| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi again,
I hoped to upload a nice oud recording today and what happened? Yes, this notebook fan made me mad ... I always hear it slightly in my recordings ...
grrr.
But I think, I found a solution ... first thing was to place the notebook behind the mic ... that made a hudge difference, but it's still not that
noise free as I want it.
The next step will be trying out ReaFIR, a VST plugin of Reaper, which enables you to create a noise profile, which then can be
substracted from your track ... without affecting the sound quality, when done correctly. Those who want to use it in another DAW software, can
download it separately.
HERE is a discussion in a different forum, where you'll find a video demonstrating how to use ReaFIR. I'll give it a try tomorrow.
Oh, btw, I'm finally very happy with the AKG C3000B ... when I position the mic slightly behind the neck joint pointed towards the upper soundhole, I
get very natural sounding recordings 
I promise to upload an oud recording next time ... with or without background noise 
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
See what I meant? Noise is a reality, and it's not the end of the world. If you work multitrack, in the final mix that fan may be less audible than
artifacts of noise reduction. Or neither may matter. If it's solo oud, it may or may not be worth using noise-reduction, I'd love to hear an A/B. I
still think people seldom listen FOR noise until it gets quite loud, so you make decisions in light of the purpose.
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
But it's possible to get rid of it ... the front-to-back ration of -25dB of the C3000B is of great help ... I did a test normalizing my recording and
guess what? You don't hear noise 
But the timing in my playing was horrible, so I hope to find the time for a new recording tomorrow, which can be posted without making a fool out of
myself
Oh, and there's something new to tell ... I got inspired by David Kuckhermann and am planning of getting me a nice framedrum, which is easier to get here than ouds.
Real percussion rocks more than virtual instruments ... especially for a former
drummer ... and this "recording studio" is becoming really fascinating.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ok, as promised ...
2 oud recordings, one with the standard setting of the AKG C3000 and the second with the high pass filter of the mic switched on.
Sorry, the strings are pretty old (D'Addario from November 2009) and lack a bit of overtones, but I think you can clearly hear the sound difference
between the standard warm sound of the mic and the bass reduced version.
Let me know, if the recordings are loud enough. If not I'll upload a second normalized version with higher volume.
Btw ... do you hear my breathing?
Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-normal.mp3 (611kB)
This file has been downloaded 239 times
Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-high-pass.mp3 (590kB)
This file has been downloaded 244 times
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Manil
Oud Maniac
Posts: 77
Registered: 3-19-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
The first version is much better!!!!!!!! Do not cut the bass on a Oud!
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks ... that's my opinion too and that's the reason why I bought this microphone ... most others don't have such a nice bass.
Most large diaphragm condenser mics are optimized for vocals and sound similar to the second recording, when recording oud or acoustic guitar.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Yes, we HAVE to normalize if we're going to have anything like comparable impressions or sound files. I normalized yours and ran an FFT, here is what
the two settings of the filter look like. Of course with 12 dB cut below 150 Hz, it doesn't sound very good, and interestingly it doesn't sound
natural, even though every cardioid mic is boosting the bass by proximity effect. I don't think "most" large diaphragm mics tend to sound like the
second recording.
I can't even begin to notice your breathing in there.
But I can't stand listening to mono tracks. A camcorder sounds better. I'm telling ya, use even any cheap mic to record a second track and matrix them
(there are a lot of pseudo M/S matrixing schemes, or if you have any imaging VSTs like Wave's), and it will sound like it has depth and 100 times
better. And even if that second mic has a 48 db S/N ratio and the frequency response of a potato you can correct any audible problems and it will
still sound 100 times better than a mono track.
I think we are so used to stereo that mono sounds flat. In a pinch we can synthesize some spatial separation, like in that second file, and no not
with reverb.
