The problem with cheaper microphones and cheaper condensers in particular is that you end up spending hours during the mix stage trying in vain to make it sound like something its not...more often than not relying on stacking plug-ins on top of each other one after another trying to improve quality or sound until you have a train of plug-ins chugging along using heaps of cpu and all the while adding increased plug-in latency to the mix...like a dog chasing its tail to the point of frustration where no matter what you do you just can't make it any better than how it is, unless we are talking about a bit of EQ for tone shaping purposes.

You may be able to improve the tone in this case but not the quality of the recorded material.

Sure there are "vocal" specific plug-ins that can change the sound to a degree, but these don't necessarily make it any better...they are just masking the problem to start with.

Whereas with a better quality microphone theres' no pursuit to improve the sound quality at the mix stage because it sounds better to start with, you don't have to use nowhere near as many plug-ins, if any at all, except for tone shaping or effect and a little compression to taste.

If you are starting out and are limited to buying one mic, buy something as suggested that is a good quality all-round microphone that can be used for a variety of uses, from vocal to mik'ing instruments and amp cabs, that suits your recording environment. Your tracks will thank you for it, your cpu will thank you for it and you will not do your head in for hours creating untold frustration all the while trying to improve things by throwing every plug-in at a mix that cannot be improved by any other means...other than by improving the start of your signal chain...the microphone.

Why make the job of mixing even harder and more challenging than it has to be?

There are already enough things to challenge you in a mix scenario without making it harder for yourself by starting the process using a low-end budget microphone to record your tracks...and by doing so you are already putting yourself so far behind the eight-ball before you even start to consider the mix stage that it becomes an impossible hole to mix your way out of by the time you have finished tracking and start mixing.

Low-end budget microphones just handicap your ability to create the best possible mix you can.

Devote all that time, effort and energy to improving other areas of the mix...just think how much more time you could devote to actually creating a better mix if you didn't have to spend all that time trying to improve the sound of a cheap mic thats never going to sound any better than how it does...and saving you the frustration at that.

A better quality microphone will improve all the tracks recorded with it going into your DAW...not just the vocal tracks. A better quality microphone will make the job of mixing easier...and much much more pleasurable as well.

But most of all, your mixes will sound better...isn't that the end result we all want to achieve?

A budget mic will always sound like a budget mic even with the best of mic pres...whereas a better quality mic will always sound better with average priced mic pres compared to its budget counterpart.

With budget mics they just can't afford the quality control, and components that you get with more expensive mics. That's why mods are so popular and often are a very simple swap of a tube, a capacitor, or an IC chip. Those things usually cost anywhere from $2-15. Then viola the typical characteristics of the budget mic smooth out.

To allude to what Sean was saying, with sub par gear/rooms/performance mixing is about correction and compensating for deficiencies. With good gear/rooms/performance mixing is often about enhancement. Building on that solid standard. Or more fun creative things becuase you have the time left to do so.

Your macking the mix 'more better' instead of 'less bad', that's an important difference both to the end result and how much fun it is to work on.

The bottom line is you can't mix what isn't there 'on tape' or what you can't hear.

There's thousands of comercial releases every year. Engineering prowess only goes so far. At a certain point the gear does make the difference. Performance always matters.

kmetal, post: 440267, member: 37533 wrote: With budget mics they just can't afford the quality control, and components that you get with more expensive mics. That's why mods are so popular and often are a very simple swap of a tube, a capacitor, or an IC chip. Those things usually cost anywhere from $2-15. Then viola the typical characteristics of the budget mic smooth out.

To allude to what Sean was saying, with sub par gear/rooms/performance mixing is about correction and compensating for deficiencies. With good gear/rooms/performance mixing is often about enhancement. Building on that solid standard. Or more fun creative things becuase you have the time left to do so.

Your macking the mix 'more better' instead of 'less bad', that's an important difference both to the end result and how much fun it is to work on.

The bottom line is you can't mix what isn't there 'on tape' or what you can't hear.

