1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Help get me started

Discussion in 'Recording' started by onioner, Jul 23, 2012.

  1. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    I'm trying to get myself decently set up for at home recordings, with minimal time and money invested. I'm semi-computer competent, and I do have some experience using standalone digital recorders, but have never gotten myself properly set up to use a PC. I tried my hand at ProTools, using v8 and an Mbox 2 mini. Changed PCs to a Windows 7 version, and ProTools completely failed me. So, I ditched it. Never really got along with it anyways. In an effort to get myself set up again, I leached off a few friends, and got set up with Audition, and a Eurorack MX 1604A, going straight into the PC. This worked ok, but I had to sum the inputs, which was kinda a drag. Recently found new drivers for the Mbox that make it usable sans ProTools w/ W7, and thought that I could run this between the mixer and the PC. That's where I am now. I do also have a Baggs preamp that I haven't been using (aside from w/ the cello, when using the pickup, which is what I have it for).

    All this has been done haphazardly, with no usable knowledge of what I should and should not be doing. This is stuff I've gotten, and I've made it work. I'm coming here to learn if I could be getting significant improvements in quality, or ease, by doing something different. I don't really want to delve too deeply, not out of lack of interest, but just out of priorities, as all the time I spend learning about recording is time spent not learning about making and writing music... That said, I do spend a lot of time and effort getting electric guitar rigs to sound good, and it seems sort of silly to spend afternoons rolling tubes, and then haphazardly record them...

    Yup. That's where I'm at.
     
  2. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    Hmm... Already noticed I should have posted in the "budget" section, as I am a working stiff (well, at least I'm paid like one, which is sort of BS, since I do have significant experience doing highly specialized work in a high end field, and could reasonably say I'm in the top 100 of my field, but hey, that just aint the way my industry goes /rant), and resources being stupidly limited, am definitely looking for the ol' 'bang for the buck.'
     
  3. andymasiero

    andymasiero Active Member

    I'm kind of there, too. I can't really help a lot with the other part of your post, but I could reasonably assume that getting some decent quality recordings would be pretty important to you. You should schedule practice time just for learning about recording. You might learn about the different stages of the recording/production process and are able to use your gear proficiently without having to think much or look up stuff in manuals.

    Once you can do this, you should definitely SCHEDULE recording time and songwriting time into your guitar practice regime and you'll be able to focus more on the music rather than the technology when it comes time to record something. This has helped me a lot.
     
  4. Kapt.Krunch

    Kapt.Krunch Well-Known Member

    Uh-oh....facepalm

    Kapt.Krunch
     
  5. Jumpmonkey

    Jumpmonkey Active Member

    Onioner,

    I understand the feeling of being new to audio/recording. It's somewhat a daunting field. Haphazard is a recipe for disaster in any field. In audio its a recipe for expensive, bad sounding disaster. I know you want to dedicate your time to learning guitar, but if you're going to have recordings you need either:

    1) To put in the time to learn how to properly record. Learn what you need and can afford equipment wise. Learn how to properly place mics. Learn your gain staging. Learn your processors (analog or digital.) And it will take effort.

    or

    2) Find someone who's passion is recording, and pair up with them. Who know's maybe you'll find a budding engineer who wont charge and is as dedicated to a good recording as you are to a good performance. Maybe you won't dunno?

    If you go down pathway one the people here are great. Remmy, DVD, Kapt. and other's here have been huge helps to me. I'd still be trying to get off the ground without their help.

    Assuming that you stick with recording for yourself, it might help the experienced folks here help you if you give more detail about what you're doing. (I'd love to jump in and offer advice myself, but, I belong at the feet of the masters myself right now.)


