No to both of those. I own both, the U87ai (the "ai" stands for "ain't it no mo' ") and a 414XLS (the smooooother version of the ULS). If you gotta have an LDC, my recommendation would be the Audio-Technica AT4047. No need for the multi-pattern version here. You have a lower-registered voice, that mic kills in that range. Smokey, silky, and smooooth. Just remember that the acoustical environment needs to be right - that means treated, not dead - or else that big ol' diaphragm will be picking up bad reflections like no one's business. The other choice? A Beyer M-69 (or TG69) dynamic. Tight pattern control,great on males.
What preamp do you have?

Thanks for the input. I've heard good things about the AT4047. After more research though, I'm wondering if I wouldn't be better off with a dynamic mic, like the Shure SM7b. I've always used condensers, but they seem to bring out a brassy, metallic sound in my voice on the high end, especially the expensive ones. Maybe a SM7b would balance that out? It would also help with the room - I rent an apartment so I don't know how well I'll be able to treat the room for a condenser.

I don't have a preamp yet - I was looking at the A-Designs P-1. Or something from Great River. I know that the SM7b, if I go that way, needs a lot of gain to work. Any thoughts between the AT4047 and the SM7, or between a condenser and dynamic for my voice in general?

Sorry, just saw your suggestion on the Beyer M-69. Haven't heard much about it, but have heard a lot about the M-88. What's the difference between the two? And how do the Beyer's, in your opinion, stack up against the SM7?

If you have a good preamp, I'd go for a good dynamic. You won't get the "air" of an LDC, but you need the room to be right and the match to be right for your voice for an LDC to shine. A good dynamic gives its best in a wider range of conditions on a wider range of voices. I have not tried the Beyer M-69. My favorites are the Electrovoice RE20 and the Shure SM7b. The Shure in particular is low output, so you need a preamp with a lot of clean gain. Another point here is that there is much less financial risk. Less than half your budget and good resale value.

[Edit:] Ha, cross posted. Again, can't compare to the Beyer, but the RE20 is one of the most popular mics for radio - nice presence without any harshness in the highs, very little proximity effect. The SM7b is very similar with a tiny bit less in the low mids a touch more in the highs. (All the good dynamics I am familiar with have a bit of a 2-3k presence bump and a roll off after 5-10k. They differ in the exact position and magnitude of those deviations.)

To echo everyone else and add one in the direction Bob is thinking! The DPA [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.dpamicro…"]d:facto[/]="http://www.dpamicro…"]d:facto[/] just came out, it might be right in the middle. I have know idea what is like but I would love to know. DPA mics are incredible.

A ton of clean gain can be difficult to find in a preamp. I've actually just bought something called the CL-2 Cloudlifter. It's a neat little two channel inline gain boost that gives 25dB clean gain from JFET amplifiers inside that run on phantom power. So if you decide to get the SM7b, that may help to get it in the right place without cranking the preamp and getting noise and hiss.

Large diaphragm condensers have an upper end EQ boost by default, that's because of the bigger diaphragm. Small diaphragm condensers won't have that bump in the upper range, but they're not so good on vocals in general. I'll echo what everyone else is saying and ask how is your recording environment?

The RE20 is a great mic, and versatile... great on voice, great on kick drum, great on brass... If I were headed to a desert island and could only take one of the mics in my collection I think it'd probably be the RE20... and I also have Neumanns and AKG's.. LOL

Now.. that being said, there is no "one mic fits all". You need to go with what sounds best on your voice. It may be a U87, it may be an SM57...

JakeAC5253, post: 400572 wrote: A ton of clean gain can be difficult to find in a preamp.

Depends on where you look. The AEA preamps are designed for ribbons and are quite high gain (83 dB if you believe the specs). There several in the high 70's (e.g. True.) I've been using ribbons on most acoustic string instruments, so I now have four channels of the AEA TRP. Doesn't add any color (which I'd usually prefer) but I love it on quiet sources and low output mics.

I've actually just bought something called the CL-2 Cloudlifter. It's a neat little two channel inline gain boost that gives 25dB clean gain from JFET amplifiers inside that run on phantom power. So if you decide to get the SM7b, that may help to get it in the right place without cranking the preamp and getting noise and hiss.

I have not tried that, but have seen it recommended before. There are other ways to gain stage: for instance, going through a hardware compressor and using the makeup gain.

It's a bit hard to guess from that video clip, but it sounds as though you have the sort of voice that would benefit from trying a ribbon mic. When trying out mics for vocalists I have not recorded before, I go through a selection of different types including a Beyerdynamic M500 ribbon as well as standards like the SM58 and the RE20 that others have mentioned.

You give a vague reference to the pre-amp you either have or are thinking of getting, but I would emphasise that it's important to consider the microphone/pre-amp combination as an instrument in itself when teasing out the subtleties in vocal mic selection. An SM58 through an API 3124+ sounds a lot different to the same mic going into a FastTrack Pro. You also may find that a pre-amp that has adjustable input load impedance gives you the particular flavour you are looking for.

I'm sorry to say that it's not something that you can easily predict and decide in isolation. You may have to travel to hear and try out the different combinations, but a good, reputable dealer in a big city should have both the stock and a half-decent demo room for you to try out a number of mics and pre-amps, especially if, as you say in your first post, you have $1000K to spend.

The reason that I recommended the 4047 is because I have found that it has better detail and clarity without sibialnt harshness that a lot of LDC's tend towards. But you will need a better environment to work with it.
I like the RE-20 as well, and I have recommended it a lot, especially when you want the room out of the picture. My SM7b always sounds like a 58 with extra foam, at least to my ears. I have the Cloudlifter, too, and it works well with both of those dynamics very nicely. In fact it really opens up the SM7.
The M-88/TG88 are a bit husky for me, the 69 always seems to have a bit more presence and balance. I personally have always liked the sound of Beyers on many voices, there's a subtle presence to them that adds to the detail and clarity.

My first impulse after listening to your voice was to suggest the SM7b. I've got over 35 mics to choose from and that is what I would use on your voice. I run it through either my AEA RPQ preamp or my Great River MP-2NV. Sounds great through both.
Jeff

I plan to use a homemade vocal booth, but the treatment won't come anywhere near what I'd get in a studio, so a dynamic is probably the way to go over a condenser. As for pre's, I haven't bought one yet. I'm between Great River and A-Designs. Leaning towards A-Designs P-1. I've read that the A-Designs provides more of a creamy vintage sound, which I think I'd like. I'm definitely gonna check out the Cloudlifter.

You can waste the money on the SM-7. It's really just a 300+ dollar version of the 58. Stick an extra foam pop filter on the 58 and then one of those embroidery loop pantyhose pop filters. Keep them a few inches away from the capsule and it will sound like a seven. It won't have the bass frequency low frequency rolloff (you'll have to do that in software) and it always has that presence boost on. And if that's worth an extra $200 + to you? Go for it. And where you'll also find plenty of folks who have used that 7 or 58's to record the lead vocals for folks like Michael Jackson, Bono and Steven Tyler and more. It will not be affected by the room acoustics anywhere near as much as anyone's condenser microphone will. It provides a nice full robust sound was great presence and clarity. Works even nicer in the better preamps. You just cannot go wrong with it. Much more versatile than a condenser microphone. Especially under compromise acoustical conditions such as your home.