There's thousands of comercial releases every year. Engineering prowess only goes so far. At a certain point the gear does make the difference. Performance always matters.

a lot of cheaper Asian mics don't even use the same parts every time they do a production run. They use whatever they can source at the time.

imo it's more about what you record rather than what you record it with. Tame Impala recorded their first two CDs on Boss porta studios and there's plenty more examples of this kind of thing. i personally don't see the return on investing in high end gear any longer. i used to see it but it's not there now unless i were actually recording mega stars for record companies. if i were starting over now, i'd go out and buy a KORG 32 or something like that and leave it at that. if i were to ever get a hit, i'd go to Blackbird to record my next record.

kmetal, post: 440267, member: 37533 wrote: with sub par gear/rooms/performance mixing is about correction and compensating for deficiencies. With good gear/rooms/performance mixing is often about enhancement. Building on that solid standard. Or more fun creative things becuase you have the time left to do so.

Exactly Kyle, you hit the nail on the head.

Kurt Foster, post: 440268, member: 7836 wrote: a lot of cheaper Asian mics don't even use the same parts every time they do a production run. They use whatever they can source at the time.

imo it's more about what you record rather than what you record it with. Tame Impala recorded their first two CDs on Boss porta studios and there's plenty more examples of this kind of thing. i personally don't see the return on investing in high end gear any longer. i used to see it but it's not there now unless i were actually recording mega stars for record companies. if i were starting over now, i'd go out and buy a KORG 32 or something like that and leave it at that. if i were to ever get a hit, i'd go to Blackbird to record my next record.

I agree Kurt, but as you know something as simple a good quality mic can make a huge difference, even to tracks recorded on simple set-ups.

Whereas crappy cheap mics are always going to sound like crappy cheap mics no matter how big and expensive or small and modest the set-up.

I think set-ups can get to a size and point where it starts to get complicated and can have a stifling effect on creativity.

Kurt Foster, post: 440268, member: 7836 wrote: a lot of cheaper Asian mics don't even use the same parts every time they do a production run. They use whatever they can source at the time.

Didn't know that. Good to keep in mind. Interestingly when I bought my 414xls it was 900$, then went up to $1k. Then a few years later Harmon bought them and they started selling for $850. Granted the economy receded, but les Paul's didn't decrease. Coincidently the batman era 414 also has new little brothers like the 214 and 314, and the casing seems different. I suspect some cheapening of components. But they didn't change the model they still call it xls... My Akg 240s were a hundred and made in Austria, now the 240s are $60 and made in Asia. It's amazing what goes on under the hood that doesn't make it to the product description.

I belive the componentry is different between the nt1 and nt1a and they are significantly different. The bang for the buck mic is/was the nt1 and that build the reputation. Then the nt1a was sold to the masses surely at a higher profit.

Kurt Foster, post: 440268, member: 7836 wrote: imo it's more about what you record rather than what you record it with. Tame Impala recorded their first two CDs on Boss porta studios and there's plenty more examples of this kind of thing. i personally don't see the return on investing in high end gear any longer. i used to see it but it's not there now unless i were actually recording mega stars for record companies. if i were starting over now, i'd go out and buy a KORG 32 or something like that and leave it at that. if i were to ever get a hit, i'd go to Blackbird to record my next record.

Geez Kurt even you!? Lol I thought I'd never hear those words.

There's defiantly no return on the 'investment' of gear right I now. It's basically a matter how much loss you take when you sell. I've lost about $150 of the retail price of my 414 after ten years use, and $125 off the price of my nt1a and AT3035 after the same time period.

With mics at least, there isn't a big difference in bottom dollar losses across the board, and you lose less % off the pricier mics. So if you have the money upfront and can afford to sit on it, better mics will serve better recordings at no extra loss upon sale. Of course you have to have that money tied up.

Pres can be made DIY fairly easily due to the classic circuit designs being fairly simple.

Converters I classify under computer technology these days and have a similar life span and relavance period. This is where I'm personally shopping mid/standard w the antelope Orion 32+ looking perfect. The cost per channel is competitive with entry level. There's just a lot of channels upfront.