    Good luck with your endeavor and God bless,
    Adam
     
  6. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    Is a little more dicey when you are trying to mix different audio interfaces for simultaneous multitrack recordings. In that respect, monitoring during tracking becomes a little more difficult. That's because the separate interfaces have to be monitored through directly. But this is all still doable. It's the number of inputs on your analog mixer that will become slightly confusing provided you have enough open channels to take the outputs of the separate audio interfaces into the mixer (known basically is looping through) to be able to monitor their outputs while utilizing the other section of the console to feed those separate different audio interfaces. So this is where the routing on the console becomes dicey. Done incorrectly, not have anything but pure feedback through the mixer. But this is where auxiliary sends can come into play. For instance if you loop the audio interfaces back into your Euro Rack, you'd be able to assign those to auxiliary outputs which you then may be able to monitor. But of all your microphones are already going through the Euro Rack, and you're tracking an entire band at once, you would simply be monitoring the output of the Euro Rack. When you start to overdub, you have to monitor the outputs of the audio interfaces. And this is where you could set up a feedback loop which you wouldn't want. And this is where it becomes confusing. But if you have the ability to monitor auxiliary sends, you can make it happen. The live microphones that you are using for overdubs would also be sent to the auxiliary sends so that you could monitor those while monitoring the output of the audio interfaces through your Euro Rack along with the audio interfaces that are playing back the previous tracks which would also be feeding your Euro Rack. This would require that you leave your fingers down on your audio interface returns to the Euro Rack. You would then only turned up the pre-fader cue/monitor controls and switch the output of the Euro Rack to monitor those cue/monitor sends. And that works nicely. Turning up the actual faders would cause your feedback through the mixer. And you don't want that.

    Essentially, this type of routing is actually done on larger frame, in-line style consoles and even old-school style split input/monitor style consoles. It's only the surface of the console that looks different in comparison to yours. There will always be some latency coming from the audio interfaces is that latency is too despairingly different, it could trip up your timing. But I think you could still deal with that. The latency through different audio interfaces are all slightly different from each other but are all relatively close to each other. Just on the order of a couple of milliseconds of difference. But all you can do is try. I haven't had too many issues doing the same thing between a M-Audio Transit and a Roland/Edirol UA 1 EX along with a Digi M-Box 2 and I didn't find the latency objectionable. So that should do the trick for you. You are obviously already technically competent. So you've got a leg up on a lot of other entry-level folks. Their eyes start to roll around in their heads with this kind of routing. But once you work it out, it works nicely.

    I take it you meant UC Berkeley? Not the Berklee school of music?
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  7. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    Yes, I am resigned to putting in some time. Like I say, I want some decently reasonable results, and I don't expect that to magically happen. I'm hoping I can get the hang of things with the equivalent of several good days of practice. If it takes longer, then so be it, but every minute spent on recording practice is time not spent on music practice... Time is so valuable anyways. But, yes, point taken.

    Let me describe what I'm looking to do with more detail. I am not going to be attempting to record multiple sources at the same time. I only want to record instrument by instrument. I am looking to be able to layer tracks, with fairly simple editing involved (looping, fading, leveling, cut n' pasting...). I am looking to record guitar amps, cello, both via microphone, and at times a pickup, other strings (notable banjo), some accordion, maybe a little piano, and whatever else comes along. I am seriously percussion deficient, both in gear, but mores skill, and will look for outside help when the time comes to finish songs.

    I do have some knowledge of mic placement. I played around a decent bit micing the guitar amps and the cello with ProTools. I never used more than two mics, and I'd like to now, at least with the guitar amps. I at least know enough to have an idea of how moving a mic changes the sound.

    I'll add that it's handling the various gain stages that has me most worried. From messing with guitar amps, it's very apparent to me how much variation is possible by utilizing different means of cutting and boosting the signal throughout the chain. Indeed, I've come to think of the signal from guitar to speaker as basically containing a whole bunch of different 'volume' knobs. I've got a good handling of what cutting/boosting does to various parts of that chain, but still understand very little of managing gain stages in recording. It's all trial and error for me. For instance, were I to use the mixer/mbox setup, I worry about where to set the levels on the mbox itself. My basic understanding is that I want every gain stage to be as high as I can without having any danger of clipping.

    Are you suggesting I monitor via the mixer? I would send the signal out of the Mbox, and back into the mixer, and monitor from there? I'm pretty sure I could do that, and I think I could even figure out how fairly easily, but what's the advantage? I was thinking I would just monitor directly from the Mbox. I'd use the headphone out for most use, but also run the speaker outs back into a LI on the PC, where it would route to the actual monitors I have set up. Seemed simple enough.

    Neither. West Berkeley. I'm long out of school, though just an English degree to show for it. I did make it halfway through college as a performance art student, but that died after my second year. In any event, I just live here. I'm a Baltimore native, but I've been up here around the SF bay for seven years now. I like to make fun of Berkeley (for lots of good reasons), but I gotta admit, this side, near the bay, is a pretty darned nice place to live...

