It sounded pretty sibilant to me. You might be able to fix it with a narrow cut at 5-7 khz (I didn't attempt to find the center freq on your vocal, but that's usually a good place to start). Sometimes those cuts have to be deep, and that's ok you can boost back around 8khz to offset it. I agree that SM7 may not be right for you.

Have it mastered by a good engineer. I do think you'll be happy with the result. Have one song done and see what you think.
Old 21st July 2014
  #43
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
There is a big difference between listening to a cd for enjoyment through a D/A unit as opposed to monitoring during mixing and tracking for real through the same unit.
Well yes there is a big difference between listening to a CD vs Mixing etc however, that aint the point. In context the point of the original comment was that if it can go into the Ads sounding polished and come out of those D/As sounding polished then it aint the A/Ds or D/As causing it not to sound polished.

In terms of the A/Ds making a difference I would say its going to be negligible. Particularly on the level of kit we are talking ie Apogee vs RME vs Spectrasonics etc. in a sense its a very 50/50 swing argument. My point was an external clock may well be all that is required on that front. Swapping out the soundcard as you suggest I Dont think will do much other than cause a large bill with fewer returns. You could argue external clocking is negligible also. At the end of all this im sure everything will do something but I am assuming the OPs intention is to get results with minimal upheaval and for minimal expense ideally no expense at all.

Other comments about mic Pres is a valid point. There are many types of amplifier circuits out there ranging from serious low end to premium ultra low noise. In addition to the OP amps there could be valves in the mix, hard wired transistor circuits, Mosfets, Bipolars, Jfets, certain styles of biasing at the early stages of amplification, harmonics, minute oscillations etc etc etc. This I would think would be a much bigger impact than the D/As on RME standards.

Quote:
For 1.... the CD you are listening to was professional recorded in a great studio...and 2..... It's mastered in a professional mastering house. If you know anything about mastering you'll remember part of the mastering process is to process and EQ it to perfection so it sounds good in virtually any listening environment through virtually any equipment.
Yes very aware of all this of course but im just not convinced its the RME bottle necking they are very good! and trust me ive tried quite a few sound cards ranging from real low end to mid range to some expensive and I do rate the RME cards hence why I have one myself. i think they sound better externally clocked but this is just my opinion and hence why I pointed out the kind of music I am writing because the type of sound I like or what I hear as "polished" might not be what the Op likes.

I accept RME is not in the premier league stuff but definitely not in the mickey mouse scene and in my opinion I would say the FF800 is a nice piece of gear.

At the end of all this it really does come down to opinion but i am fascinated reading all the comments and suggestions. What i love about this site is we are all doing many different things but the fundamental principles are the same hence why this debate will go on for a long time.

Great thread
Old 21st July 2014
  #44
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

hello uptoolate

had a listen to your tracks. Nice sound by the way good work. thanks for uploading these.

Im not a great expert with this kind of sound but for track 1 Sweet Communion I think its just the vocal that needs some processing. As to what im not sure but just from a layman opinion thats the part of the sound that I think needs the extra work.

Josephs Lullaby I think is more in key with the theme of the thread. Again its nice work but I think on that one its the piano and vocal needing something. Im just in the process of repairing my TC Electronic Finalizer right now it would be interesting to put it through that and see if anything can be gained. Just a simple preset just so you can hear what that kit might do. It definitely helps the end result on my stuff so I would be very interested to see what it does to your work
Old 21st July 2014
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
In addition to the OP amps there could be valves in the mix, hard wired transistor circuits, Mosfets, Bipolars, Jfets
there are loads of great pres with all these implementations if that is your point I agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post

I accept RME is not in the premier league stuff but definitely not in the mickey mouse scene
I think that particular model is mickey mouse. There is something inherently weird with that particular design. Not all their products are created equal and that being a REALLY old design I think it's not only a poor design but an outdated one.

It's definitely part of the problem here. I had couple RMEs years ago and I struggled to get good recording out of them, I couldn't do it. And I had recorded on lots of digtial gear prior that going back to the 80s. I had no problems with stuff like Lexicon, MOTU, Digital Audio Labs, DigiDesign etc.... It wasn't till I got an Apogee that I was truly happy and even then I have upgraded 4 or 5 times since.

The RME FF I had was so bad sounding I sold it and bought another one!!! the same exact model !!!....... since I though my original one was broken. Come to find out that's the way they sound. I'm sorry for my lack of experience recording but I spent countless hours trying to get a good recording out the FF. It was not possible at least to my standards. When I got my first Apogee AD model unit years ago, it was like night and day over FF. Then I went to Rosetta then AD16X then UA now Burl

It is sheen heaven in a box............ Life is too short
Old 21st July 2014
  #46
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
I think that particular model is mickey mouse. There is something inherently weird with that particular design. Not all their products are created equal and that being a REALLY old design I think it's not only a poor design but an outdated one.
Okay I accept your opinion is it the Mic Pres you dont like or the Ads or DAs or is it just you didnt like any of it? Was it externally clocked?