You only use a studio condenser microphone when A) you want that condenser sound? Or, B) when your client wants that condenser sound. Otherwise you're fooling yourself in thinking that everybody uses these condenser microphones for recording vocals with. They don't. But a fool and his money is quickly parted. I'm not saying ya shouldn't get a 414. Probably your next most versatile sounding microphone, any version. Some have a marked presence peak where the others are flat. The units with the presence peak have been determined to be very good on vocals. But then so has the flatter version.

The other rather substantially different sounds will come from the different kinds of microphone preamps. Whatever is built into your computer audio interface is certainly adequate no doubt. They are also likely to be of a transformer less design that are very clear, clean, crispy, metallic, brittle sounding. Where is the older school designed preamps utilizing an input transformer and discreet transistor electronics will provide this gorgeous sound from a 58. And that's what I use mostly with my API & Neve preamp inputs. I do a lot of live location work and these 57 & 58's, I couldn't do my job without those. Those get used more than any of my simply fabulous and collector item 67's, 87's, 56 & 86's and let's not forget the AKG & SHURE condenser microphones also.

And where I am dealing with a high or squeaky voice, for those, I always grab for the ribbons. What I mean if you want a high squeaky voice to sound even more squeaky, nearly unlistenable, certainly not enjoyable, go ahead and grab for a condenser micro. Then you can go out of business the following week. I wouldn't even put a 58 on a soprano or some squeaky guy. I own 6 ribbon microphones. I couldn't live without them. I'm 57 and I've been using them since I was in my teens. They never used to be cheap. Today, the Chinese are making some lovely ones. They are imported by American firms and also AT, Beyer, Rupert Neve Designs, Royer, Cascades and a boatload of others. Some starting as little as $160. And extending well past $3000 US. So some not much more money than a Beta 58 by Cascades. So dynamic and condenser microphones are certainly not the be-all end-all. I use my ribbons as often as I used my dynamics and condensers. I believe me, I have a good top shelf selection. The only crappy ones I have are the eight Radio Shaft Pressure Zone Microphones that I purchased over 20 years ago. And with their slight modifications, they are balanced out and run on 12-18 V battery power (cannot be effectively phantom powered). And they sound like my $375 brand name Crown PZM's, with that simple modification. One plug and a change of batteries. There are definitely advantages to hemispherical patterned microphones. Especially when they are part of one of the boundary surfaces such as the wall, ceiling, floor, 4x4 foot/2 x 2' plexiglass panels that have been hung or mounted. And so sometimes I will stick a Pressure Zone Microphone on a wall and make people face the wall and either sing or talk to the wall. Especially if I don't like them LOL. Then ya can make all sorts of obscene gestures. And they will have loved the experience of working with you. Just make sure their family members are not in the control room when you do that or bitch about what an idiot they are. Freakin' No talent! But of course you want their business back again. So use the right microphone.

Now these ribbon microphones depending upon the types and costs, largely sound like those old-fashioned radio and movie microphones that the RCA 44 made so popular and their 77. That's smooth lush warm quality without any strident high-frequency fizzy sounding thin diaphragm condenser thingies.

So having a ribbon kind of completes your Swiss cheese fondue. Without the ribbon, you've got the pot, you've got the flame, you've got the forks, you've got the baguette but ya forgot the cheese. So you could have little toasted bread squares that are ultra-crispy. And you won't have any of that satisfying and filling molten cheese goo. Though the Rhine wine and the Kirsch Wasser may have already been completely consumed and everything will sound great? It's that or you have drunk little pieces of bread all catching on fire?

I like a lot of garlic and Kirsch Wasser in my Swiss cheese fondue. And I don't go lightly with the Rhine wine.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Remy,

You've been saying this a lot over the years and I have to say, I'm starting to lean towards this more and more and I'll share why.

When I do remixes, the labels provide stems that sound terrible. I mean terrible. I could never record vocals that sound that bad. Why are they that bad, you can clearly hear they are using condensers in studios that sound like ITB ass. The whole package sounds like smashed digital mush with no life. Just loud and irritating.

Here's where this gets interesting now. For remixes I always keep the Vox track and usually replace everything else. When I do that, the vocals actually don't sound that bad to me then. But I hear the rooms in all of them and it doesn't help one bit! So how could a 58 be worse I think. I know these vox tracks would sound better had they used something that kept the room reflection and ugly metallic edge out.. Who cares about all the top and bottom end. I roll that off anyway. Its not natural in vocals and in the final mix, you add that to the entire mix together. Thats how I do it.

My point here is exactly what you are saying here! We don't need all that added high end zzz, low end rumble and crappy room reflections added in vocals. I don't care what anyone say's today about a nice sounding room. For my application and methods and how i see the end result, hardware reverbs sounds better in the mix than an out of time studio room forcing its way through an entire song.
Dynamic mics through high end preamps and high rail analog consoles should sound killer compared! Add a Bricasti or two and I think this is a killer concept for most studios. The trade off, less room trumps my concept to achieve a much better mix.

I'm with you now. Take the room out of the mix.

Dynamic mics with killer preamps and high voltage consoles sounds like a great plan.

Thanks guys, I hear you. It looks like my biggest investment will be the preamp - still leaning towards the A Designs P-1. If I do get this, can I go with an inexpensive interface, like an Echo Audiofire2, that doesn't have a preamp. Or the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 or Presonus Audiobox USB. Is it easy to bipass the built in preamp? I'm only recording vocals and midi.

Wyatt W, post: 400620 wrote: Thanks guys, I hear you. It looks like my biggest investment will be the preamp - still leaning towards the A Designs P-1. If I do get this, can I go with an inexpensive interface, like an Echo Audiofire2, that doesn't have a preamp. Or the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 or Presonus Audiobox USB. Is it easy to bipass the built in preamp? I'm only recording vocals and midi.

Well the mic and preamp pairing is very important yes, the preamp has some tuning effect on the microphones' response. What a poor quality converter will do is take a nice 3d image and turn it flat and lifeless. Not saying you have to buy the ferrari, but I wouldn't be looking at a Pinto either... that's called a bottleneck. I wouldn't be aiming quite as low as you are.

Wyatt W, post: 400620 wrote: Thanks guys, I hear you. It looks like my biggest investment will be the preamp - still leaning towards the A Designs P-1. If I do get this, can I go with an inexpensive interface, like an Echo Audiofire2, that doesn't have a preamp. Or the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 or Presonus Audiobox USB. Is it easy to bipass the built in preamp? I'm only recording vocals and midi.

You can't go wrong with the Pacifica!, that's what I got my pennies saved up for.

Wyatt W, post: 400620 wrote: Thanks guys, I hear you. It looks like my biggest investment will be the preamp - still leaning towards the A Designs P-1. If I do get this, can I go with an inexpensive interface, like an Echo Audiofire2, that doesn't have a preamp. Or the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 or Presonus Audiobox USB. Is it easy to bipass the built in preamp? I'm only recording vocals and midi.