    Thanks for the responses folks. I hope I'm providing enough detail to get me on the right track (sigh. Pun sadly intended...). Cheers
     
  8. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    One more thing I'll add. I'd like to be able to record dry, unamplified signals, then reamp them. I'd like this both so I can mess with the amps with a constant source signal, and so that I can mix amps w/ one signal, as well as so I can take a miced cello signal and send it through a tube amp (something that doesn't work out so well when done in real time...). Recording the miced cello is simple enough, but I'm not sure if I have the appropriate gear to record a dry guitar signal. Can I just plug the guitar into the mixer? Do I need something else to match impedance? Should I be using the Baggs preamp?

    As far as sending the signal back out, I presume I can just take a mono LO from the PC and plug it into the front end of an amp?


    Hm... Not sure what this means. I think perhaps I used a poor choice of friends. By "leached off" I mean I took a friends unwanted software, not illegally copied software. If that facepalm refers to Audition in general, then I'd like to hear why.
     
  9. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    The reason why I suggested that is when you have a band in the studio, you certainly need more than one headphone output. And when you're tracking a band and they want to wear headphones and you're using multiple computer audio interfaces, needing perhaps to monitor tracks from the computer audio interfaces, you can't use one audio interface to monitor tracks that are being recorded by the other audio interface. So this provides you with more flexibility of monitoring and in a cheap sense, you are creating an in-line console like configuration. Sure you can do which you're talking about. I'm talking about multi-track tracking and multi-track overdubbing. If you're talking about two microphones at a time, no problem with the way you want to do it. And depending upon your interface, if it has pass through monitoring you'll have less problems. But not all audio interfaces offer pass through monitoring. This will require more frequent patching to be monitoring the console or monitoring the audio interface. With my suggestion it's just the twist of a knob. And no constantly reoccurring patching. There are so many capabilities and so many variables involved, you have a boatload of a way to do things. It all depends on what kind of versatility and convenience you want.

    I think what KK was referring to was that when you purchase software, it's only supposed to be loaded on one machine or, more than one machine that you personally have. By taking your friends Adobe Audition, if it still resides on your friend's computer, that goes against the licensing of the software company. If your friend was to uninstall his version and present you with the software, it would be more legal. And I'd dearly love Adobe Audition. It's actually my personal software of choice most of the time for audio. Though I've also purchased Sony Vegas for its video capabilities even though it was originally designed as a multitrack audio program. Can I use it for all of my video productions but not so much so for my audio needs other than for CD mastering since Audition does not do " disc at once " and Vegas does. And I've spent a lot of money on software and I don't even have Cue Base. I'm still running version 7 of ProTools with my M-Blotch 2.

    I'm not a ProTools lover and rarely use it.
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  10. Kapt.Krunch

    Kapt.Krunch Well-Known Member

    What Remy said. Around here, even the suggestion of using illegal software is a big mistake. And, she explained the differences. It was, actually, the way you worded it that made it APPEAR that you may have done that.

    That's why I just kept it to a short "uh-oh", and the face-in-the hand. If you have all followed the rules, then you are OK. You gotta admit, though "I leached off a few friends, and got set up with Audition" sounds suspicious.

    Frankly, I'm surprised nobody else seems to have wondered about that?

    That's all that was. Gotta be careful how it's presented!

    Good luck,

    Kapt.Krunch
     
  11. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    Gotcha. Didn't cross my mind until your response. "Leaching" generally refers to illegally copying, yeah? Didn't really think about that at the time. The copy I got, and the old mixer, were just classic examples of someone buying stuff thinking they'd use it, and then never doing so. He said he got as far as installing it. I'm pretty sure his instal is gone, since I think that computer is long gone. I suppose that if he still has a PC lying around his house somewhere that has an install on it, then we're violating the letter of the law, though not the intent at least. But, yeah, poor choice of words on my part.
     
  12. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    Gotcha. For now, I'm planning on going solo. Generally speaking, if I'm playing with anyone else, they have a lot better setup than I do. I can't say the day won't come that I'll want to record multiple sources at the same time, but for now, it's strictly one instrument at a time.

    That said, I am moving past two microphones, at least for guitar amps. I've got a few two speaker cabs, and I'd like to mic each speaker, and also use a room mic. That's basically why I felt the need to get the mixer. It does also give me a better way to mix in any effects I use, which are minimal, but the wet effects do sound better coming in at the board.
     