Focusrite Scarlett-$62.50 per AD input channel. (Includes pre amp)

Antelope Orion 32- 70.90 per AD input. (Line only)

Antelope Orion 32+ - $109.37 per AD input (line only) not including digital io

That's an $8 per channel different between a pro level unit and entry level unit. And a bigger jump to the the "+" which offers more madi at higher counts, thunderbolt for low latency, and dsp for the kids ;)

It makes Burl and Lavry 200-400 per input channel seem even more gross.

That and computers are places to spend mid-standard imho. They're life span just isn't long and the difference of sonics not so stark. Mics make a bigger difference overall and stand time better in this market at least.

I've been doing immense research on interfacing and computers lately and found that fascinating so I figured I'd share it.

kmetal, post: 440244, member: 37533 wrote: Is it that a basic budget interface pre wouldn't have enough gain for some sources? Is it that the gain level is too high to be out of the pre amp sweet spot? Something else??

I think you've nailed down an important point that with a little DIY you can far, far, exceed the price / performance ratio that plagues so many 'budget' mics.

The video quality is excellent btw!!! Can't wait for more. I subscribed.

Thanks K, my thing about gains and SM57/58 is really about how cheap preamps don't sound good when pushed. The day I got my first highend pre, I rediscover many mics and the 57 was one of my greatest surprise.

So with all the discussions, for a person that want to start to record, what is the better choice ?? Do we have a clear answer ?
A dynamic mic has better rejection but if one can tame reverb and flutter echo in his/her room, a condenser will grab more details and wider frequency range (depending on the choice of condenser)
My take on that question will always be GO TRY SOME before you buy !!! There isn't any better way to find a match for your own vocal ;)

kmetal, post: 440271, member: 37533 wrote: Geez Kurt even you!? Lol I thought I'd never hear those words.

yes, even me. look. i LOVE great gear. and "once upon a time in audio" if someone made a record on cheap gear the record company would make them rerecord in a real studio before it was released. Harden My Heart by Quarterflash is a perfect example. Bostons first album is another.

It's not the same world now. as i posted earlier, Tame Impala recorded two records on one of those little BOSS studios. the record company didn't blink an eye before they released them.

i just don't see the sense in paying a boatload of cash out on a pipe dream that is obsolete in 16 months. that's about how long it takes for a new computer to need an O/S upgrade. Once your there, it's all downhill /doomsday /death knell for sure. pretty soon all your precious DAW and software plugins that you paid out the nose for won't run (for various reasons) and you won't be able to upgrade or find other software that runs on your computer. in many cases the interface you are using is no longer supported and you will need to go out and buy another one of those too. they have you by the nose and there's a direct connection from your bank to theirs. bullsh*t!

at that point what you have is a very expensive digital door stop. will that doorstop sound any better than an analog doorstop (say a brick) ? meanwhile that kid with the BOSS 8 tracker is still recording.

my take is get a couple of decent dynamic mics like SM7 and RE20's, a couple of nice older (yes used) 414's, a couple of nice pencil condensers like the c451 and a load of 57's and start recording and never stop. i bet your recordings will stand up just fine. at least good enough to get a record deal if you are really talented.

Well said Kurt.

I think one of the big things w digital and computers is getting it where you want from the start, and then leaving it alone. I think the obsession w shiny new things is what keeps up 'whipped' by the tech companies.

So far I've got two new i5 based computers, top end drum and orchestra vsti's and some bonus add ons for less than $1500. My theory is to make it just like a closed system similar to an alesis HD or the like. Where it just does what it does. We will see how disciplined I can stay.

It's seems overall to from this conversation, the two most important peices to the puzzle are the band/songs and some mics. As a fan of acoustics it always amazes me just how well they did over the years in far from ideal control/mix rooms.

Beyond the band and mics it seems like the rest is secondary.

It's actually a pretty interesting time where besides comercial pop, you hear recordings done on such a wide variety of receding machines from new to old and cheap and expensive.

pcrecord, post: 440272, member: 46460 wrote: So with all the discussions, for a person that want to start to record, what is the better choice ?? Do we have a clear answer ?