In that last one, that's "natural", boy can you hear scrapes and breathing! I also think I can clearly distinguish what these 2 ouds are being played
with, the short thuk of the guitar pick vs the long leveraged pluck of the risha ;-)
Original Normal level normalized
Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-normalN.mp3 (617kB)
This file has been downloaded 218 times
Two mic positions synthesized by summing matrix
Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-normalNst4.mp3 (624kB)
This file has been downloaded 232 times
Recording using 2 discrete mics in M/S mode
Attachment: Suznaki004tX3n.mp3 (500kB)
This file has been downloaded 202 times
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi again!
I think, we should discuss this topic further. Usually I would say: "Yes, you are absolutely right!"
BUT ... usually means, that we only record ONE oud.
If we have two or three ouds and maybe percussion and other instruments like double bass or cello too, we can encounter problems, when we begin
mixing/mastering our song. The problem is, that several instruments compete in the bass range, which can result in a muddy sound of the whole
group.
When I bought the album Majaz of Trio Joubran, I was a bit disappointed about the sound engineering work of this record. Though it's
abolutely noise free and sounding great, I noticed, that the ouds lacked bass (they sound more turkish than arabic), especially compared to the live
recordings I knew from Youtube. The bass in the album comes mainly from the percussion.
As you can see, mastering an "ensemble" or group of several instruments is something like a "walk on a tight rope" ... e.g. there needs to be
equalization done, but it's not easy to find the perfect settings for each instrument ... we have to take care, that both, the single instrument but
also the whole "ensemble" sound perfect. Not an easy task ... that's why the music industry is always searching for mastering experts nowadays. Look
into the CD's booklets and you'll find out, that recording and mastering often took place in different studios.
And Tony (FermandRaynauld) introduced a further important point ... Stereo. There are two different approches ... the stereo recording of a single or
maybe even more instruments AND/OR placing several mono recordings in the stereo panorama, when mixing/mastering.
Correct, but I didn't, because I need to get more practice with normalization: Is the standard of 3dB enough or do I need a bit more headroom to avoid
negative influences on the peaks of the recordings? Zooming into the recordings before and after normalization in Audacity will give me the answer ...
so far I didn't find the time.
| Quote: | | I normalized yours ... |
Thanks, I'll check your sound files this evening ... here at work the monitor speakers and background noise are too horrible to hear any difference
| Quote: | | Of course with 12 dB cut below 150 Hz, it doesn't sound very good, ... |
Yes, exactly, but if I would have a second C3000, this might change, when I do a stereo recording ... one mic with and one without the high-pass
filter. But I think an EQ in Reaper will reveal much better results. I think this extreme low-cut of the C3000 is only useful, when using this mic on
stage ... to avoid feedback problems.
| Quote: | | I don't think "most" large diaphragm mics tend to sound like the second recording. |
Yes, shure, not exactly. But have a look at the Rode NT1-A for example, the most recommended "allrounder" mic in this price range ... the frequency
response curve we find on the Rode website, shows clearly, that this mic has much less bass response than the AKG.
We should see my above statement about LDC mics in relation to the price range ... it shouldn't be a problem to find good mics for oud recordings, but
in the price range below 200 Euro, most mics lack bass. So I preferred the C3000, where I can use EQ, if I should encounter a situation, where there's
too much bass or not enough of what you told here:
| Quote: | | In that last one, that's "natural", boy can you hear scrapes and breathing! |
That's why I want to experiment with EQ on the first recording, which should give me a result containing the pros of both recordings.
| Quote: | | I also think I can clearly distinguish what these 2 ouds are being played with, the short thuk of the guitar pick vs the long leveraged pluck of the
risha ;-) |
Ok, you got me ... I used a guitar pick in BOTH recordings, because my favourite turkey wing feather, I used as a risha before, broke a few minutes
before the first recording 
Ok, I have spare feathers available, but the top of the quill needs to be shaped first. If I don't shape it, the sound of the strings lacks overtones
dramatically.