  13. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    When putting a pair of microphones on a single cabinet with 2 speakers within the cabinet, I would recommend a SM57 for one of the speakers and a ribbon microphone for the other speaker. The reason for that is that a condenser microphone like the dynamic microphone are of the same phase as each other. This can cause phase cancellation issues. But when utilizing a ribbon microphone, it is neither in phase nor out of phase with dynamic and condenser microphones. It is generally 90° or 270° in difference to a dynamic or a condenser microphone. If you don't have a ribbon microphone, I wouldn't suggest putting two microphones on a single cabinet. You could do that however, if one microphone was right up to the grill and the other a few feet back. Otherwise they'll be too close and it will cause phase issues. Conversely, having one in front and one in the back, behind the speaker that is phase inverted behind the speaker is doable with dynamic and condenser microphones. Besides, you don't get stereo from a guitar amplifier being fed from a common amplifier. You get the same signal going into all of the speakers which are all in phase with each other and maybe also wired in parallel. With cabinets that have four speakers, the speakers are wired in a series/parallel fashion but are still all in phase together. So one directly in front of the grill and one capturing more of the room from a distance that will not create phase anomalies and cancellation. This is a common beginner mistake for a lot of folks. And there is nothing to be gained unless the second microphone is at least 3-6 feet away from the other. Or, if it is time delayed by an amount equal to or greater than that so as to create a HAAS effect for a feeling of space and distance. One to be in the left channel and one to be in the right channel. Of course the one with the time delay even if it is mixed in at the same volume level as the one without the time delay or distance will always only appear to be coming from the microphone that is closest in time to the channel in which it is placed. Otherwise you'll notice by trying to balance the sound, to make them equal in both channels, one will be significantly higher in level than the other. This causes its own problems for mixing. And the level reflected in your metering will look bonkers, like you haven't done something right or there is something wrong. I talk a lot about the importance of timing because timing is everything in the land of audio recording and creating perspectives of space and distance.

    I am in a land of spacey distance working on this damned documentary film... OMG! I need to be done with this!
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  14. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    Huh. That's all news to me. I actually specifically got another SM58 to mic the second speaker so that I could take mic differences out of the equation. I would very much like to mic both speakers, as i've put a lot of time and effort into pairing two different speakers to get a blend that I like. There's nothing fancy going on wiring wise. No stereo cabs or anything. Most are wired in parallel, but I have at least one wired in series (solely for impedance issues). I don't suppose it would be simple enough to just reverse the phase on one of the mics? I can't do that on the board, but there must be fifteen billion other ways to reverse phase... That said, you make it seem like I should look to replace one of the SM58s with a ribbon mic. That is doable, especially as I now have three SM58s, and will really never need all three at once.

    I'd rather not get into messing with timing, mostly because it adds a layer of complication to what I have to do.

    On another note, I've had some hardware problems with the Mbox. I think I'm getting them sorted out, but it did get me wondering again if it's even worth it to use the thing at all. Basically, as I see it, the only reason I'm using it is so that I can record in stereo, which is of limited value since I'm recording one instrument at a time. It would be nice to be able to pan each speaker somewhat, and it's also nice when recording the accordion to put the chords on one side and the keyboard on the other, but I'm not sure it's really essential.

    What I do wonder though is are there any issues taking the output of the mixer and summing them into a simple LI on the PC? I don't have a dedicated soundcard or anything going on, and I'm unclear if there are significant quality issues using a basic line in.
     
  15. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    You can certainly take one of your sub mixers outputs and go into a standard computer company issued line level input. One of the least ideal things about that are their lack of head room even at their inputs. The mixer will generally provide a fairly significant line level output that has quite a potential for overloading a cheap computer sound card input. If the mixer has RCA tape recording outputs, use those. Those are generally about 14 DB lower in their output level around the -10 level with reference to the +4 line level outputs of most mixers. You never want to utilize the little 1/8 inch red microphone input on a standard computer soundcard. It's not designed for high fidelity work. The line level input offers a substantial improvement in its audio acceptance capability. And at times in the past, I've done just that. Good when you are in a pinch for some kind of impromptu work around. It's not one that you will find enormously satisfying sonically but it can still get the job done. So it does not come highly recommended but offers expanded capabilities for no extra money outlay. And with items such as electric guitars, distortion already plays a factor in the sound of an electric guitar. So little extra distortion from a not so great input won't be as problematic as say a gorgeous sound of a cello, violin, operatic vocalist and such. But even with those sources you can get away with a better at the line level input of a standard computer soundcard. Certainly not with the microphone input.