We use the word "chain" in signal chain for a reason. Scrimping on any link does degrade the final sound. However, if you are forced to scrimp on any one link I'd scrimp on the interface/converters. First, I'd argue (admittedly against some opposition) that there is less difference between the different levels of converters than between different levels of mics and preamps. Second (and most importantly) the quality of analog is more stable than the quality of digital. If you bought a good mic and/or preamp 15 years ago, it's still a good mic/preamp. That is NOT true of interfaces/converters. What was good 15 years ago is now trash. That may not be true in the future - digital technology may have stabilized. But history says if you have to choose between the two, spend the money on the preamps or mics.

[Edit:] Of course, I look forward to the time when we take six different microphones, six different preamps, and six sets of converters and record the same sound source using 216 combinations . We can have a panel of experts rank their quality and do a statistical analysis to see which elements had the strongest correlation.

I looked into that A Designs P-1. OK it's a knockoff on the Quad Eight Pacifica. This is an old-school design like I had talked about earlier. Transformer coupled input with a pad. Yes! I had a Sphere Eclipse C, designed and built by Don McLaughlin. He was one of the original ElectroDyne founders. He started Sphere and when that went under, his guys split off to create Quad Eight. And that's a lot like the Sphere which was just out of this world sounding. Unfortunately that's just a preamp and does not include a converter. Now you can plug that preamp into most any line level input converter. You could even plug it into a Focusrite, given it has a line level input. You can go into that microphone preamp maybe? And generally only if that also offers a pad switch. Which you would engage.

Now Kurt is talking about noisy preamps that you do not want to turn the gain up on. That's not true. This Cloud Lifter nonsense is not something I would want to put in front of a quality preamp out ever, never. Completely unnecessary to do that. I wouldn't use any of those ridiculous Cloud Lifters on anything other than perhaps a passive ribbon microphone going up 250-1000 feet worth of microphone cable. I mean it's not a horrible thing to do but if you already have a good microphone preamp why would you want to put some other cheap little preamp circuitry that cost $50 in front of a preamp that costs $500. Does that make sense to you? It certainly doesn't to me. And that A Designs P-1, is a preamp to write home about. So you might want to look into a MOTU interface instead? Something that has a line level input and can handle a +24 input source? That's where the head room is and the real professional sound is, baby. It doesn't come from low headroom entry level junk.

And where the SM 7 along with the Electro-Voice RE 20, Sennheiser 441/421 may very well provide you with superior sound and performance of your vocal recording over anybody's premium condenser microphone and I mean anyone's. Otherwise your indigo whole lot of nasty room sound and not what you want or need.

With your example you posted, you are obviously not a highly dynamic singer or performer. Crooner, folk artist, yeah. You also don't open your mouth enough when you're singing the words. You're almost mush mouthed sounding. That's not emotion that's mush. It's also not much of a performance. You're not breathing! You're working on available stale air in your lungs. No no no. Breathe! Project. Open your mouth and enunciate. Thanks Steve Tyler with a softer delivery. That man is 80% mouth and 20% body. You are 20% mouth and 80% body. A big difference in performance delivery there.

While folks have suggested that AT 4047, which is extremely nice, I really don't think it's going to make things better for your voice. That SM 7 or that he very much more affordable 58 will make you sound better with your A Designs P-1, preamp, than most anything else. MOTU makes some very fine products of which I am an owner of one and have been for over 10 years, the 2408 mark II. And it only allows on the line level inputs for a maximum of +20 and my preamps all deliver up to 10 db more. So I can't make my preamps go balls to the wall for the sound I want to get without having to also utilize a resistive H pad before it sees the 2408. And I would prefer not to be robbed of that additional 4-10 db of extra headroom my preamps/mixer/consoles deliver. But I don't have the money for the premium AD/DA Convertors like the Lavery, Prisms, API A 2 D.

On one of those folks that actually likes to crank the crap out of my all discrete transistor microphone preamps/EQ and console. Noise is not the issue nor the problem. But overload is. If you're getting too much noise? You are likely too far from the sounds source? Now that does happen when that oboe solos when your microphone is a ribbon and more than 30 feet away. Then you'll hear some noise. In a studio environment it's virtually a non sequitur. I really cannot believe all of my colleagues saying that 50 DB of pre-amplification, wouldn't be adequate in a bedroom studio environment? And I find that asinine. Never has that been an issue for me and countless others. My Neve & API preamps, can deliver between 70-80 db of pre-amplification. And where are they most of the time when recording rock 'n roll with low output dynamic microphones? Usually around 20-50 db of pre-amplification. So what the hell do you need 70+ for, in a bedroom/basement studio? I really can't think of any reasons? I don't know how these guys are doing their recordings? I only know what I've been doing for over 40 years and what equipment I've had to work with. And where, if it becomes an issue, we know how, I know how to deal with it. And there are many ways in which to deal with it that cause no sonic degradation. I used downward expansion, noise gates, noise reduction units and manual or programmable muting. And that's how it's done. And it's not where you sit back eating a hamburger and blame the problem on your equipment. It's only yourself to blame that you didn't know what to do.

And when you especially have a high quality old-school preamp like that A Designs P-1, you have one of the finest microphone preamps ever designed. In fact on those kinds of preamps (which I personally prefer) I'm frequently engaging the pad switch and cranking up the gain. This will increase the noise factor by as much as the pad which is generally around 20 db. So I make my noise 20 db worse just to get the sound I want out of that discrete transistorized old-school designed, transformer coupled input, microphone preamp. And noise still isn't a problem with a 20 db loss of signal to noise ratio. And that's what you're going to do with that preamp of the A Designs P-1, to get that sound. That's THE SOUND! It's when you run that preamp up to the point of the amplification circuit, when it slightly starts to go nonlinear. That's the hit sound that everybody marvels over. But you don't get it by running the preamp according to the directions. You have to have this understanding of that discrete transistor circuitry to glean the full advantages it has to offer. And if you just adjusted properly, accordingly, to established operating parameters, you'll simply get nice, good sound. The good stuff happens when you push it beyond that. But how are you to know that? Now you do.

You don't get Grammy, Emmy & Soul Train Music Awards nominations for Best Engineered, by being a hack. You don't get those because you went to a recording school and got a piece of paper. You get it by understanding all that you are working with to begin with. And by understanding the imposed limitations of whatever equipment you are using. And everything has its limits. Even those high-voltage rails, in the console that Chris just purchased. Which likely exceeds most everything else. But what good does that do you? Especially when it still has to end up at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz, MP3, MP4, iTunes, whatever. At least with iTunes you could now deliver 24-bit and a higher sampling rates. But that's just them. It sure the hell ain't everybody, where they simply want 16-bit, 44.1 kHz as a wave or MP3, MP4, AIF/AIFF. And the streaming stuff, that ain't high definition of any sort.