So far for now ... I'll have to think about your statements of using two mics ... but I'm a bit undecided, if it's better to use a cheaper second one
... maybe the AKG C1000 or Rode M3 ... or maybe use a second C3000 for REAL stereo combined with EQ. At first sight, the second option seems to be the
better choice.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Sazi
Oud Junkie
Posts: 786
Registered: 9-17-2007
Location: Behind my oud
Member Is Offline
Mood: مبتهج ; ))
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Aymara  | Look into the CD's booklets and you'll find out, that recording and mastering often took place in different studios.
|
Yes, that's always been the case.
A Mastering studio is a specialised set-up, usually designed from the ground up to much higher spec than a recording studio, usually with a lot less
- but a lot more expensive - gear , and top end "clinical precision" monitors.
Of course as you know, we can pseudo master at home in our bedrooms if we like, ( we just don't have the years of dedicated practice or the reference
gear).
| Quote: Originally posted by Aymara |
So far for now ... I'll have to think about your statements of using two mics ... but I'm a bit undecided, if it's better to use a cheaper second one
... maybe the AKG C1000 or Rode M3 ... or maybe use a second C3000 for REAL stereo combined with EQ. At first sight, the second option seems to be the
better choice. |
Since you already have a good large diaphragm why not go for the versatility of having the added choice of a small diaphragm condenser too? Your
studio will be more versatile that way, and you're unlikely to get a perfectly matched second C3000 anyway.
In my own last recordings I used a combination Lge & sml diaphragm condensers, and to be honest, as much as I wanted to love my new impressive
looking big mic, I actually prefered the warm clear focus of the small one.
but all the best to you, it looks like you've got the bug and while your
sitting staring at the waveforms on the monitor of your computer just remember to make music with your ears and not with your eyes
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I forgot something:
Sorry, but this is absolutely nonsense How good something sounds, is not (only) a
matter of mono or stereo, as you know.
Keep in mind, that on most professional CDs many instruments are/were recorded in mono and the stereo effect results from mixing the mono tracks into
the stereo panorama. Only a few instruments are/were recorded in real stereo. Even a drum set, which is a very good example, I think, because stereo
placement of the single drums, hi-hat, etc. is important, is usually not only recorded with an overhead stereo mic set, but also each "instrument"
solo with a single mono mic and all these drum tracks are mixed into the stereo panorama.
There are also VST plug-ins available to create stereo tracks from mono recordings, but the use of these often results in phase problems, so that the
stereo track lacks mono compatibility. An alternative is to work with dublicated (copied) tracks.
So ... recording in real stereo or pseudo-stereo, when using just two different mics, has it's uses, yes, but it's not a must and depends.
On oud (or nylon guitar) it might be useful, to work with two mics ... on vocals on the other hand usually only one LDC mic is used. But even, when we
record an oud with two mics, the option to use just one mic combined with (post-recording) EQ sometimes is the better choice ... except on a solo oud
recording with nothing else (no vocals, no percussion, etc.), where a real stereo recording with two identical mics is the best choice in my opinion.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes, that's a real problem and the reason, why the industry is selling matched pair stereo sets
But I think the difference should be that big, that it can't be compensated in the mix, though this will cause additional trouble. Or am I sooo
wrong?
| Quote: | | ..., I actually prefered the warm clear focus of the small one. |
Hey, don't let me die as a stupid man
Which one was it? Could you please upload a small test file? It might be a nice inspiration for me as others too.
PS: Wasn't it you, who was so thrilled about the Rode M3?
| Quote: | ... music with your ears and not with your eyes
|
Hehe ... I prefer to use both ... but you're right ... I know, what you mean.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
I'm with Sazi, I think a lot of this can only be decided by ear, and in the mix. There are at least three stages: tracking, mixing and mastering.
Mixing is not mastering.
But I think you and I have radically different approaches. Clearly close-range multi-mic recording has nothing to do with "stereo" as in "left-right
panorama". Multi-mic tracking is to try to extract the most out of a unique tracking session, and to give you more creative possibilities
during the mix.
Using a single mic/track never ever makes sense. There are so many issues. That might also mean protecting against error, like an overload or
electronic fault on one of the mics. I always use multiple mics on voice, and had some some priceless unrepeatable recordings from 1986 saved by that
for instance where the pop filter slipped out of the way unnoticed and the secondary track saved the sessions.
