I've decided to shut down this blog. Some of the posts will be copied and posted on my Lucky Lad blog and I will continue to talk about music/recording etc there.
As far as announcements of house concerts or such go, they will also be at the Lucky Lad and at the Peanut Road website (and MySpace).
Friday, May 8, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Syntherely Yours
I've been playing about some with soft synths (i.e. synthesizers that are essentially programs that run on the computer) lately, especially the DXi and VSTi variants and am...underwhelmed. Yes, it's convenient. Yes, the sounds are quite useable when I'm composing/writing and some are good enough for recording.
But, in general, I think outboard hardware is still the best way to go for the majority of the sounds I'd want on a recording. Even my old-ish and cheap-ish Roland SC-7 generally beats the General Midi instruments on the soft synths I've been using. Certainly better than the Roland VSC I have installed. Better, for the most part, the Coyote Forte I demoed (and deleted). The SC-7 sounds are essentially the same as in some of Roland's higher-end boxes of the past, but with fewer editing options and other 'frills.' I definitely prefer it for drums, in those instances where I don't use Real Drums (from PG Music, for use in their DAW software) or play them live (always preferable, when possible).
Of course, this means I have to have a mixer hooked up to reroute the sounds from my midi modules -- the SC-7, maybe the DR5 (which is pain to set up), even the ancient keyboards if I wanted (probably won't). I do need to invest in a multiple-midi output interface of some sort, as my recording interfaces have only one midi port (when they have any at all). Three outs should be quite enough.
The other advantage to using outboard modules, rather than software, is that it places way less load on the computer. All I'm doing is sending midi information. Who knows, I may eventually go to mixing 'out of the box' more and more if I get more outboard processors and sound modules.
But, in general, I think outboard hardware is still the best way to go for the majority of the sounds I'd want on a recording. Even my old-ish and cheap-ish Roland SC-7 generally beats the General Midi instruments on the soft synths I've been using. Certainly better than the Roland VSC I have installed. Better, for the most part, the Coyote Forte I demoed (and deleted). The SC-7 sounds are essentially the same as in some of Roland's higher-end boxes of the past, but with fewer editing options and other 'frills.' I definitely prefer it for drums, in those instances where I don't use Real Drums (from PG Music, for use in their DAW software) or play them live (always preferable, when possible).
Of course, this means I have to have a mixer hooked up to reroute the sounds from my midi modules -- the SC-7, maybe the DR5 (which is pain to set up), even the ancient keyboards if I wanted (probably won't). I do need to invest in a multiple-midi output interface of some sort, as my recording interfaces have only one midi port (when they have any at all). Three outs should be quite enough.
The other advantage to using outboard modules, rather than software, is that it places way less load on the computer. All I'm doing is sending midi information. Who knows, I may eventually go to mixing 'out of the box' more and more if I get more outboard processors and sound modules.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Old Ways
.
Are not necessarily the best ways. For recording, I'd say definitely not, though there are plenty of pros out there who still love their analog equipment. Indeed, a great deal of what the big labels put out is recorded that way (especially mainstream country and rock, it seems).
Be that as it may, for small operations like mine, digital is definitely more cost-effective and a darn sight simpler to use. Takes up less space, too, and that's a very real consideration in a small studio.
Anyway, I was thinking about how I was recording fifteen years ago or so, when I was still a beginning hobbyist. At that time my process was centered around a Vestax 6-track cassette recorder. Not a bad machine at all, given the inherent drawbacks of cassette tape, with dbx noise reduction, multi-speed settings and not-terrible preamps. Although those preamps had only 1/4 inputs, so I had to use a high impedance mike (or adapter)!
But since my main microphone was my Shure 588, which is switchable for high imp, that was not a problem. It was pretty much my only mike at that time or at least the only truly usable one. Since it was onto tape, without the ability to do all the post-recording edits and processing available in my current digital setup, I had to add my effects at the start, so I was generally hitting those before the Vestax inputs anyway! That usually meant a Behringer Autocom (they aren't that bad or maybe they were just better in the mid-90s) for compression (and, often, gain) and my Art SGX-LT for any and all reverbs, chorusing, etc. The Art is actually a guitar preamp plus effects but it worked well (even as a vocal preamp occasionally). I should dust it off and see what I think now, eh?
At this point, it sits in my 'live' rack, along with the Autocom, though I haven't had the opportunity to use either for a while. I also ran most of my guitars through those same boxes, generally direct via a sound hole pickup. I know those don't sound very acoustic but they proved quite okay in the context of my mixes. Bass, more often than not, went through a Rockman 'acoustic' pedal.