Nobody will even tell you how awful PCM sounds. Because it's all they're using. It's the only currently practical format. And it ain't good. But everybody will tell you that 24 bit/32 bit float at 192 kHz sounds just like the input source. That's an outright lie. They're being paid. And if all of the successfully rich engineers are being compensated by companies to tell you that, what are you going to believe? Them of course. So I guess I'm the only one that can hear the difference on cheap speakers? Or even on the top-of-the-line stuff being demonstrated with at the AES conventions? People today listening to digital artifacting all think that's the original analog source. It's not. It's digital artifacting. It's a component now there that wasn't in the original. And that's digital artifacting which is faking everybody out. Not me. My hearing is too keen my mind too sharp. I just listened beyond the hyperbole blather. You're there to listen. You're not there to agree just because they are shaking their heads yes and you're shaking your head no. I once had Burgess McNeil, who designed and built all of the conceptual pieces for George Massenburg, tell me you could not hear his limiter working. I absolutely could hear it working. It sounded like any other limiter working. But Burgess is telling everybody you can't hear it working. So more lies from somebody I knew personally. You can either elect to believe these people or not. And when someone is telling me what I can't hear, I'm completely amazed to know that they can tell what I'm listening to. And then they get it wrong. Proving their expertise. Like I'll ever believe them again? No way. And that's the top of the top of the top equipment manufacturers. So I only want to know what they are selling. My listening to it will determine the validity of their claim/claims. Sometimes I really do hear things that impressed the heck out of me. And at an affordable cost that only the rich can afford LOL. So you either have to be smart or you need to be rich but you have to be one of those two. With none of that in the equation, you're blind. You won't be able to make intelligent practical financial decisions in your purchasing. And because most of the truly affordable stuff is all about the same. So go for the features that you think you might want rather than looking at the marketing blather of the advertisements. In my work, I require some very specific features and capabilities from the equipment in which I use. And I know what I want to get as far as my own signature sound goes. Just like Bob Clearmountain, George Massenburg, et al.. They're not out there trying to discover what piece of equipment they want next. Most of that equipment was already supplied to them, free of charge to evaluate. Most of the time, they give the equipment back. What's that tell ya? They have no interest in using that stuff. Why? It's state-of-the-art. That's why.

You're learning
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 400672 wrote: why would you want to put some other cheap little preamp circuitry that cost $50 in front of a preamp that costs $500. Does that make sense to you?

Remy I love you like I love my own mother, but that's a crock of nonsense. That's a fine case of "listening with your eyes" or maybe it's "listening with dollar bills in your ears." I'm with you in theory, but only in theory. The best sounding method always wins and I could care less if it costs $2 or $2k.

Remy, you and I are both engineers, we understand the subtleties buried under all this gear nonsense... If I'm listening to a track and I can hear compression, it's not a cheap compressor, it's poor use of compression by the fact that I can hear it. When you turn on the radio you automatically know that there is editing/compression/tuning on just about everything, most of the time heavy on all of the above. You KNOW all that is there, we both do because no one who listens to the radio these days wants to hear musicians, regrettably. It's only when these things are done improperly that you can detect it. So if you were listening to something and weren't able to detect that there was an inline gain boost between the mic and preamp, was it really there?

It's just like the guys who argue with me about my use of an overdrive pedal in front of my high gain metal tube amps saying that they bought a 2k+ tube amp and they don't want to put a $200 box in front of it... To that I say alright, I'll just keep reamping guitar tracks for professional album releases and they can keep entertaining the neighbors from their basement because one of us is an engineer and one of us should be an accountant instead...

<3

right on, I love that Jake! You made me laugh while I'm standing beside you. Specifically relating to the accountant comment and using effects or "tools" because they work. Its why we both reamp or replace or subtract. We get it and aren't martyrs going down with the ship just because its got sentiment.

I hear ya Jake. And while I'm with ya I don't completely agree. When you purchase a microphone preamp, you expect a certain kind of sound and performance from that device. Putting another active element in front of that device will completely change the character. It will add its own unique character if it's got active transistors in it and it does. While it can be beneficial in other less than ideal preamps, I wouldn't otherwise bother. It's like you don't fix something if it ain't broke. And you wouldn't modify anything that already works well. This is a Band-Aid device. Fine for those who need or want it. Not much different than those active splitters I also had to deal with and don't care much for either. Because that's a cheap microphone preamp in front of my good microphone preamps. I'd rather just have an additional transformer and not additional active circuitry. That's my choice. That's the way I work. That's the way I hear things. Do I like active ribbon microphones? You bet. But I don't own anything but the passive ones because that's the sound I want. And the API's and the Neve have the available gain to work well with ribbon microphones. Even at a distance. And most of the time the ambient noise level of the preamp is lower than the ambient noise level the microphones pick up. This could be a problem during an extremely quiet oboe solo when you're microphones are 30 feet away and you might hear some preamplifier pink noise. Still not horrible. I've heard plenty of noises on plenty of hit records. There are even lousy edits that we've heard on the other hit records like Led Zeppelin. So, the Cloud Lifter? No thanks. I'm not saying that it's not completely unnecessary. Though I don't believe it's necessary when ya have decent preamps to begin with. I mean I've used the Blue, Blue Ball, active dynamic microphone. So what's that? It's a Cloud Lifter built in with a dynamic microphone. I did not deem that to be any better than any of my passive dynamic microphones. And that Cloud Lifter is no different. Fine for those who like it. But you're putting 3 1/2 dollars of general-purpose FET's in front of a fine preamp. And we all know that sound gets better through a straight wire than it does through active circuitry. But if that active circuitry gives you a sound you want, it's all good. I have made a conscious decision not to bother with those. And it won't make me any worse or better with or without it. Of course some kid with his headphones turned up too loudly will exclaim they can hear some hiss. Well of course they can. It's supposed to be there. And a lot of that is thermal noise from the active circuitry. The noise is not coming from the passive microphone. All electronic circuits make noise. Some lower than others. Some higher than others were that Cloud Lifter might make some sense? And or others that might be more fixated on the noise than on the sound they are getting? Ambient noise levels are far larger problem than amplification noise. And you can't eliminate the air to illuminate the noise. The HVAC is going to keep it going for ya. In the studio, good ones, not so much an issue. And where the amplifier noise may in fact be more noticeable? But we're talking about people and others sound sources that are only inches away from any diaphragm or ribbon. And that should pose no problem and no need for a Cloud Lifter. In my book it's more active circuitry that need not be. So most of the problem comes down to improper gain staging to begin with. And everything is going to have a db or two of thermal noise at every amplification stage. Of course that is not quite the same kind of noises one would get if you're preamp is completely balls to the wall. Then it might become extremely obvious? But then why do people like us then also smash the pad switch so we can crank the crap out of the preamp to get just the right sound? What's that do to the noise floor? It makes it 20 db more obvious, to obtain the right sound. And so that doesn't make any sense, right? We all know better. But if you're dealing with a Beringer you might want that Cloud Lifter? Then I couldn't agree with you more. Because with a Beringer you're not trying to preserve the sound of that preamp as it has no real redeeming sound of its own. So I wouldn't think twice about using one of those gizmos with one of those gizmos. But if you have something similar in design to an API or a Neve type of circuitry, it's ridiculous. You'd want that sound and not something else in front of that sound. So while it might seem I'm not a purist I actually am. And that means simple low topology, low component parts count. SSL's are famous for the hundreds of FET switches. And where each one of those FET's imparts their own sound most definitely. Some guys like Bob Clearmountain use that to their mixing advantage. They obtain a certain kind of sound going through all of those FET's & VCA's. Other folks don't want and don't like that. I'm one of those folks. So while I've used SSL's, of different varieties, they are incredible consoles and they're not my favorites. For those very reasons. I know what I want to hear. And I know how to get what I want. It took us years to get where we are, right? Unemployed LOL. And that really depends on where in the country you are and what kind of services you offer. My service was highly specialized and today there is very little call for what I do and what I have. Not because my engineering and not using a Cloud Lifter, would make any difference. I just happen to have one of the finest White Elephants in the country. So you think a $50 Cloud Lifter is really going to improve the sound of an API or a Neve? But then why bother to have an API or a Neve? Just design a new preamp that includes those little FET transistors as the front end and be done with it. And you'll have one of those great, horrible sounding transformer less microphone preamplifier pieces of junk. I hate that sound. I use it when I have to. Certainly not a first choice for me. And I want my microphones coupled into a transformer like they were designed to be. But I certainly can understand everybody's attraction to this oh so very handy device. And where I actually do think it is necessary for some, under certain conditions. Otherwise why bother using anything that you have already acquired? I purchased my stuff for the sound that I want. And that means no artificial ingredients. Not needed. Unnecessary. So I best choose the right microphone for the application. And a lot of folks don't have that option and where that Cloud Lifter might seem necessary?