I'd say overall a dynamic mic is cheaper, and more forgiving and versatile. Probably the safe way to start.

pcrecord, post: 440272, member: 46460 wrote: So with all the discussions, for a person that want to start to record, what is the better choice ?? Do we have a clear answer ?

Marco I think your mic shootout is also a valuable insight for those who are starting out in audio and recording, as it shows just how well an SM-57 performs when compared to condenser mics of the calibre shown in your video.
I know that if I was in the position of starting out, had an untreated room or a room with minimal treatment and not really having an insight on microphones or which mic would be suitable for what I wanted to do and was looking for a microphone that could do more than one task and do it well, I really wouldn't look past an SM-57.

The SM-57 really is the Swiss Army Knife of microphones. You really can't go wrong with it.

After trying the beta 57a the other day in one hand and the 57 in the other, the beta sounded a bit more condenser-ish and more hyped/defined in the top. It actually made the 57 sound a bit dull.

So while I stand by the 57, perhaps the beta would be a good alternative for someone seeking a bit more of a condenser type sound for affordable cost, without delving into the budget LDC market.

I'm getting a beta for fun w the mobile setup. Both cuz I like its, cuz it's a new flavor to me, and the sm 57/52 kit is a great deal so I'll have plenty of 57s when the studio is ready.

The beta 57 smokes the beta 58 imho, I generally don't like the beta 58, it's a bit off somehow in general, and a bit harsh on female vocals.

It's remarkable how good Marcos kit mics come out. I like the ksm the least of the bunch and it's the most expensive. I've been very impressed w all Marcos DIY mics.

I am keen to build one of the mic DIY kits, but I think I would need to brush up on my soldering skills otherwise the end result would resemble a giant ball of solder with a microphone sticking out of it

Sean G, post: 440280, member: 49362 wrote: I am keen to build one of the mic DIY kits, but I think I would need to brush up on my soldering skills otherwise the end result would resemble a giant ball of solder with a microphone sticking out of it

+1 lol

Sean G, post: 440280, member: 49362 wrote: I am keen to build one of the mic DIY kits, but I think I would need to brush up on my soldering skills otherwise the end result would resemble a giant ball of solder with a microphone sticking out of it

:ROFLMAO:
It isn't so hard, but for a first project, people can turn to DIY Di or guitar pedals to get confidence.. ;)
I started to solder 35 years ago, not that I'm good, just persistent !!

Dont be so modest man! Your creations rock!!!

I used to play with electronics when I was a kid, building all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff, but its been about 30 years, so your advice Marco about starting with a guitar DI is good advice.

I just purchased a new soldering kit, one that comes with the meter and all the accessories...mainly for leads & plugs etc, but I'm keen to do a kit or two now I have it.

Sweet! I got a bunch of soldering stuff last year after I new I was gonna get interested in building stuff. Just waiting for my bench area and I'm gonna order the weller station.

With s dude like boz around there's a lot of potential.

How good would it be to build an 11-76 clone?...awesome. http://www.masonaudio.org/diy/comp1176

Lol. Don't get me started bro.

From what I could gather with these clones is the hard part is finding the parts. Oem stuff is not cheap even if it's available. Heck half the parts on 'real' ones aren't oem or original spec for one reason or another.

That's where the electronics expertise comes in. Someone like boz or Danny zellman would know what sufficient substitutes there are.

But all that aside, it'd still be super fun even if it wasn't very close to an original or current design. They just look so cool!! And it's bound to outperform many budget compressors.

They have some really cool point to point wired versions which seen more simple to make since you don't need a circuit board, and forgiving if your like me and melt stuff!!!

I've been planning for some time to make a lot of my OB. It wasn't until Marco made his mics that I even knew it was realistically possible. I'm gonna start w an ISA 828 cuz it's a steal for 2k on Amazon and it's got digital outs. Plus I know it's good and works.

Jave any of you checked out the 7th circle audio stuff? It has a real good reputation.