But even then, I was partially digital. I had the midi-only versions of Power Tracks and Band in a Box to set up some instruments, and did use them for quickie demos on occasion, pretty much straight out of the computer. Or, I would use them for some of the basic tracks, drum, bass, maybe some strings or pads, and do the guitars myself. On my serious work, however (like my Southern Seas album), any and all digital instruments were played directly via keyboard. I have some simple drums, accordion, strings and such done that way, sometimes on cheap Casio or Yamaha synths, sometimes with my Roland DR5.
I no longer have the Vestax. It wasn't worth keeping it in running order and, let's face it, it was a bit of a pain to work that way. And the sound was certainly not as good as my current all-digital approach. However, it did make me plan ahead and develop good pre-production work habits. There is no way I would go back to working that way though, I must admit, I could see going semi-analog like many of the big studios, using a console and a digital recorder. It won't happen anytime soon; I'm happy working mostly inside the computer.
Indeed, aside from little things like patchbays, cables, headphones, I'm pretty well set with my current rig. What I do need to spend my money (when I get some!) on is better sound treatment in here. And, eventually, an adequate ADAT equipped 8 channel preamp (or maybe just an ADAT A/D converter) to expand my inputs. The Presonus Digimax line has its attractions, even the quite inexpensive D8.
And I doubt I'll ever do much signal processing on the way in, again. Other than limiting for safety's sake when I do live recordings. I am thinking about playing with compressors, especially on vocals. Digital is fine for clean gain control but there is a sound to a real compressor that can be attractive. Or horrible. Of course, now that I have a small mixer I can route signals out to analog equipment but that brings up new problems with signal degradation, latency and probably others I can't think of at the moment. Takes more time too.
Are not necessarily the best ways. For recording, I'd say definitely not, though there are plenty of pros out there who still love their analog equipment. Indeed, a great deal of what the big labels put out is recorded that way (especially mainstream country and rock, it seems).
Be that as it may, for small operations like mine, digital is definitely more cost-effective and a darn sight simpler to use. Takes up less space, too, and that's a very real consideration in a small studio.
Anyway, I was thinking about how I was recording fifteen years ago or so, when I was still a beginning hobbyist. At that time my process was centered around a Vestax 6-track cassette recorder. Not a bad machine at all, given the inherent drawbacks of cassette tape, with dbx noise reduction, multi-speed settings and not-terrible preamps. Although those preamps had only 1/4 inputs, so I had to use a high impedance mike (or adapter)!
But since my main microphone was my Shure 588, which is switchable for high imp, that was not a problem. It was pretty much my only mike at that time or at least the only truly usable one. Since it was onto tape, without the ability to do all the post-recording edits and processing available in my current digital setup, I had to add my effects at the start, so I was generally hitting those before the Vestax inputs anyway! That usually meant a Behringer Autocom (they aren't that bad or maybe they were just better in the mid-90s) for compression (and, often, gain) and my Art SGX-LT for any and all reverbs, chorusing, etc. The Art is actually a guitar preamp plus effects but it worked well (even as a vocal preamp occasionally). I should dust it off and see what I think now, eh?
At this point, it sits in my 'live' rack, along with the Autocom, though I haven't had the opportunity to use either for a while. I also ran most of my guitars through those same boxes, generally direct via a sound hole pickup. I know those don't sound very acoustic but they proved quite okay in the context of my mixes. Bass, more often than not, went through a Rockman 'acoustic' pedal.
But even then, I was partially digital. I had the midi-only versions of Power Tracks and Band in a Box to set up some instruments, and did use them for quickie demos on occasion, pretty much straight out of the computer. Or, I would use them for some of the basic tracks, drum, bass, maybe some strings or pads, and do the guitars myself. On my serious work, however (like my Southern Seas album), any and all digital instruments were played directly via keyboard. I have some simple drums, accordion, strings and such done that way, sometimes on cheap Casio or Yamaha synths, sometimes with my Roland DR5.
I no longer have the Vestax. It wasn't worth keeping it in running order and, let's face it, it was a bit of a pain to work that way. And the sound was certainly not as good as my current all-digital approach. However, it did make me plan ahead and develop good pre-production work habits. There is no way I would go back to working that way though, I must admit, I could see going semi-analog like many of the big studios, using a console and a digital recorder. It won't happen anytime soon; I'm happy working mostly inside the computer.
Indeed, aside from little things like patchbays, cables, headphones, I'm pretty well set with my current rig. What I do need to spend my money (when I get some!) on is better sound treatment in here. And, eventually, an adequate ADAT equipped 8 channel preamp (or maybe just an ADAT A/D converter) to expand my inputs. The Presonus Digimax line has its attractions, even the quite inexpensive D8.