That re-amp trick of yours is excellent. Did that require a Cloud Lifter? I certainly can't see how you would need that? Unless it's to obtain that fabulous sound of yours and you couldn't get it without that device? Or did you find that device to be an unneeded accessory to obtain what you get? And if so? Why did you find it unneeded? I haven't heard a guitar amplifier that couldn't be captured with the 57 and a three dollar, 5534 chip without undue noise? And that's not even a good preamp and the noise level is more than adequate. So I really just don't get this idiocy? To me it seems about as valuable as yesterday's smart phone. And I don't have a smart phone because I'm smarter than any of those phones. Folks today don't know what to do without there's? Wow, this could become a real problem when people forget how to use their own brains altogether. And it seems like we're getting real close to that scenario if there isn't an app for that? So maybe there is an app for that called a Cloud Lifter? And bang, all your problems are instantly solved and everybody's engineering will now sound like George Massenburg's. Except, of course, mine. I don't sound like George. Though, I think everybody else would like to? Who wouldn't? I mean I also use a lot of EQ even though I really don't care for a lot of EQ if I don't have to use it. I won't when it's not necessary to do so. Everybody else will because they want to play with what they have. And they know you have to notch this and notch that out and make spectral room for something. Nonsense. That's what some folks do. That's not what all folks do. I knew a local remote truck that had a 24 input API with no equalizers at all, none. So obviously they could never get a good recording. Their stuff sounded great. And they had no need to notch this or notch that. It was pure, clean and completely un-fooled around with. And it sounded just that way. Rich and full without any equalizers changing the speeds of any of those little electrons at different frequencies. So really half the folks here don't know what purity of signal really equates to. They want clear, clean, neutral and then they start screwing around with horrible EQ and dynamic range damage. And you know that Jake. I'm not telling you anything you don't know already. I've made recordings for local bands using their own TA-SCAM awful analog mixers. And they wonder how I can get such a great sound out of such a piece of crap and not an equalizer is touched. Well that's why. The EQ's and lack of headroom in those mixers even defies the term mixer. And then they keep trying to get what I showed them how to get and they still can't. It still sounds like a piece of crap to me but it's better than anything they could get out of their own stuff. And they cannot get their head around proper gain staging and keep grabbing at those perfectly awful EQ's. And most of this proconsumer, state of the art, low-cost stuff, is way better than those pieces of crap. And people still can't get a decent sound. So they need a Cloud Lifter. Because it's the placebo that they need. A proper tweak and they really wouldn't need that. But they don't have the capacity. And that's a shame because you and I actually know how easy it is to get right. We make it look easy because it is easy for us after all of these years. I mean do you really think that the average Joe could be stuck into a API, 24 track control room and know what to do never before having been trained for it? Much less what any of those pushbuttons or knobs are all for? Which is exactly what happened to me when I was 17. And I could not let the client know that I had never touched that API or that MCI 24 track machine before in my life. I could not let the client know I had absolutely no idea what the heck I was doing. And I pulled off that entire six-hour session without any training or introduction to that equipment whatsoever. And that takes a certain kind of talent. Of which I most obviously have. It's a gift. And no one in my immediate family is technical at all, in any way whatsoever. So Jake, I know what I know and I don't know why I know what I know I just do. And I've tackled some insurmountable challenges of which I had never done before without the need of a Cloud Lifter. So why can't people just choose the right microphone and the right preamp to begin with? A 57 and a Mackie is just fine. No one needs anything else. I'm not saying that they are completely unuseful in some capacity. It's like the argument between active and passive splitters and/or DI boxes. Everything does have its place when it is necessary. And where that Cloud Lifter might get you around some otherwise underwhelming equipment?

Many of us pro-engineers like Jake like Boswell like so many other folks here, myself included, all have our own ways of producing professional sounding products. And we all go about things very differently from each other yet, we all produce a professional product we can all be proud of. It's even more amazing when two competent engineers do things in completely disparate ways, different microphones and types, different preamps, a different way to go about things and we come up with the same product that is nearly identical to each other! How does that happen if things are so completely different? It comes down to just one thing. Technique. And not the equipment. Amazing as that might sound and it sounds amazing. This happened to me a couple of years ago along with another one of our highly esteemed past moderators who also had military training and went about things in a very precise and calculated way. Meanwhile, Remy haphazardly sets up her equipment which is much different from his. Sets up her microphones in different places, very differently from his. And he was completely dumbfounded with his student there when we swapped headphones LMAO. He was taken quite aback when my recordings sounded as good as his recording. Or was that his recording sounded as good as my recording? And even his student could not figure out how things could be so completely different yet sound virtually identical? And it's because none of this electronics stuff captures anything naturally. There is nothing natural about electrical recordings. They are what you make them. We make them good you and I and a handful of others here. So the equipment really does not matter unless you don't know how to use it. And most don't. Then it matters. That's when the Cloud Lifter might actually be needed? But is it really needed? Or does it just present another different sound to use? And that's perfectly fine when you think about it in those terms. So I'd say yes to use it then if that's what you're audio engineering requires. So is this just a support piece or is this a load bearing structure? Obviously it's a support piece. A life raft if you will? For some. But not others. I know how to swim well.

Now I smell like fish. Yuck.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Completely agreed! Now we're speaking the same nonsense.

I can really relate to your hatred of EQ and everyones' reliance on it today. EQ has very sparing use in my studio, and I usually decide to retrack rather than reprocess. I also use compression very sparingly as well, I only use it when I actually listen to something and decide that it needs compression. For you this is just bible, but for most modern engineers that's blasphemy. More often than not modern engineers will just load up an EQ and comp onto their tracks before they even begin mixing and then dial them in later. I think that's nonsense. Rarely do I ever actually think that a track benefits from a compressor, but sometimes I want that 1176 clamp or some other signature sound. I use compressors for sounds, I don't use them for compression. Except for in Mastering, that's a little different, but not on source. The way I test a compressor is that I'll put it on a snare drum or whatever I'm looking to compress and dial in about -6dB GR and adjust the output to unity. If when I toggle back and forth from bypassed to active I don't hear a tone change or if I don't hear it working, then it has no place in my studio. I HATE compressor transparency.