Kurt Foster, post: 440274, member: 7836 wrote: yes, even me. look. i LOVE great gear. and "once upon a time in audio" if someone made a record on cheap gear the record company would make them rerecord in a real studio before it was released.

I think our collective love for great gear comes more from our own personal preferences and our passion for our craft, than it does as an actual "business investment" anymore.

So yeah, if "The Wizard" appeared to me, and dropped a million dollars into my lap tomorrow, I could buy a Neve, Trident, SSL or other hi end LF desk - along with some great OB gear and mics - and doing so would please me - and perhaps some professional friends of mine who share my love for the craft - but that investment is not gonna make me any money, or at least not any more money than what I'm barely able to squeeze out of clients now.

Too many big studios are closing their doors these days, and it should be an alarm bell for those who are convinced that building a pro studio is a good idea as a business ... because if the big, established, beautiful studios, with track records of hits and gold and platinum records on their walls can't pay their bills anymore - and being located in the big entertainment mecca metro areas that they are ( Nashville, LA, NYC, Toronto, etc.) - then what would make me think that I could do any better?
I'm certainly not going to be able to be any more successful in NE Ohio, where very little happens in the music biz any more, and where I don't have a backlog of engineering or production credits on hits that people can listen to.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't like nice gear for me. Of course I would. I do miss tactile mixing, and there's certainly a sonic magic to pro analog ... but buying something like a Neve desk, or having a collection of sweet mics and a rack of excellent OB gear, would really only be a personal indulgence that satisfied the audiophile in me.

It would be foolish and naive of me to think that I'd be able to recoup even a small percentage of that kind of investment through client revenue, at least in my geographic locale.

The other futile battle would be expecting your "typical" clients to be able to even hear the difference between something like a Behringer mixer and a Neve or SSL ... that's far too high of an expectation, because most people can't.
It's not as much that they "won't", it's more that they can't. There's no doubt that we can hear the differences, but that's because we've all been honing our ears for decades, because it's just what we do.

Some clients - although very few, I think - might be able to discern the differences - but then, you gotta be able to turn that awareness into actual revenue, and that's where it gets tough, because music has been so devalued over the past several years, that few people are willing to pay for quality that they know the vast majority of music consumers won't be able to hear, or, for that matter, really even care about.

FWIW
-d.

+1 for Donny Thompson........ No one in the chain of music wants to spend a cent. Music can be downloadloaded for "free". Software can be hacked and spread for "free". I'm a guy who spends money on buying music, music software etc. I see the value of things around me in my studio, altough being a small studio - not to say mini. If I had more money to spend, I would buy more expensive monitors and mics to start with. But not extreme as it has no use in a mini studio. But I would buy Adam A7x monitors and a Neumann U87 to start with.

Then again, for an hobbyist studio, I'm well equipted. Revenue is not a concern for me, altough if I would do an external project, I would ask some money for it. Maybe to give a signal that not all is for "free"!

Robin.

DonnyThompson, post: 440320, member: 46114 wrote: It's not as much that they "won't", it's more that they can't. There's no doubt that we can hear the differences, but that's because we've all been honing our ears for decades, because it's just what we do.

People that have untrained ears won't ! It's true, but it's not to say that if presented both sound they won't choose the highend one.

I think we discredit people too much. The better exemple is the difference of a tight band with a drummer who plays in the Pocket vs one that doesn't
People won't say ; hey that drummer isn't tight. But they might not be incline to dance or enjoy the show as much.
You know, they get the feeling something isn't right even if they can't say what.

I think sound quality is the same, specially with our customers who are musicians.

kmetal, post: 440310, member: 37533 wrote: From what I could gather with these clones is the hard part is finding the parts. Oem stuff is not cheap even if it's available. Heck half the parts on 'real' ones aren't oem or original spec for one reason or another.

That's where the electronics expertise comes in. Someone like boz or Danny zellman would know what sufficient substitutes there are.

It certainly is one of the factors that separates really high quality gear from the upper levels of the next class down.