And I doubt I'll ever do much signal processing on the way in, again. Other than limiting for safety's sake when I do live recordings. I am thinking about playing with compressors, especially on vocals. Digital is fine for clean gain control but there is a sound to a real compressor that can be attractive. Or horrible. Of course, now that I have a small mixer I can route signals out to analog equipment but that brings up new problems with signal degradation, latency and probably others I can't think of at the moment. Takes more time too.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Trying Them Out
I finally got around to doing some auditions on my newer microphones this afternoon. Between the weather (too darn cold in the studio!) and my duties as a caregiver, I haven't had the time for this sort of thing. No audio clips or anything -- far too lazy to fool with that -- but some impressions.
Everything was plugged into my Fostex VF80. Why? One, I could do all this in my bedroom instead of the studio. Two, the clean but relatively low-gain preamps are a good test for any mike. The main intent here was to audition microphones for voice-over work but I sang into them a bit too. At this point, only interested in how they sound on my voice, not instruments or other vocals.
I started with my Heil Classic Pro. This was by far the lowest gain mike of the bunch (the only dynamic) and just didn't cut it at a distance unless I turned the gain way up to where it was hissy. Up close, not bad but I would definitely need to use a pop filter (I tested all of these without pop filters, mostly back a foot or so). Surprisingly, I like it better than Heil's Heritage -- less sibilance. Sounds pretty hi-fi and with the right preamp, perhaps my Presonus MP20 or even a DMP3, it could be quite nice.
Next, the new CAD GXL3000. This is a pretty cheap-o sort of mike; I think it's essentially the same as several other Chinese models, including one from MXL (don't remember quite which...btw, my CAD GXL1200s are supposedly pretty much the same as MXL's somewhat well-regarded 603...but a bit cheaper). It's multi-pattern and was on a very good sale, which is why I picked one up. Doesn't hurt to have a versatile and cheap utility LDC around. By far, I preferred the figure 8 pattern on my voice. Less sibilance, more natural sounding. The omni sucked on my vocals; might be fine for someone else or on an instrument. Cardioid was, well, sort of in-between. It wouldn't be my first choice but I could use it. In all settings, it's on the bright side. Not a mike for VO work, maybe for singing in the right situation. I could see it as useful for back-up vocals.
Then, the Oktava MK319, as modded by moi (mechanical mods, not electronic). Not a new mike, but the mods were new so I included it. Also, it was sort of the control for this group since I was more familiar with it. This microphone had the strongest signal of the bunch, requiring the least gain from the preamps. I knew from the past (even before modding) that it worked well with the Fostex -- I'd recorded a handful of concerts and recitals with just that setup. It sounds good. Period. With the changes to the grill, it can be just slightly sibilant. (Oh, btw, I should mention that I'd also modded the grill on the GXL3000 to open it up a bit -- probably had the same sort of effect there.) There is a richness to this microphone I got from none of the others I tested; it may not actually be as 'realistic' but that's not necessarily what we need. And it remains a strong choice for voice over work, at least for guys like me, and I would put it up for singers as well.
Though maybe not until I had tried the last of the microphones here, the CAD M177. I do think that between the modestly priced Oktava and the even less expensive 177, one could cover 90% of vocal duties. Maybe more. The CAD shines where the 319 doesn't and vice versa. This microphone is not exciting but it is quite pleasant, not harsh, not hyped. I already like it on instruments and, although it wouldn't be my first choice for my voice, I'd certainly put it up for others. It's reminiscent, perhaps, of the well-regarded Audio-Technica 4040. A safe mike. I've been thinking it might work well in combination with a second microphone, say a dynamic like an SM58 up close and the CAD a foot or so behind it. I do intend to try that out.
One thing this little informal test showed me was that I'm well enough equipped with microphones for the nonce. Not that -- like any guy with Gear Acquisition Syndrome -- I wouldn't love to spend my money on more of them! I'm certainly adequate on the LDC side anyway (and SDC, for that matter) but I might be picking up a dynamic or two in time. Certainly no hurry on that -- the Heil showed me it can do a lot so I've fewer concerns in that area.
addendum, 2/10: The Cad GXL300 is apparently pretty much the same microphone as the MXL 2010 and the Nady SCM1000. All three have identical bodies but the Cad's head-basket differs from the other two. May or may not be internal differences but I doubt that they would be great. Of course, almost all those Chinese-built mikes use the same few capsules.