I don't always use the Cloudlifter, but I do acknowledge its proper usage and I wouldn't want someone to think that it should not be used under the circumstances that it is best used for. In that same breath I would hate to have someone think that they need to use one even when they don't need to, but that's a choice they make I guess. I totally know what you mean about the sound of cables, and how it's a good thing. You are the first person I've seen who agrees with me on that. Well... actually, most cables sound like absolute junk and aren't worth their price in sand. I've actually tested just about every cable there is and resorted to building my own out of bulk wire and connectors. I've settled on Canare GS-6 with Neutrik gold for instrument TS, Mogami 2549 with Neutrik gold for balanced XLR/TRS, and the hookup between my tube amp and cabinet is special, that's a ProCo 14gu unshielded again with Neutrik gold. These cables literally have a sound of their own and to me it's a good sound. The stuff you buy at a store only damages sound, especially Monster cable. Monster cables have absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. Every reluctant Monster user that I've turned onto my own concoction of cables has had that "a-ha" moment where they began to understand what I was blabbering about. That said, I really do hate building cables, it's very time consuming and I always feel like I need a third hand.

No, the Cloudlifter does not make my reamping tone signature. I use it sometimes when reamping, but again it's as a tool so I can get that sound, it's obviously not needed in this instance. The Cloudlifter gets rid of that cable sound, and for some projects and some clients this is the golden ticket. Without it you get that sag induced from line capacitance tuning the output transformer of the mic which choruses with the amps' own tube sag and speaker compression, so it's an artistic choice. Even with that said, the difference the Cloudlifter makes on reamping tones is almost undetectable in the mix, it makes a much larger difference on vocal recording.

Oh and by the way, the Cloudlifter costs $150 per channel, though that's still not nearly on the level of API or Neve XD

I thought I was seeing those for $50 each? Over at Guitar Center? Maybe I have it confused with that XLR to USB adapter ha ha? I'm brain-dead. Yeah that thing is $50. No really not sure why this little phantom powered in-line buffer should cost $150? Of course I really should look at the circuit before I start flapping my yap. But if you're telling me this is all from 2 FET's no way that should be $150. 50 would make sense. I'm even less enthusiastic about it just knowing its $150 per channel. No wonder I use preamps that have 70-80 db worth of gain? Look at all the money I'm saving. I mean you have to plug in one thing into another thing that goes into another thing and it all ends of being a kick in the shaft. But it's all good when you need it. But it sure does seem like one of those things that you might purchase because you never know when you might need it otherwise never gets used? Like good audio scouts we always want to be prepared.

Ciao time? Good I'm hungry.
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 400672 wrote: I looked into that A Designs P-1. OK it's a knockoff on the Quad Eight Pacifica. This is an old-school design like I had talked about earlier. Transformer coupled input with a pad. Yes! I had a Sphere Eclipse C, designed and built by Don McLaughlin. He was one of the original ElectroDyne founders. He started Sphere and when that went under, his guys split off to create Quad Eight. And that's a lot like the Sphere which was just out of this world sounding. Unfortunately that's just a preamp and does not include a converter. Now you can plug that preamp into most any line level input converter. You could even plug it into a Focusrite, given it has a line level input. You can go into that microphone preamp maybe? And generally only if that also offers a pad switch. Which you would engage.

Now Kurt is talking about noisy preamps that you do not want to turn the gain up on. That's not true. This Cloud Lifter nonsense is not something I would want to put in front of a quality preamp out ever, never. Completely unnecessary to do that. I wouldn't use any of those ridiculous Cloud Lifters on anything other than perhaps a passive ribbon microphone going up 250-1000 feet worth of microphone cable. I mean it's not a horrible thing to do but if you already have a good microphone preamp why would you want to put some other cheap little preamp circuitry that cost $50 in front of a preamp that costs $500. Does that make sense to you? It certainly doesn't to me. And that A Designs P-1, is a preamp to write home about. So you might want to look into a MOTU interface instead? Something that has a line level input and can handle a +24 input source? That's where the head room is and the real professional sound is, baby. It doesn't come from low headroom entry level junk.

And where the SM 7 along with the Electro-Voice RE 20, Sennheiser 441/421 may very well provide you with superior sound and performance of your vocal recording over anybody's premium condenser microphone and I mean anyone's. Otherwise your indigo whole lot of nasty room sound and not what you want or need.

With your example you posted, you are obviously not a highly dynamic singer or performer. Crooner, folk artist, yeah. You also don't open your mouth enough when you're singing the words. You're almost mush mouthed sounding. That's not emotion that's mush. It's also not much of a performance. You're not breathing! You're working on available stale air in your lungs. No no no. Breathe! Project. Open your mouth and enunciate. Thanks Steve Tyler with a softer delivery. That man is 80% mouth and 20% body. You are 20% mouth and 80% body. A big difference in performance delivery there.

While folks have suggested that AT 4047, which is extremely nice, I really don't think it's going to make things better for your voice. That SM 7 or that he very much more affordable 58 will make you sound better with your A Designs P-1, preamp, than most anything else. MOTU makes some very fine products of which I am an owner of one and have been for over 10 years, the 2408 mark II. And it only allows on the line level inputs for a maximum of +20 and my preamps all deliver up to 10 db more. So I can't make my preamps go balls to the wall for the sound I want to get without having to also utilize a resistive H pad before it sees the 2408. And I would prefer not to be robbed of that additional 4-10 db of extra headroom my preamps/mixer/consoles deliver. But I don't have the money for the premium AD/DA Convertors like the Lavery, Prisms, API A 2 D.

On one of those folks that actually likes to crank the crap out of my all discrete transistor microphone preamps/EQ and console. Noise is not the issue nor the problem. But overload is. If you're getting too much noise? You are likely too far from the sounds source? Now that does happen when that oboe solos when your microphone is a ribbon and more than 30 feet away. Then you'll hear some noise. In a studio environment it's virtually a non sequitur. I really cannot believe all of my colleagues saying that 50 DB of pre-amplification, wouldn't be adequate in a bedroom studio environment? And I find that asinine. Never has that been an issue for me and countless others. My Neve & API preamps, can deliver between 70-80 db of pre-amplification. And where are they most of the time when recording rock 'n roll with low output dynamic microphones? Usually around 20-50 db of pre-amplification. So what the hell do you need 70+ for, in a bedroom/basement studio? I really can't think of any reasons? I don't know how these guys are doing their recordings? I only know what I've been doing for over 40 years and what equipment I've had to work with. And where, if it becomes an issue, we know how, I know how to deal with it. And there are many ways in which to deal with it that cause no sonic degradation. I used downward expansion, noise gates, noise reduction units and manual or programmable muting. And that's how it's done. And it's not where you sit back eating a hamburger and blame the problem on your equipment. It's only yourself to blame that you didn't know what to do.

And when you especially have a high quality old-school preamp like that A Designs P-1, you have one of the finest microphone preamps ever designed. In fact on those kinds of preamps (which I personally prefer) I'm frequently engaging the pad switch and cranking up the gain. This will increase the noise factor by as much as the pad which is generally around 20 db. So I make my noise 20 db worse just to get the sound I want out of that discrete transistorized old-school designed, transformer coupled input, microphone preamp. And noise still isn't a problem with a 20 db loss of signal to noise ratio. And that's what you're going to do with that preamp of the A Designs P-1, to get that sound. That's THE SOUND! It's when you run that preamp up to the point of the amplification circuit, when it slightly starts to go nonlinear. That's the hit sound that everybody marvels over. But you don't get it by running the preamp according to the directions. You have to have this understanding of that discrete transistor circuitry to glean the full advantages it has to offer. And if you just adjusted properly, accordingly, to established operating parameters, you'll simply get nice, good sound. The good stuff happens when you push it beyond that. But how are you to know that? Now you do.