From my experience of Apogee I have liked it. I have only used the Duet and the Ensemble. I didnt really have access to them for long enough to really put it side by side to the RME (9652 I own) and give a true side by side opinion. However, I have heard the lower end Apogee stuff is not a scratch on the Rosetta and the AD16X config you mention. I think one of the issues is with the duet is you cant clock it and of course they are locked to MAC so being mainly a pc fan (although I do have a mac also in my studio it tends to only get used for reading logic files)

Wow would love to try one of those setups out. Even with my synths it does make a difference hence my major interest in this particular thread. Of course EDM isnt all mindless synth riffs and 909 kicks theres a science in this too I accept its not quite as technically challenging and varied as say micing up a drum kit but definitely always new tricks to learn.

But going back to uptoolates tracks would you say on track one Sweet Communion to me the instruments sound pretty polished its just the vocal that needs some extra work. if this is the case would you not think this demonstrates that the ADs might not be the issue and its a mixing / processing issue?
Old 21st July 2014
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Aaron Rash's Avatar
I like those samples you posted. I definitely agree with psycho. That mic isn't suiting your voice at all. I would try something brighter and less mid-rangey and put the mic somewhere else.

The instruments sound great though, good job!
Old 21st July 2014
  #48
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Okay I accept your opinion is it the Mic Pres you dont like or the Ads or DAs or is it just you didnt like any of it? Was it externally clocked?

From my experience of Apogee I have liked it. I have only used the Duet and the Ensemble. I didnt really have access to them for long enough to really put it side by side to the RME (9652 I own) and give a true side by side opinion. However, I have heard the lower end Apogee stuff is not a scratch on the Rosetta and the AD16X config you mention. I think one of the issues is with the duet is you cant clock it and of course they are locked to MAC so being mainly a pc fan (although I do have a mac also in my studio it tends to only get used for reading logic files)
Are you aware that with an interface, you can't actually improve the clock by clocking externally? most interfaces use their own clock to clock to an external clock...using an external clock might make a subjective improvement, but it won't actually make things "better".
Old 21st July 2014
  #49
Gear Head
 
futura2012's Avatar
 

Quote:
Are you aware that with an interface, you can't actually improve the clock by clocking externally? most interfaces use their own clock to clock to an external clock...using an external clock might make a subjective improvement, but it won't actually make things "better".
Could you explain a bit more what you mean? If this is the case what is the point of say a word clock in for example? if the device will take an input / clock signal from an external source then surely the clock can be improved? Why would you even have an external clock input if no improvement can be made?

I accept its negligible for example vs say a op amp vs valve mic pre but in my opinion it makes a difference. Now I guess you could argue is the sound being improved because the external clock is synchronising everything as opposed to just "improving" the soundcard in/out sound quality I guess at this point it gets kinda debatable.
Old 21st July 2014
  #50
Quote:
Originally Posted by futura2012 View Post
Could you explain a bit more what you mean? If this is the case what is the point of say a word clock in for example? if the device will take an input / clock signal from an external source then surely the clock can be improved? Why would you even have an external clock input if no improvement can be made?

I accept its negligible for example vs say a op amp vs valve mic pre but in my opinion it makes a difference. Now I guess you could argue is the sound being improved because the external clock is synchronising everything as opposed to just "improving" the soundcard in/out I guess at this point it gets kinda debatable.
It's not really relevant to the OP, so briefly, the point of having an external clock is to sync multiple converters together - in a larger setup it's convenient to have one central clock that everything references.

Most interfaces (and there are ones that do things differently, but don't ask me on the specifics!) use their internal clocks to lock to an external clock. The external clock might be setting the "pulse", but the internal clock is still being used to lock to this pulse. In a cheaper interface (eg some of the Focusrite interfaces have wordclock in) you can't improve the specs of the internal clock..because you're still using it.

If multiple interfaces aren't clocked together you get serious problems - ie pops and clicks. It's not just "an improvement" - it's a right/wrong scenario.

I'm sure in many cases there IS a difference - and sometimes it might be a pleasing difference - but it's not technically "better" and IMO there's precious little point clocking an interface with no digital ins (like the Duet) externally. Hence the reason there's no external clock input
Old 21st July 2014
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
I think that particular model is mickey mouse. There is something inherently weird with that particular design. Not all their products are created equal and that being a REALLY old design I think it's not only a poor design but an outdated one.
And yet a few years ago people were raving about how amazing they (and the FF400, which AFAIK is a very similar design?), plus the ADDA, knocked spots of the competition. I had the use of an ADDA plus 003, and the ADDA was certainly better than the 003 (though not a "night and day" difference).