Everything was plugged into my Fostex VF80. Why? One, I could do all this in my bedroom instead of the studio. Two, the clean but relatively low-gain preamps are a good test for any mike. The main intent here was to audition microphones for voice-over work but I sang into them a bit too. At this point, only interested in how they sound on my voice, not instruments or other vocals.
I started with my Heil Classic Pro. This was by far the lowest gain mike of the bunch (the only dynamic) and just didn't cut it at a distance unless I turned the gain way up to where it was hissy. Up close, not bad but I would definitely need to use a pop filter (I tested all of these without pop filters, mostly back a foot or so). Surprisingly, I like it better than Heil's Heritage -- less sibilance. Sounds pretty hi-fi and with the right preamp, perhaps my Presonus MP20 or even a DMP3, it could be quite nice.
Next, the new CAD GXL3000. This is a pretty cheap-o sort of mike; I think it's essentially the same as several other Chinese models, including one from MXL (don't remember quite which...btw, my CAD GXL1200s are supposedly pretty much the same as MXL's somewhat well-regarded 603...but a bit cheaper). It's multi-pattern and was on a very good sale, which is why I picked one up. Doesn't hurt to have a versatile and cheap utility LDC around. By far, I preferred the figure 8 pattern on my voice. Less sibilance, more natural sounding. The omni sucked on my vocals; might be fine for someone else or on an instrument. Cardioid was, well, sort of in-between. It wouldn't be my first choice but I could use it. In all settings, it's on the bright side. Not a mike for VO work, maybe for singing in the right situation. I could see it as useful for back-up vocals.
Then, the Oktava MK319, as modded by moi (mechanical mods, not electronic). Not a new mike, but the mods were new so I included it. Also, it was sort of the control for this group since I was more familiar with it. This microphone had the strongest signal of the bunch, requiring the least gain from the preamps. I knew from the past (even before modding) that it worked well with the Fostex -- I'd recorded a handful of concerts and recitals with just that setup. It sounds good. Period. With the changes to the grill, it can be just slightly sibilant. (Oh, btw, I should mention that I'd also modded the grill on the GXL3000 to open it up a bit -- probably had the same sort of effect there.) There is a richness to this microphone I got from none of the others I tested; it may not actually be as 'realistic' but that's not necessarily what we need. And it remains a strong choice for voice over work, at least for guys like me, and I would put it up for singers as well.
Though maybe not until I had tried the last of the microphones here, the CAD M177. I do think that between the modestly priced Oktava and the even less expensive 177, one could cover 90% of vocal duties. Maybe more. The CAD shines where the 319 doesn't and vice versa. This microphone is not exciting but it is quite pleasant, not harsh, not hyped. I already like it on instruments and, although it wouldn't be my first choice for my voice, I'd certainly put it up for others. It's reminiscent, perhaps, of the well-regarded Audio-Technica 4040. A safe mike. I've been thinking it might work well in combination with a second microphone, say a dynamic like an SM58 up close and the CAD a foot or so behind it. I do intend to try that out.
One thing this little informal test showed me was that I'm well enough equipped with microphones for the nonce. Not that -- like any guy with Gear Acquisition Syndrome -- I wouldn't love to spend my money on more of them! I'm certainly adequate on the LDC side anyway (and SDC, for that matter) but I might be picking up a dynamic or two in time. Certainly no hurry on that -- the Heil showed me it can do a lot so I've fewer concerns in that area.
addendum, 2/10: The Cad GXL300 is apparently pretty much the same microphone as the MXL 2010 and the Nady SCM1000. All three have identical bodies but the Cad's head-basket differs from the other two. May or may not be internal differences but I doubt that they would be great. Of course, almost all those Chinese-built mikes use the same few capsules.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The 'Real' Stuff
I've been a long-time user (and fan) of PG Music's software, starting with Power Tracks (now Power Tracks Pro Audio) in the mid-90s, and later the useful Band in a Box program. Although I've played with other recording/sequencing software -- Adobe Audition, Sony Vegas, Cubase, Reaper, and, of course, the free Audacity -- I've found that PTPA does pretty much everything I need, recording-wise, and is very much my favorite as a midi sequencer.
Now, PG recently released their new program, Real Band, and the 'Real Drums' and 'Real Tracks' that go with it, as well as integrating these 'Real' instruments into BiaB and PTPA. I was, at first, skeptical, of these pre-recorded tracks, assuming they were loops such as are used by Garage Band (which I never took to, though it came installed on this Mac Mini) or Acid
I was wrong. They operate in a rather different way, related to the midi-based 'styles' used in Band in a Box and generate a different audio track each time they are used, via shuffling snippets from longer recorded performances. Or something like that! Anyway, I've decided to upgrade my BiaB (I was using the 2004 version) to take advantage of these. The drums, at least, may be useful.