I was involved some years ago with the design of a no-compromise high cost piece of gear, and there was one section of it that had to have very low noise parts. The company's production department drew the line at having one of their assembly techs sitting at the measuring bench all day, so, in the end, I built them an automated test rig. Some batches of bought-in parts were reasonably good for noise and we could use maybe 30% of them, but one batch was terrible and we got fewer than 1 usable part in 100. It serves as an example of attention to design detail that makes the top gear (a) expensive and (b) better than most of the rest.

DonnyThompson, post: 440320, member: 46114 wrote: but buying something like a Neve desk, or having a collection of sweet mics and a rack of excellent OB gear, would really only be a personal indulgence that satisfied the audiophile in me.

I agree except in the case of a drummer, or someone who records drums often. Then an LF makes sense financially assuming you could afford the electricity, and maintenence.

An ssl E series can be had for like 35k. That's a 32 channel desk.

If you avg 16 channels of drums for recording. The cost of 16 decent preamps would be easily 16-20k. Add to that 16 ch of eq and it's another 16-20k, ditto for compressors. So that's somewhere in the realm of 45-80k.

Now obviously nobody has that much OB eq or compression in standalone form. But when it's part of a LF console it's useful.

That is the absolutely only justification I could see financially for a LF console.

Typically even in the big studios I'm recording 1-4ch at once. At home it's about the same. The way I see it is once you have your basic pre amps flavored covered (transparent, transformer,tube) you've got generally enough to make competitive recordings. Especially if they're channel strips or include some eq. A couple of nice compressors go a long way. Between DBx, TLA, and UA, I've fulfilled most of my compression desires home and studio.

If you've got 4-6 ch of eq compression and pres your cooking w some serious heat, especially at home. Now this isn't cheap either but it's something you can add with time, and purchase new or well taken care of. Vs console wich is all at once and likely heavily used commercially.

Mics don't have to be expensive just good. I've got about 2k worth of shure mics on my list and some fat heads and one tube mic. I have no doubts I can make solid recordings with them.

I think a lot of times the down industry is a bit of a cop out for people who know better not using better gear. Obviously you get what you can afford at any time or level, but just ' becuase everyone else is doing it' doesn't always mean it's right or a good reason.

A perfect example is one time Chris (Audiokid) ran a 4 track mix of mine through his rig to show me something. There was an immediately noticeable 'something' about it that was better. Come to find out it was some high end gear. But there was an instant improvement that was otherwise unattainable with the mid level pro gear I was working with.

pcrecord, post: 440325, member: 46460 wrote: People that have untrained ears won't ! It's true, but it's not to say that if presented both sound they won't choose the highend one.

I think we discredit people too much

True very true. It's shocking how well some people know there own material. I think a lot of them notice the difference between gear.

I'm not sure how many would be willing to pay more for said gear or sound, but they'll happily use it if you do.

The other angle is many people will see iconic things like UA or an Avalon in the pics of mags and call around or pick a studio just becuase they've got that. It's happened quite a few times at the studios.

Boswell, post: 440327, member: 29034 wrote: The company's production department drew the line at having one of their assembly techs sitting at the measuring bench all day, so, in the end, I built them an automated test rig.

Freakin genius!!!'

I see owning a few pieces of nice outboard similar to owning a few nice guitars. I would rather play a nice Gibson or Fender over a Samick for instance, as I'm sure we all would.

I suppose it comes down to motive, if you are buying good outboard gear for yourself, I see it as investing in yourself and your music to acheive better outcomes sonically...this is the only real return on your investment you will see. An indugence, sure, but so too is that Gibson, or Fender, or stable of them.

If you are owning good outboard gear to make money recording others as a return on that investment with a view of making a profit, then thats different.

Really good outboard gear IMO will in most cases will see a good return at resale, and in some cases a profit, if the time ever comes...you only have to look at how the prices have jumped for things like LA-2A's, 1176's, LA-3's and the like since the mid 90's. I think you could say the same for most pieces found in any typical pro studio.

When the switch to digital was happening you could pick up some classic outboard pieces starting from a couple of hundred dollars, but now the pendulum has swung back in a big way as the demand increases from those chasing an analog sound.