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
It's definitely part of the problem here. I had couple RMEs years ago and I struggled to get good recording out of them, I couldn't do it. And I had recorded on lots of digtial gear prior that going back to the 80s. I had no problems with stuff like Lexicon, MOTU, Digital Audio Labs, DigiDesign etc.... It wasn't till I got an Apogee that I was truly happy and even then I have upgraded 4 or 5 times since.
Well, if that's your experience, I guess that's why you think this way.

I've just never had that issue with conversion. I use an HD IO most of the time at the moment..but I happily use our little Focusrite 6i6 when I need to. Use a great input chain and I can get "sheen" happily - and that's arguably far more "prosumer" than the FF800 was ever meant to be!


Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
The RME FF I had was so bad sounding I sold it and bought another one!!! the same exact model !!!....... since I though my original one was broken. Come to find out that's the way they sound. I'm sorry for my lack of experience recording but I spent countless hours trying to get a good recording out the FF. It was not possible at least to my standards. When I got my first Apogee AD model unit years ago, it was like night and day over FF. Then I went to Rosetta then AD16X then UA now Burl

It is sheen heaven in a box............ Life is too short
As I said before, I'm sceptical of any "night and day" description of converters. "bit different" is as much as I'll concede! "Night and Day" implies no reference point needed.

I'm sure the burl is great, and might well make a useful difference for the OP. But don't you think his money would be better spent upgrading his monitoring or recording environment? That said - given the quality of the bed tracks, even with my misgivings about the vocal mic, I'm sure I could make these recorded tracks "professional" sounding - it's really not that far away for some of the elements, it's just a bit of overall polish by someone experienced, plus some serious work on the vocal (ignoring the issues of synth strings).
Old 21st July 2014
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
And yet a few years ago people were raving about how amazing they (and the FF400, which AFAIK is a very similar design?), plus the ADDA, knocked spots of the competition. I had the use of an ADDA plus 003, and the ADDA was certainly better than the 003 (though not a "night and day" difference).



Well, if that's your experience, I guess that's why you think this way.

I've just never had that issue with conversion. I use an HD IO most of the time at the moment..but I happily use our little Focusrite 6i6 when I need to. Use a great input chain and I can get "sheen" happily - and that's arguably far more "prosumer" than the FF800 was ever meant to be!




As I said before, I'm sceptical of any "night and day" description of converters. "bit different" is as much as I'll concede! "Night and Day" implies no reference point needed.

I'm sure the burl is great, and might well make a useful difference for the OP. But don't you think his money would be better spent upgrading his monitoring or recording environment? That said - given the quality of the bed tracks, even with my misgivings about the vocal mic, I'm sure I could make these recorded tracks "professional" sounding - it's really not that far away for some of the elements, it's just a bit of overall polish by someone experienced, plus some serious work on the vocal (ignoring the issues of synth strings).
not a big fan of the "night and day" term either and don't like to throw around terms like that carelessly, but In this case I feel it was justified.
The thing with the interface is, it's not just capturing a sound. It's monitoring it and it's going to recreate it on playback. OS it has alot of responsibility. Your monitors are hooked up to them, everything you record goes through it, everything you monitor is fed off it back to mix from.

This is why these devices IMO are so important. People hate interfaces, it's money they'd rather spend elsewhere, money to spend on stuff they feel is more important. Room treatments aside the OP has pretty good gear overall. His weak link is the FF right after his room. Id don't think anyone can argue otherwise.
Old 21st July 2014
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
not a big fan of the "night and day" term either and don't like to throw around terms like that carelessly, but In this case I feel it was justified.
So you think you could come into a room, listen to a source you hadn't heard before, with no other reference point, and tell me if it's the FF or if it's a burl? That's "night and day" to me. If you need to A/B it's not night and day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
This is why these devices IMO are so important. People hate interfaces, it's money they'd rather spend elsewhere, money to spend on stuff they feel is more important. Room treatments aside the OP has pretty good gear overall. His weak link is the FF right after his room. Id don't think anyone can argue otherwise.
I don't know if you've read GS recently, but converters are the first thing people seem to want to "upgrade"!

The OP has quality preamps. However, those mackies aren't great, and his mic selection is minimal (good as the SM7b is, it doesn't suit him). Assuming (from the recording) his instruments are good, it's room/monitors/mics for me before anything else. THEN the interface - but then, that's the only thing left TO upgrade!
Old 21st July 2014
  #54
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Wow...glad this thread has gotten some attention.