Whether this Real stuff is better than a really good midi module is debatable, I think. The high-end boxes (and software samples) are pretty darn good. But it seems relatively easy to get a good-sounding track this way. Certainly acceptable for demos and maybe even for releases -- after all, an awful lot of the drums we hear these days are all or partly sample-based and sample-replaced.
And I will continue to use Power Tracks as my primary recording engine. I can't see investing in Real Band, as it would be somewhat redundant and more expensive. Maybe I'll feel different about that in time. I still have an older Audition installed and may use it occasionally, I have started mastering in Waveosaur, and will also continue to mess around with Audacity -- I like the idea of an open source alternative and it's certainly possible to record professionally with it. Plus, some of my amateur friends primarily use Audacity and we can exchange files. The current PTPA issue is rather old (though not so old as the one I have installed) so I'm sitting on the upgrade there and will probably wait for the next version.
Now, PG recently released their new program, Real Band, and the 'Real Drums' and 'Real Tracks' that go with it, as well as integrating these 'Real' instruments into BiaB and PTPA. I was, at first, skeptical, of these pre-recorded tracks, assuming they were loops such as are used by Garage Band (which I never took to, though it came installed on this Mac Mini) or Acid
I was wrong. They operate in a rather different way, related to the midi-based 'styles' used in Band in a Box and generate a different audio track each time they are used, via shuffling snippets from longer recorded performances. Or something like that! Anyway, I've decided to upgrade my BiaB (I was using the 2004 version) to take advantage of these. The drums, at least, may be useful.
Whether this Real stuff is better than a really good midi module is debatable, I think. The high-end boxes (and software samples) are pretty darn good. But it seems relatively easy to get a good-sounding track this way. Certainly acceptable for demos and maybe even for releases -- after all, an awful lot of the drums we hear these days are all or partly sample-based and sample-replaced.
And I will continue to use Power Tracks as my primary recording engine. I can't see investing in Real Band, as it would be somewhat redundant and more expensive. Maybe I'll feel different about that in time. I still have an older Audition installed and may use it occasionally, I have started mastering in Waveosaur, and will also continue to mess around with Audacity -- I like the idea of an open source alternative and it's certainly possible to record professionally with it. Plus, some of my amateur friends primarily use Audacity and we can exchange files. The current PTPA issue is rather old (though not so old as the one I have installed) so I'm sitting on the upgrade there and will probably wait for the next version.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
On and Off the Road
I'm back here at Peanut Road after a little road trip over the Thanksgiving holiday -- went off to Tennessee, visited relatives, played some music. Now it's back to getting this place into shape!
Finally getting the recording area rearranged and ready. I've turned my desk 90 degrees in order to have a better tracking area in what is, strictly speaking, my control room but must do double duty for the foreseeable future. That puts my monitors on the longer wall but it's a large room and I don't think that will matter greatly. I'm probably going to remove the whole hi-fi setup I had in parallel to a different room.
Right now, nothing has been done for the ceiling. I'm still undecided whether to put in a new one or leave the open beams -- there are advantages both ways. If I leave it open, I will have to put some acoustic treatment up there. Otherwise, a new ceiling will be, in and of itself, an acoustic treatment, with a combination of wooden and rigid fiberglass panels.
A few words of follow-up on previous posts: I decided not to use the broadcast flag on the Heil microphone and removed it altogether. I think it looks better that way. And I decided to do the full 'mechanical' mod on my Oktava 319s, i.e. remove the resonator disks as well as the extra layer of screen in the head-basket. I discuss it over in my Lucky Lad blog.
Finally getting the recording area rearranged and ready. I've turned my desk 90 degrees in order to have a better tracking area in what is, strictly speaking, my control room but must do double duty for the foreseeable future. That puts my monitors on the longer wall but it's a large room and I don't think that will matter greatly. I'm probably going to remove the whole hi-fi setup I had in parallel to a different room.
Right now, nothing has been done for the ceiling. I'm still undecided whether to put in a new one or leave the open beams -- there are advantages both ways. If I leave it open, I will have to put some acoustic treatment up there. Otherwise, a new ceiling will be, in and of itself, an acoustic treatment, with a combination of wooden and rigid fiberglass panels.
A few words of follow-up on previous posts: I decided not to use the broadcast flag on the Heil microphone and removed it altogether. I think it looks better that way. And I decided to do the full 'mechanical' mod on my Oktava 319s, i.e. remove the resonator disks as well as the extra layer of screen in the head-basket. I discuss it over in my Lucky Lad blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