I think the market price for pro outboard gear has grown due to more and more home or project studios starting to dip their toes into the pro-gear market and increasing the demand for classic outboard gear...this is only my opinion but this is how I see it.

An example here in Australia I saw recently was a pair of silver faced Rev H 1176's from the late 70's which were advertised on ebay for $2600 each....thats $5200 for the pair, with 30-odd people watching so there was a lot of interest. As the demand for these pieces increases, supply decreases and in that market a seller can ask what they want as it becomes a case of not what a piece of gear is really worth, but more a case of what someone is prepared to pay for it in the current market.

Like most of us I'm sure, I would like to have a nice array of outboard gear to choose from, but in todays' market for me price is the prohibiting factor for classic pieces and if you are not looking at it from a business sense with a return on investment, which in this market is near impossible to come buy, then you are really only doing it for yourself.

Really it's the computer based hardware that offers no long term return. That's just 'cost of doing buisness' column in the tax reports. But you account for that depreciation.

Look at how many big studios held on the digi 192s. It took a while. I heard some big studio manager (female for get her name) say they upgrade the computers every two years!!!!!!

The problem with a mid level pro studio like the ones I work at is while the rooms are fantastic, the mid level peices don't do them justice. It's when you plug our good stuff in the equation becomes balanced.

And frankly with an average band and me an average engineer it's difficult to outperform the end result by much, relative to a typical studio. Impossible by a cost vs benefit perspective. But that killer room and gear and monitoring does lend a better result. A result otherwise un attainable.

As newly obsessed w the antelope Orion 32+, I think I've found a level of conversion that's truly professional but not grossly priced. As far as coversion goes it's a good place to be as a working professional. I think at least.

With computers you'll get more Milage out of a Xeon level computer like a couple years. But really 2 i7 computers in succession would give you better performance over time for the same or less money.

Basically the 1/2-3/4 mark seems to be the point of significant diminishing returns on electronics.

With hardware. It's a long term asset and I don't think buying high end is a losing proposition. It won't necessarily make you much more but it does perform at a much higher level the whole time, and when it's time to sell you have something worth something. Even my old ART mpa pre amp sill sells for over %50 of its new retail price.

The real big problem w hardware, when in be owns a bad investment, is when the cheap overseas stuff actually performs as well as the high end stuff.

If you could convince a major brand like presonus for example to use boz's auto tester for components, and toss the bad ones, that's a real problem for neve and ssl Ect. Becuase they have the buying power and market share to sell to. A presonus 1176 could easily sell for $500, and with a slight hit at profit ratio, sound every bit as good.

kmetal, post: 440330, member: 37533 wrote: True very true. It's shocking how well some people know there own material. I think a lot of them notice the difference between gear.

I'm not sure how many would be willing to pay more for said gear or sound, but they'll happily use it if you do.

Well in a sens they do pay for it. This is why I charged 10$ an hour when I was recording with a peavey mixer and now 30$ an hour with 6 UA preamp and 8 ISA and a way better mic collection...
It's just that less will do it because few knows there is a difference !

pcrecord, post: 440346, member: 46460 wrote: Well in a sens they do pay for it. This is why I charged 10$ an hour when I was recording with a peavey mixer and now 30$ an hour with 6 UA preamp and 8 ISA and a way better mic collection...
It's just that less will do it because few knows there is a difference !

Interesting. My first paying gig I charged 5 bucks a song using a 4 track and sound blaster, w house no name drums.

I've been working at the comercial places for the last 6 years so I'm really out of touch w the home studio cost/benefits. At those places it's basically trying to pay off construction and operating costs. While getting 55-75 an hour outa someone...

Home I'll own everything.

Btw I found a new ISA 828 for $2k on Amazon. Seller has been doing it for a while at that price. Think I've decided on that unit for a good starter preamp for the big rig.

Hearing yours thru some solid mics was the second time I went 'ooooo' that's nice and the ISA had been involved. First time was a 57 at GC some dude had recorded who worked there. I think it gets a bad rap in big places as being 'pro Sumer' cuz of the price tag, but frankly I think it holds its own against any of the better pres I've used. Besides calrec but that's got eq and is vintage.

kmetal, post: 440348, member: 37533 wrote: Btw I found a new ISA 828 for $2k on Amazon. Seller has been doing it for a while at that price.