I appreciate all your opinions and thanks for the encouragement on my mixes.
Old 21st July 2014
  #55
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Are you aware that with an interface, you can't actually improve the clock by clocking externally? most interfaces use their own clock to clock to an external clock...using an external clock might make a subjective improvement, but it won't actually make things "better".
To quite a few of us a subjective improvement is all the 'better' one could hope for.

To think how Antelope manage to sell their 10M to all those people for 5 grand and law and behold, it doesn't actually make it 'better'.

@BOWIE....nice to see you here, spouting a nugget of truth. Been ages.

On topic I agree with the man who said some people just have an affinity with audio, like seasoning. And then it ends up tasting good. It's not because they have more Saffron than the rest of the chefs.
Old 21st July 2014
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
To quite a few of us a subjective improvement is all the 'better' one could hope for.

To think how Antelope manage to sell their 10M to all those people for 5 grand and law and behold, it doesn't actually make it 'better'.
I know - that's why I'm being very careful to use the term "subjective" - an external clock MIGHT just make a sonic improvement, regardless of what the actual improvement is!

Some however seem to have the opinion you can "fix" the clock of a given interface with an external clock, which I don't believe to be the case, ever.

As for boutique clocks - if you actually NEED an external clock, makes sense to buy a good one I'd be interested to find out the demographic of who owns them....I suspect a few at least might be making little to no difference.

Where's Smoothvibe when we need someone to talk up the 10m clock?!
Old 21st July 2014
  #57
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I know - that's why I'm being very careful to use the term "subjective" - an external clock MIGHT just make a sonic improvement, regardless of what the actual improvement is!

Some however seem to have the opinion you can "fix" the clock of a given interface with an external clock, which I don't believe to be the case, ever.

As for boutique clocks - if you actually NEED an external clock, makes sense to buy a good one I'd be interested to find out the demographic of who owns them....I suspect a few at least might be making little to no difference.

Where's Smoothvibe when we need someone to talk up the 10m clock?!
I don't think Smooth can afford a 10M. I also think that 99% of people that shelled out for one did so after trying it out and deciding it was worth the difference they heard.

I have limited experience with clocking and listening to the results, but have done some listening tests and found a Ross Martin AD used as clock can make rather a substantial difference to mid market interfaces that does not sound like 'different' but most definitely a lot better.

Whereas when I tried my Alphalink off an old AardsyncII it was more glowy and wider (maybe appealing to someone), but in a sort of blurry way, i..e it felt actually worse, loss of focus. Basically the thing to be expected with theory you are repeating. Not so with the Ross Martin though. Whatever it all means.
Old 21st July 2014
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Oh my gosh.

Can't believe you guys have managed to turn this into yet a other converter thread...

I mean obviously the converters must be the problem when the op posts something like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uptoolate
First mix:

most every element was tracked through NTK and 2-610
non treated room

Second mix:

vocal was sm7 through daking
violin and cello were a stereo pair of 57s through the 2-610
non treated room

Im sure my non treated room and mediocre monitoring arent helping things.
Yeah, sure, the converters are the problem here


Also I bet chainrule is just wrong with regards to FF800. He probably changed something else with the setup and just a bit of good old placebo with that and you come to the conclusion that it's the converters.

Just as a comparison:

Frequency response of SM57:



Of a typical room:


And what is clearly the OP's problem, a FF800:

Old 21st July 2014
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
Bowie and Psycho have had the best advice for your already good mixes. A little harmonic content would not hurt and possibly give you that sheen. Most likely along with a little EQ. The first track may also benefit from a touch of the right buss compression to tame the dynamics just a little more. Touching a RED3 or maybe a tube opto like a CL2a might also work. You are very close and really only require a little finesse.
Old 21st July 2014
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
I don't think Smooth can afford a 10M.
No neither do I - which is why his obsession with recommending it was kinda amusing! Ah well - all in the past!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
I also think that 99% of people that shelled out for one did so after trying it out and deciding it was worth the difference they heard.
I would hope so. Minimal perception bias and so on - would be silly to spend thousands on something without being 100% sure of what you're hearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
I have limited experience with clocking and listening to the results, but have done some listening tests and found a Ross Martin AD used as clock can make rather a substantial difference to mid market interfaces that does not sound like 'different' but most definitely a lot better.
I'm not saying you haven't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Whereas when I tried my Alphalink off an old AardsyncII it was more glowy and wider (maybe appealing to someone), but in a sort of blurry way, i..e it felt actually worse, loss of focus. Basically the thing to be expected with theory you are repeating.
I'm not "repeating" anything....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Not so with the Ross Martin though. Whatever it all means.
Indeed.
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