    Don't forget your tranquilizers. That's a passive audio device that helps one get through recordings with standard issue computer soundcard. Sounds a little bit like equalizers but doesn't affect the sound it only affects your brain to cope with the sound LOL. Because frankly anxiety goes up when the sound quality goes down. And that's why God created Xanax, Valium, Librium and alcohol which all can be used as equalizers.

    I think I need another 10 dB of Xanax?
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  16. onioner

    onioner Active Member

    Lots of specific questions about stuff brought up before. Spent most of the last couple days trying to get a handle on things. I think I got a grasp, but my other arm's still flailing wildly...

    First, microphones. To clarify, as I've been mistaken so far, I have a BG 4.1 and two SM57s, as well as the AKG Perception (which was the only one I got right...). I want to mic each speaker of a two speaker cabinet. I'm totally willing to sell one or two that I have and get a different mic. If that's the best course of action, any suggestions?

    And just generally about mics, if I remember correctly (and I may not), this Eurorack can provide phantom power to the xlr track inputs, and that powering a mic that does not wish to be powered is a bad idea. Hence, any of those mics should be connected by the 1/4" jack. Do I remember correctly?

    I'm still not really pulling off the re-amping thing. I think I have the dry part ok. I'm using the mixer, with a substantial amount of gain, and the level turned down, into the mbox, turned to about eleven o'clock. I think that's working alright, but there is an awful lot of noise, though I think that's an issue of the cables I'll get to... It's the re-amping I don't have right. I'm thinking the best path is either from the out on mbox into the amp, or mbox>mixer>amp. The latter, which I think may be preferable, is also problematic, as I'll have to also be recording via the mixer, into the mbox, at the same time. I think that's where those auxiliary channels come in. I think that will work. 'Course, every time I fail I'll get a howling bit of feedback. Best break out the little ss.

    So, right now I have all the cords and cables lying haphazardly. I expect a lot of noise. I'd like to figure out how I want everything connected before I go and sort out that mess. I'm presuming that a substantial amount of noise comes from power lines crossing audio lines? There is an awful lot of that goin' on... But, I can fix that, just as soon as I figure out where everything goes...




    Yes, please. Long days, and I can't say they were the most fun I've had making music. Gettin' there though.
     
  17. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    Like I have said, if you want to put microphones on multiple speakers in your guitar cabinet, the SM57 should go on one speaker. And something like one of the quite affordable Cascade ribbon microphones starting at around $160 would do you fine. It'll work quite nicely and give you a completely different tonality that will mix well with the 57.

    Regarding Phantom power and microphones that don't require it. Most dynamic microphones like the 57 & 58's can usually withstand Phantom power provided your cables are good. When it comes to ribbon microphones, a lousy cable can definitely blow them up. But no, absolutely not, the XLR output from a microphone MUST be plugged into an XLR microphone input. These are balanced devices not unbalanced devices like coming from a guitar pickup. Plus a guitar pick up outputs more level than any microphone especially a ribbon. Ribbon microphones generally put out a lower-level than any dynamic much less any condenser microphone. Though you can use them with Phantom you are playing with a little bit of fire if your cables are not first-rate. My API and my Neve always have the Phantom power on. And over a span of well over 20+ years, I have as yet to lose a ribbon microphone yet. I personally make my own good cables and I also purchase cables. I never use a crappy cable on a ribbon microphone. You don't have to have the best cables but you have to have well-built and manufactured cables and not the cheapest ones you find on sale. Certain consoles and preamps have Phantom power switches so that you can switch off the Phantom power to the microphone that does not require it. The M-Box series of computer audio interfaces offer that Phantom power switch feature.

    When doing your re-amp recording, the line level outputs of the M-Box outputs a level that's really quite too hot to go directly into a guitar amplifier input. Yeah, you'll get lots of noise. And that's because the M-Box is outputting a level more than 30 DB hotter than that guitar amplifier wants to see. So you really screw your signal-to-noise ratio up that way. It has nothing to do with the cables. In order to take that M-Box output into your guitar amplifier, you need some kind of padding at the output of the M-Box before it goes into the guitar amplifier. This can be accomplished with a simple 10,000 ohm, linear taper volume control from Radio Shaft. And you should most likely take the 1/4 inch output and not the XLR output from the M-Box. So you need to knock the output gain down. This cannot be accomplished by simply turning down the output of the M-Box because the output amplifiers you in with the volume down will still cause an inordinate amount of noise coming from the output circuitry going into your guitar amplifier input. And that's why you need a pad. The pad should not load down the output of the M-Box by much less than 10,000 ohms. So online control, you'll connect the sleeve from the output of the M-Box to pin one on the volume control. That's the ground. That same connection will also be connected to the ground of the sleeve of the cable to go into the guitar amplifier. The M-box tip output will be connected to the third lug of the line control. The center lug of the line control will go to the 1/4 inch tip feeding the guitar amplifier. The 10,000 ohm line control will then only load down the output of the M-Box by 10,000 ohms. Then you can change the output of that volume control to better match to the input of the guitar amplifier. This should cause no inordinate extra noise than what you get from a guitar directly.