Good for you K ! Was the AD converter included ? it's a great option if your interface have adat inputs..

It's true that the ISA are not on the top lists often.
Thing is, they come from a good transformer based design that was made by none other than Rupert Neve !! Must mean something right? ;)
What I like about them is the 80db of noise free gain !! You can record a classical guitar with a ribbon mic any day !
Now I sound like a seller which I'm not.. I just love those preamps ;)

pcrecord, post: 440355, member: 46460 wrote: Good for you K ! Was the AD converter included ? it's a great option if your interface have adat inputs..

It's true that the ISA are not on the top lists often.
Thing is, they come from a good transformer based design that was made by none other than Rupert Neve !! Must mean something right? ;)
What I like about them is the 80db of noise free gain !! You can record a classical guitar with a ribbon mic any day !
Now I sound like a seller which I'm not.. I just love those preamps ;)

No the ad option is not included. But basically adding the card equals 2500 total which is the retail price for the 828 alone usually.

I think the ad option is a pretty useful option to have, and the coversion I'm sure is just fine.

Classical guitar w a ribbon!? Now that sounds fun man!

Got to get our eyes open for deals these days !
Did you know I got my ISA 428 mk1 brand new (store demo never plugged) for 1k CAD = 770USD
I didn't know at the time but the store was gonna close a few months afterward. Dawm, I should have tryed to deal me a few mics !! ;)

I need to keep my eyes open, you guys sound like you have both picked up some nice toys with these ISA's (y)

pcrecord, post: 440359, member: 46460 wrote: Got to get our eyes open for deals these days !
Did you know I got my ISA 428 mk1 brand new (store demo never plugged) for 1k CAD = 770USD
I didn't know at the time but the store was gonna close a few months afterward. Dawm, I should have tryed to deal me a few mics !! ;)

Holy crap that's like half price!!!

For the record I haven't bought mine yet. It's gonna show when the baseman studios dusty work is done sometime in the next 6-12 months.

kmetal, post: 440365, member: 37533 wrote: Holy crap that's like half price!!!

Thing is I was very happy to find a new mkI because it has VU meter and the mkII doesn't... (it might have played on the price too)

pcrecord, post: 440368, member: 46460 wrote: Thing is I was very happy to find a new mkI because it has VU meter and the mkII doesn't... (it might have played on the price too)

What a score! Those VU meters up the coolness factor so much. I always wondered why the omitted them in mk2.

Are you using the ADC card on either of yours?

And also is the input impede nice variable or stepped?

I notice the 828 uses a selector button instead of knob for impedance. The impedance seems toget mentioned in all the ads / product descriptions. Do you find a useful or significant difference among the settings? My art had Variable impedence but was really tough to distinguish a difference even at the extremes.

kmetal, post: 440370, member: 37533 wrote: Are you using the ADC card on either of yours?

I got the UA 4-710 first so I'm using the converter in it (which has 8 channel ; 4 for the onboard preamps and 4 for external)
This going via adat to my FF800 makes a great team.

kmetal, post: 440370, member: 37533 wrote: And also is the input impede nice variable or stepped?

They are stepped :

Nice I forgot about the UA. How you like that think compared to the ISA?

Does the impedence knob do much on the ISA jw.

kmetal, post: 440372, member: 37533 wrote: Nice I forgot about the UA. How you like that think compared to the ISA?

Does the impedence knob do much on the ISA jw.

The ISA preamps have a clean and solid sound with more gain. But with the compressor and solid state to tube knob, the UA have many sound posibilities. I love it on toms and over heads...
If I had to start over, I could live with 16 ISA !! ;)..
But my current mix of flavor setup does a good job so I'm keeping it that for now

Cool man ISA sounds like a great all around unit. From a cost benefit perspective seems tough to beat. It sounds awsome too.

Lol....so... About the impedence knob does it do anything audible / useful?