"sounding good" often is completely unrelated to specs, or realism.
The way I see it, a good recording engineer/producer is like a composer and a painter, not a snapshot photographer. It's part of the creative
continuum. I have very little interest in capturing polaroids, however tragically "accurate" they might be.
I think that unless you are recording string quartets for the most brain-dead department at DG, matched mic pairs are a total waste of time and money.
A home studio presumably is part of a more creative purpose. You can't even do M/S recording with two identical mics. If you want to make a
recommendation here for best use of limited funds towards the greatest range of creative options, especially starting from no mics, two different mics
is far better.
You might well spend some time experimenting with a second mic, any mic, and see what you can make them do, as malleable devices, before you
buy more mic stuff.
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I like this sentence very much ... maybe because I'm a photographer too. My favourite is infrared photography, because I like it to show the world
"beyond the visible" and draw people into a "dream world".
With oud music it's similar ... I step into another world ... though I don't play arabic music ... so far.
Oh ... btw ... I made a good deal today ... I got a Meinl Tar in 18" (incl. bag)
I think it will be a nice pair with the oud. But I need to get used to it ... I played drums and Congas is the past, but on framedrum a very different
technique is needed.
Oud, tar, recording ... so much fun
PS: You're right ... normalization is a good choice.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Oops, due to my framedrum euphoria yesterday evening I forgot to ask:
How did you do it ... just mix both recordings together and normalize the master track? Or what?
A bit more detail would be nice.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Sazi
Oud Junkie
Posts: 786
Registered: 9-17-2007
Location: Behind my oud
Member Is Offline
Mood: مبتهج ; ))
|
|
Hi Chris, the only recordings I can find are on my you tube channel, the Aswad clip which was the small diaphragm condenser only, and my old bedroom
studio version of Che mali wali, which is the same oud but with both mics mixed together... not sure that's much help for checking out the sound, but
I'll keep looking for the original files...
I'm still using the Rode M3 for live work, but we think the output level, or maybe that's the sensitivity, could be higher.
At the time I did the recording I used an el cheapo chinese Takstar pencil condenser. Now, I've seen many reviews of these mic's and people either
love 'em or hate 'em... I dunno, maybe I got lucky because I got a good one...or maybe I got really lucky, cos I got two good ones! I leave the foam
windshield on and that seems to take care of any harshness in the tops.
Cheers, S
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi again, Sazi!
I think, the output level is often a problem with small condensers, when the preamp is not that powerful, as on my Tascam audio interface. That's a
further point, which influenced my decision for the AKG ... I read in several reviews, that it has a higher output than most (LDC) competitors ... and
I'm very satisfied ... an input level at 2:00 a clock is enough (the range is from 7:00 up to 5:00 on that control knop) ... preamp noise is only
hearable from 3:00 onwards. Because the C3000 itself is a very low noise mic, I can record very noise free ... except my breathing
BTW ... the Rode M3 is often compared to the AKG C1000S ... but regarding output and sensitivity, the M3 seems to be the winner, when we have a look at the specs. The sE 1A might be worth a look ... slightly more sensitive and a very much better frequency response curve than the M3, especially in the bass bands
... should be great for oud. But regarding sensitivity, the sE 4 seems to be a real "blaster" for a SDC But that baby costs a bit more
than double the price of the M3 ... but it might be worth it ... HERE is a review.
Have you ever thought about using a LDC for stage? Maybe that's worth a thought ... or do you expect too much feedback problems?
Regarding the "El Cheapo" chinese mic you mentioned ... I read many discussions about mics the last weeks and most people were astonished about the
difference between most chinese mics and famous brands like AKG and Rode. But there are exceptions ... the sE Electronics brand for example
has a very good reputation ... the sE 2200a for example is said to blow away most competitors in it's price range.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Chris, I used a surround matrix, it's not meant to be used this way. I split the normalized mono recording into 2 channels, then ran that setting
input as "stereo" into a 5.1 or 6 channel imaging matrix with the path stationary, no doppler. The first time I did it it sounded good and deep on
headphones, but when I played it on the laptop "speakers", it sounded like the soundstage extended far left and behind, with the instrument stretched
several feet, centered left and back, so I redid it with a tighter image. I can't pull it up on this system, which brand DSP package it was, it could
have been Waves, Oxford, Sonnitus, Digidesign.