You don't get Grammy, Emmy & Soul Train Music Awards nominations for Best Engineered, by being a hack. You don't get those because you went to a recording school and got a piece of paper. You get it by understanding all that you are working with to begin with. And by understanding the imposed limitations of whatever equipment you are using. And everything has its limits. Even those high-voltage rails, in the console that Chris just purchased. Which likely exceeds most everything else. But what good does that do you? Especially when it still has to end up at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz, MP3, MP4, iTunes, whatever. At least with iTunes you could now deliver 24-bit and a higher sampling rates. But that's just them. It sure the hell ain't everybody, where they simply want 16-bit, 44.1 kHz as a wave or MP3, MP4, AIF/AIFF. And the streaming stuff, that ain't high definition of any sort.

Nobody will even tell you how awful PCM sounds. Because it's all they're using. It's the only currently practical format. And it ain't good. But everybody will tell you that 24 bit/32 bit float at 192 kHz sounds just like the input source. That's an outright lie. They're being paid. And if all of the successfully rich engineers are being compensated by companies to tell you that, what are you going to believe? Them of course. So I guess I'm the only one that can hear the difference on cheap speakers? Or even on the top-of-the-line stuff being demonstrated with at the AES conventions? People today listening to digital artifacting all think that's the original analog source. It's not. It's digital artifacting. It's a component now there that wasn't in the original. And that's digital artifacting which is faking everybody out. Not me. My hearing is too keen my mind too sharp. I just listened beyond the hyperbole blather. You're there to listen. You're not there to agree just because they are shaking their heads yes and you're shaking your head no. I once had Burgess McNeil, who designed and built all of the conceptual pieces for George Massenburg, tell me you could not hear his limiter working. I absolutely could hear it working. It sounded like any other limiter working. But Burgess is telling everybody you can't hear it working. So more lies from somebody I knew personally. You can either elect to believe these people or not. And when someone is telling me what I can't hear, I'm completely amazed to know that they can tell what I'm listening to. And then they get it wrong. Proving their expertise. Like I'll ever believe them again? No way. And that's the top of the top of the top equipment manufacturers. So I only want to know what they are selling. My listening to it will determine the validity of their claim/claims. Sometimes I really do hear things that impressed the heck out of me. And at an affordable cost that only the rich can afford LOL. So you either have to be smart or you need to be rich but you have to be one of those two. With none of that in the equation, you're blind. You won't be able to make intelligent practical financial decisions in your purchasing. And because most of the truly affordable stuff is all about the same. So go for the features that you think you might want rather than looking at the marketing blather of the advertisements. In my work, I require some very specific features and capabilities from the equipment in which I use. And I know what I want to get as far as my own signature sound goes. Just like Bob Clearmountain, George Massenburg, et al.. They're not out there trying to discover what piece of equipment they want next. Most of that equipment was already supplied to them, free of charge to evaluate. Most of the time, they give the equipment back. What's that tell ya? They have no interest in using that stuff. Why? It's state-of-the-art. That's why.

You're learning
Mx. Remy Ann David

A-Designs is a knock-off, but true to the original for sure, I believe this pre is something to write home about.

Bob Ohlsson, and motown (YES INDEED)

The History of Electrodyne Quad-Eight and Sphere
Page 1 [="http://www.silvertonemastering.com/electro/Electrodyne_page2.html"]Go To Page 2 [/]="http://www.silverto…"]Go To Page 2 [/]
by [[url=http://="http://www.silverto…"]Larry DeVivo[/]="http://www.silverto…"]Larry DeVivo[/]
[="http://www.tapeop.com/"]
[/]="http://www.tapeop.c…"]
[/]
[[url=http://="http://www.tapeop.c…"]Tape Op Website[/]="http://www.tapeop.c…"]Tape Op Website[/]

I’m going to let you in on a little secret - one that few engineers talk about and several will want to kill me for writing about. What if I told you there was a microphone preamp that could rival a Neve, Focusrite or API, have similar EQ as the venerable Pultec and could be found for one-tenth the cost of same units? Sound unbelievable? I’m talking about the Electrodyne, Sphere and early Quad-Eight modules. Back in the late ‘40s and early 50's, the first incarnation of Electrodyne was a manufacturer of tube-based audio modules (preamps, line amps) for the film and broadcast industry. In the ‘60s, as its later incarnation, it would go on to help pioneer the console industry as we know it. Throughout the ‘60s Quad-Eight was a sales company that had Control, thus many of the early Quad-Eight consoles have Electrodyne stamped on the components inside. both Electrodyne and Quad-Eight consoles were ordered by the likes of 20th Century Fox, Universal, Lions Gate Films and others, but they were not limited just to film companies. Decca Records, Warner Brothers, Motown (which according to Motown mastering engineer at the time, Bob Ohlsson, “had the first VCAs in it, possibly making it the first automated console”) and Stax (as soon in Tape Op #44) featured consoles, as well did live venues such as The Hollywood Bowl, The Mormon Tabernacle and The Grand Ole Opry. Back in the day there just weren’t many companies building recording consoles. Electrodyne was the first to bring many new concepts to console design that we take for granted today, like a padded arm rest (!) and features like putting the preamp, line amp, equalizer, send and returns and attenuator into one nice little “input module: as they like to call it, which of course could be plugged into a larger frame and routed to a mono, stereo or even multitrack recorder. Sound familiar?
I first learned of Quad-Eight through Danny McKinney at Requisite Audio. Danny happened to have four of the “bittersweet” color modules left from one of the early Warner Brothers’ film consoles on his bench. He hadn’t used them in years and reluctantly agreed to sell them to me. Once I got them harnessed and powered up I did a set of listening tests between them and my Neve BCM10s (with 1073 modules). Not expecting much, I was very surprised when not only did they hold up to these classics, but to my ear were in some ways better. I couldn’t help but feel that these modules sat somewhere in between the sound of a Neve and an API, with all the big boldness and forward presence of the Neve (but lacking the extended top end and compressed sound of a 1073) with a midrange clarity similar to an API. Danny, as well as several other well-known engineers, had been telling me to look at the Quad-Eights for years, but because I had not read much about them and couldn’t find info on them I had passed on purchasing them time and time again.