    You'll only be doing this from one channel of the M-Box for the re-amp trick. The second channel of the M-Box will take the microphone input from your 57 (or whatever else you choose) into XLR input 2. Channel 2 from the M-Box would then be routed as a single monaural record track in your software. So one must understand the routing within the software in order to accomplish this effectively. Thankfully these computer audio interface devices are duplex in their operation. So while playing back from one channel you can be recording on the other. If you don't do this correctly, you'll get ungodly feedback and all sorts of other bad gobbledygook. And you might find trying to evaluate what you're doing with a pair of headphones plugged into the M-Box will of all likelihood give you a very confusing audible picture. So it'll likely take some experimentation to get it just right.

    This should get you into the ballpark. And you could probably be simultaneously recording two microphones that are going into the M-box. But beware, there is a dry and wet, input-playback mix control on the M-Box and you will want to have it fully cranked over to playback and not to input. Otherwise it will be feedback vill. Though that could be effective to perhaps wake up Amy Winehouse or Michael Jackson?

    You may also experience an issue with ground loop hum. Again here, you must be careful. You want to have your computer and guitar amplifier plugged into the same electrical circuit and probably on the same multi-output electrical strip. Then you'll probably also need to lift the grounded AC plug powering your computer. But beware that the guitar amplifier should in fact be properly grounded on the AC receptacle plug. Having a simple AC voltmeter will also ensure that the grounds between your computer chassis and the guitar amplifier chassis should never show more than just a couple of volts. If, horror of horrors, you see 110 V between the chassis, the guitar Cabinet chassis will be hot and you will run the risk of electrocution. If you do see that voltage you certainly don't want to touch both chassis, physically, at the same time. That scenario would require you to turn the guitar amplifier plug upside down and then test the voltage between the computer and guitar amplifier chassis again. And you should actually do this before you plug in any adapter cords between the computer audio interface and the guitar amplifier. Because of the chassis potential is backwards, while you may not kill yourself you'll in all probability below up your computer and your amplifier quite effectively. And we wouldn't want you to do that. Part of this problem comes from the fact that the guitar amplifier is not a balanced input. And you won't necessarily be taking the balanced output from the M-Box. Cable should be well shielded and they shouldn't really be much more than 10 feet in length.

    There are other devices designed for this application made by companies like Radial that offer a higher level of compatibility and protection. But the way I've suggested is an ultra cheap way to go provided your grounding is not all screwed up and you are not taking power from multiple different outlets on different circuits.

    So you should be able to pull this off while taking it down utilizing an uptick in safety.
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  18. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    As long as you use correctly-wired XLR-XLR cables, SM57s and other moving-coil dynamic mics are quite happy running with phantom-power enabled. Test your cables with a multimeter for end-to-end connectivity and no shorts to screen before use. Pay heed to Remy's advice about not using passive ribbon mics feeding XLR inputs that have phantom-power enabled.

    The 1/4" TRS inputs on most mixers and pre-amps go through a 20dB attenuator before they then feed the same pre-amp as the XLR input. The result is that you can press this type of 1/4" input into use for high-output dynamic mics on close-miked or other loud sound sources such as a snare drum, but is best avoided.
     
  19. Jumpmonkey

    Jumpmonkey Active Member

    Onioner,

    If you're needing new, cables consider building them yourself. You can make a quality cable much cheaper than you can buy one. For XLR cable the Crane Quad Core mic cable is good stuff. I've been pleased with the Neutrik connectors. Depending on the type of cable your building it can take some time. I find it takes forever un-weaving the shielding on mic cable for the ground. Other than that its a quick and easy process. Ok, its quick and easy after you do it a couple of times.


    God bless,
    Adam
     

Share This Page