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi again,
HERE you'll find a nice series of articles about mixing, with good tips for improving our mixes.
There I also found THIS nice free spectrum analyser, which is great to compare two tracks. There's also a non-free version available, which is much more powerful.
For example I can use it on my two oud recordings above to find the exact differences ... besides the better bass responce of the first recording
there are significantly better trebbles in the second, which helps me to find the ideal EQ settings to optimize the first recording.
Hope you like this VST too.
PS: Thanks, Tony, for the explanations.
PPS: VoxengoSPAN (also free) seems to be a great alternative to the above mentioned MulitiInspektor.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Forget, what I recommended for spectrum analysis in my previous posting ... I found the perfect free VST, that blows away the other two:
Seven Phases Spectrum Analyser
With the help of the hold function, which can be set to infinity, I did the following screenshots of the above oud recordings ... perfect to find the
ideal EQ settings The curve above the bars is the sum of the whole recording ...
the result of the infinity setting.
For example have a look at the range between 1-3 kHz ... here we have the clicking sound of the plectrum/risha, which Tony noticed. As it seems, I
should raise this range in the first recording by +5 dB.
PS: The 3 dB difference around 12 kHz seems to be my breathing, which is more present in the second recording.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
David.B
Oud Junkie
Posts: 640
Registered: 9-5-2009
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: Renaissance
|
|
Hi Chris,
What's new with your gear?
I'm looking for a home recording studio now (just a few months to save money and make the best choice for me) and this thread is useful! Thanks 
My dream : analog Nagra ...
Like a journey within a journey, I used to listen to this CD (and read the book) during a long trip ->  and 
http://www.4shared.com/audio/4je_vESz/09_Clarinette_Persane_1_Tabri...
He left with a Nagra handmade by Kudelski.
Just for fun -> 
http://www.4shared.com/audio/UzHN_Jg0/07_Piste_07.html
Thomas Loopuyt uses an analog Nagra.
(On the CD player a oud is on the right and one on the left).
My cheapest choice :
Mic -> Sony ECM DS70P
Audio interface -> Griffin - iMic USB - for Mac
Notebook -> Macbook air, 1.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 Go 1067 DDR3, SSD 128 Go, USB 2.0
The compromise :
Mic -> AKG C3000B sounds good, what arsene posted about Rode M3 sounds good too ...
Audio interface -> M-Audio Fast Track Ultra - High-speed 8 x 8 USB 2.0 Interface with MX Core DSP Technology
Notebook -> ditto
I must add that I use a keyboard, Roland EM 15 oriental. I wonder about the way to record it ...
I'm going to use the notebook only for recording.
And I'll use GarageBand at least.
What do you think about the compromise? I think I would be able to record myself with a keyboard (drums) without problem. I'm hesitating with the
cheapest choice because I'm afraid to wast money in vain.
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi David!
Nice recording quality, but a DAW is more powerful ... and you have less hassle with recording.
| Quote: |
Mic -> Sony ECM DS70P
|
To capture some ideas, ok ... but not for serious recordings.
| Quote: |
Mic -> AKG C3000B sounds good, what arsene posted about Rode M3 sounds good too ...
|
The Rode is a great stage mic, the AKG a great studio mic ... in my opinion.
But the AKG needs a bit of equalization to get the perfect sound. On the other hand with EQ it's a great allrounder, which can record everything
nicely, be it any instrument, voice or even drums. And I don't know any other mic below 500$, that captures such a nice bass.