Wanting to investigate this phenomenon further I gathered a group of musicians, engineers and producers together at Syborg Studio to do an impromptu comparison of the Quad-Eights and some early Electrodyne modules that I collected. I chose Syborg for its excellent monitoring system and because owner Scott Benson happens to own just about every other mic pre available to compare them with. The units we used were manufactured by Neve (1073, 1079 and 1081 modules), API (512s), Mastering Labs, Demeter VTMP2, Manley and Summit (tube mic pres) and Focusrite (ISA110 and 115 modules). Along with Scott was master B3 player, Tony Perrino (Great Southern, Toler Brothers Band), Jeff Britton (recording and Electronic Engineer for Encore Electronics), Frank Moscowitz ( Mumble Sound, Nevessa Studios) and producer/world music and jazz great instrumentalist Carl Landa. Time and time again we all agreed that on a variety of sources (drum, human voice, acoustic and electric guitar, B3/Leslie and triangle) the Quads and the Electrodynes held up against the stiff competition. In some cases we favored the sound of these pres over the others. Once we started using the EQ section the power of these units became even more evident. The passive inductor based EQ design with op amp makeup gain allowed minimal phase shift into the material while retaining full musicality of the select bands. The bands are very limited by today’s standard, covering frequencies of 50, 100, 300 Hz on the low banks and high of 1.5, 3, 5 and 10 kHz on the Electrodyne 710 modules with the addition of mid frequencies at 300, 500, 700, 1.5 kHz on the 711 module. Not surprising is that the Quad-Eight MM310 with its ‘lo’ of 50, 140, 250, 400 Hz, ‘mid’ of 400, 700 Hz and 1.5, 3 kHz, and ‘hi’ of 3, 5, 7.5, 10 kHz have similar frequency points as the Electrodyne units with the Q8 311 and 312 adding just a few more. The chosen frequencies provide just the right amount of musical muscle when needed - probably the reason these frequencies points have become ‘standard’ over the years. All boost (+10 dB) and cut 9-12 dB) switches have detented knobs in 2 dB increments, making repeatability effortless and for devices over thirty years old, they feel every bit as tactile as if they were made yesterday. These things are build like a tank. The higher the boost or cut, the narrower the band becomes, just like a Pultec. Surgical? No. Musical? Yes.

One set, the Electrodyne 712 modules, stood out in particular with its graphic EQ section reminiscent of the highly regarded API 560s. These are the rarest of the modules and predate the APIs by some years. I think it is safe to say that these were the very first “console based” graphic EQs. With frequencies covering 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 Hz and 1.6, 3.2, 6.4 and 12.8 kHz these graphics were definitely my favorites in the group. Their power became very evident when used several weeks later on a recording session to correct the frequency response of a very lame Takamine acoustic guitar. Several of the engineers had recorded this particular guitar in the past with unsatisfactory results, culminating in the replacement of the guitar on the tracks. They were even more surprised when this lame guitar became a monster with the additions of just a few bands on the 712. A useful and great sounding tool at an incredible price. I had to learn more.

It doesn't matter what type of mic you use to record vocals, a mic does what it does, capture sound and you can use a crappy mic and sing really good and make it sound really good. and it also depends if you EQ and compress first, and sometimes if you have a type of voice that is low or high end then look at some of the frequencies of the mics to choose. like for instance if your voice is like a tenor which most guys are, a 414 mic would be good, and a Shure SM7 would be a great choice too. all in all look at the specs for a mic, so you can choose which mic fits your voice

The frequency response specs - say, "From 60Hz. to 15KHz" - tells you squat about a mic. The design, polar pattern, sensitivity, etc. all work in tandem to help determine that. Too many mics look the same "on paper" but sound totally different in real world applications. Which mic for which voice can only be determined by TRYING it out in the environment that it will be used in and with the voice you want to record ! I have never known an engineer who pulled out the cut sheets for his mics and said, "Let's see which mic's frequency response will match this singer..." It is very much trial-and-error, with experience determining what will work.

Dude chill out, I used a bunch of mics before for recording and I can say that knowing the frequencies is a huge help in determing the right mic for anything. I know it's help me out and in what I record. but look everybody has their opinion of what mics to use and nobody can change that, use what you want to use.

I've just read this thread post by post from the start and I was waiting to read this simple fact :

moonbaby, post: 403973 wrote: Which mic for which voice can only be determined by TRYING it out in the environment that it will be used in and with the voice you want to record !

You can guess and be very close but trying many mics down up to your budget limit is the best way to avoid missing the best fit.
Of course, you need some trust from the store to let you try them in you studio. Get a good preamp, trial a few mics and compare the results !!

That said, it is if you're looking for a mic just for you. This is kind of wrong if you record a bunch of customers

Thesolidsnake, post: 403975 wrote: Dude chill out, I used a bunch of mics before for recording and I can say that knowing the frequencies is a huge help in determing the right mic for anything. I know it's help me out and in what I record. but look everybody has their opinion of what mics to use and nobody can change that, use what you want to use.

There is no need to get hostile here. He is right you know, whether you would like to admit it or not. Specs sheets are as useless to a recording engineer as they are a waste of trees.

pcrecord, post: 403977 wrote: You can guess and be very close but trying many mics down up to your budget limit is the best way to avoid missing the best fit.
Of course, you need some trust from the store to let you try them in you studio. Get a good preamp, trial a few mics and compare the results !!

That said, it is if you're looking for a mic just for you. This is kind of wrong if you record a bunch of customers

That's where a "mic locker" comes in housing one or more of many types and makes of mics. Stories abound of how producers spend hours telling engineers to try yet another different mic or another different pre-amp on their pet talent's vocals.

"Chill out" has become a phrase much like "whatever" that is fast becoming my least favorite expression. I find it being used by people who have no idea how to have a conversation. I also find that those that have negative energy and vibes are the ones demanding that others "chill out" without considering the content.

BTW....the specs on my vintage U87 aren't nearly as good on paper as a new U87ai but guess what......

There's good information on the spec sheets if it's used with a bit of caution and intelligence. It's a picture of how (a representative) mic tested when it was new, so it can give a good indication of damage or defects. The various bumps should give you a hint of some details to look for. (That's a good thing but there is always the danger of the power of suggestion.) It's not a good tool for choosing the right mic to match to a singer, but that doesn't mean the information is useless.

Look this is why engineers can't talk with other engineers because everybody has their own way of doing things and their own way of recording. So whatever way you do it, it may be fine to you. I was just making a suggestion. in any case do what you please.

If it's the frequency plot, I agree to that. But looking at the stated frequency response ( i.e.,"80-15KHz"), in most cases this is meaningless. Yet it seems that many folks judge a mic's character and application by this. I don't get that...

Dave:"BTW....the specs on my vintage [="http://www.Neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u87_data"]U87[/]="http://www.Neumann…"]U87[/] aren't nearly as good on paper as a new [[url=http://="http://www.Neumann…"]U87ai[/]="http://www.Neumann…"]U87ai[/] but guess what.....". After my '75 U87, I couldn't take the relatively bland U87ai I got 2 years ago. So guess what? Some guy in Atlanta has it to make up a stereo room mic rig for his drumkit....LOL!!!! Call me crazy, I love my 4047's....

Snakecharmer:"Look this is why engineers can't talk with other engineers because everybody has their own way of doing things and their own way of recording. So whatever way you do it, it may be fine to you. I was just making a suggestion. in any case do what you please."
Thank you. Don't take this personally, you're the new guy here and are ALWAYS welcome to give us your 2 cents.
What you have here is a higher ratio of oldfarts with experience vs. kids with a Playstation MBox. But I have to take issue with the "engineers can't talk to engineers" line. There's no bridge a couple of brewkies (or shots) won't let you cross....

Or a fishin hole and a brick of c4....

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Thats what we like to call, the 3M hackle....

TheJackAttack, post: 404026 wrote: .... and a brick of c4....

That's my favorite trout fly. ;)

TheJackAttack, post: 404026 wrote: Or a fishin hole and a brick of c4....

The USMC's reputation for delicacy and subtlety lives on.