If money matters much, the AKG Perception 220 might be worth a tought. Not as good as the C3000, but better than the Rode, I think ... I prefer large condensors for the
studio.
| Quote: |
Audio interface -> M-Audio Fast Track Ultra
|
There are many good interfaces available. It might be a good idea to check some recording forums ... maybe THIS.
| Quote: |
I must add that I use a keyboard, Roland EM 15 oriental. I wonder about the way to record it ...
|
Regarding the manual the Phones Out 1 can be used as Line Out, which can be connected to the Line In of the audio interface. You can also use
it by MIDI to use virtual instruments in Garage Band.
| Quote: |
What do you think about the compromise?
|
I like what I have It's not the cheapest solution overall, but the cheapest
solution with really satisfying results ... for my taste.
BTW, the Tascam US-122 MK II is compatible to Snow Leopard (MAC OS X).
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
David.B
Oud Junkie
Posts: 640
Registered: 9-5-2009
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: Renaissance
|
|
Thanks for such a quick answer. I feel really like a beginner and I have to follow someone's advice ... When I say "what do you think about the
compromise?", I don't even know if what I wrote works! I'd like to click on one button, but OK, it's time to go further 
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yep ... I think, it's a good idea to check some recording forums and different oppinions on equipment.
Home recording can be a long journey ... from a simple recording to a pro sounding CD
But it's fun to explore
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Re: Analog Nagra. I don't remember all the details now, but I was hired some 15+ years ago to modify an analog Nagra by one of the top sound men of
Hollywood. Nagras were great in their time. Anyway, there were some significant problems with the Nagra's circuit design that I was asked to correct,
and I was surprised to find how crude it was given how polished the mechanical design is. To make a long story short, in the end digital recording,
which was only 16 bit back then, moved into 24 bits/96k quality, sync became a non-issue, and the Nagra was relegated to the back room. David, I'd say
you can do better with what nowadays can be purchased at a guitar shop for a fraction of the cost of a Nagra. I sold my analog 24 track to a fetichist
years ago. Many PC laptops these days have built-in audio that can compete with what used to cost a fortune. Even microphones at the low-middle have
gotten quite passable. Two decent mics are often more useful than one better one. Recording a synth is generally a direct in line level affair. I
can't comment on the specific choices you mention without studying them. You can read up on every nut and bolt in the audio forums.
Much of this stuff is pretty much equivalent unless you are really into detail. I have a big British analog console yet I use a little $50 Behringer
mixer for day to day recording. I recently found a Tascam Firewire FW1082 for $350 that has a 24 bit 8 in 2 out analog section and motorized faders
(like on the big automated consoles) that integrate with many of the popular DAWs: move a fader on the Tascam, and it moves on-screen (and vice
versa), and the DAW memorizes your moves. Of course if you're mixing multitrack recordings, it's a very useful thing. The point is that people sell
last year's models cheap because they are told there is more modern gear. I tend to look for a little older stuff like this rather than the latest
plastic gizmos. Some of the best A/D/A converters I have ever heard are on a $200 Echo Mia card that's, what, 10 years old? My favorite mic by far is
a big tube Russian Oktava I found for $90. Relax and start by reading, reading, reading.
p.s. I see several Oktava Large condenser MK219 mics second hand for around $100 at Guitar Center in the US. Personally, I would grab a pair of those
with the $15 warrantee they offer, and if one of them (or both) needs it, have them service it! If they will ship to France, you can't beat THAT. Read
some reviews of the mic etc.
http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=30
|
|
|
David.B
Oud Junkie
Posts: 640
Registered: 9-5-2009
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: Renaissance
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud | | David, I'd say you can do better with what nowadays can be purchased at a guitar shop for a fraction of the cost of a Nagra. I sold my analog 24 track
to a fetichist years ago. |
I'm aware of this. And this is what I'm talking about, not fetishism, but a "coup de cœur", maybe later ... For now I've got to be pragmatic, and I'm
looking for something modern and reliable.
You're right, I need to relax
When I come back home after work I run after minutes to play music, and your advice would be mine to someone in the same situation as mine!
Now I've got two points of view and I can start somewhere, thanks a lot.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
