mic for recording bass

Discussion in 'Bass' started by Nutti, Oct 20, 2012.

  1. pan60

    pan60 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Home Page:
    but a great topic: )
    a great chat and some great info from a couple points of view; }~

    and i am not big on reverb on bass either. i am rather scarce on reverb most of the time anyway, if it does not feel absolutely need i say leave it off: )
     
  2. dvdhawk

    dvdhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Location:
    Western Pennsylvania, USA
    I'm very much in favor of the discussion.

    It just discourages me that nobody wants to take the time to experiment anymore. Getting there is half the fun. Those are all good instrument mics, now get busy and do the best you can with what you've got.

    It doesn't answer the OP's question, but my personal preference lately for tracking a bass guitar (subject to change at any time) is to not use a mic or a bass amp in most cases for the kind of music I usually do.


    But I'm in favor of whatever best serves the song;

    Mic it, don't mic.
    Mic the bass amp in a vocal booth, mic it in a bigger room, mic it outdoors
    Reverb, no reverb
    Re-amp and give yourself some options at mixdown, or not.

    Just don't be afraid to try something different and do it again, and again, and again until you're happy with it. Then try 12 more methods for good measure, you might find something you like even better. Experiment, especially in a home studio where you're not paying by the hour. Anyone who has done this very long knows moving the mic, or the cabinet, a little bit can make a world of difference.
     
  3. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    i have almost always used both di and a mic on cab method for recording bass. my preference is a 421 for that app but as dvdhawk said, those are all good mics. and he's also right; just start recording and if you have the time and energy, do experiment.

    but..... a good chef cleans up as they go.
    the concept of absolute isolation of flat dry direct injected tracks / putting off decisions while tracking to make them at mix, is; (to put it kindly) a mistake (not so kind) amateurish (worst) the territory of a control freak!

    and sometimes moving the mic or cab a little bit does make a huge difference. other times it doesn't. sometimes true and sometimes not. it all depends on what else is happening in the room. a lot of the charm of the old Chess recordings comes not from what was miked but what wasn't.

    if the recording is going to live or die due to one instrument having the best tone ever, then perhaps there's something else wrong?

    producers / recordists should learn to make a decision and stick with it. i think that's called skill. after 40 + years of recording i pretty much know what sounds good to me and to be quite frank i am not that willing to change my ways just because it's the method du jour.

    the idea of recording an instrument flat into a line input of a digital recorder and then running it through some plug ins or amp farm and digital reverb to make it sound like it was played in a room is an approach that i hope will be abandoned once people realize how crappy that sounds.

    soul.

    mics & pre amps / discreet electronics and iron or nickel transformers ... these things have soul.

    digital converters and amp simulators in computers are void of soul. sterile as a mule.

    it's the difference between moms home fried chicken or McD's nuggets.

    i don't like nuggets. just my two cents.

    mmmmmph! arrrghhhhh! suicide ahhhhsh*zt!
     
  4. BobRogers

    BobRogers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    Blacksburg, VA
    James Jamerson recorded his bass direct just about all the time. Seems to me he had just a little bit of soul. In fact, even many of the guitar parts in Motown were recorded direct. Of course, they are going through iron and nickel and (in the early days) tubes - just no paper speaker. That's why I said at the beginning - if you WORK at your direct sound, it can provide a really solid foundation for recorded bass. Right now, I'm liking the UA 4-710d, but of course, I'm playing with flats and don't need a lot of pop and sizzle. But a lot of people who want that sound go for things like the Avalon U5 and the REDDI.
     
  5. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    Bob
    i'm in no position to comment on that. i wouldn't know. Ohlson would be the one to ask. i had always heard that Jamerson used an Ampeg Porta Flex ... and on many songs like "My Guy" he played stand up.

    i would also point out that there were lots of open mics in a small confined space at Hitsville. whole lot 'o spill goin' on.

    also they used 2/3/4 or 8 tracks for many of those recordings... lots of sub mixing and decisions being made.

    actually Hitsville is the perfect example. as i said before if the recording lives or dies due to the sound of one instument then there's somthing else wrong.


    Hitsville studio .jpg images.jpeg
     
  6. BobRogers

    BobRogers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    Blacksburg, VA
    It must be true. I read it on the internet. I think that one source of this "fact" is Slutsky's book on Jamerson. There are several pictures of him playing live with the B-15, but I don't recall ever seeing one in the studio. Though, as you say, lots of bleed...but since they were mixing direct to one or two tracks, who cared.

    I think the general point of making a decision and committing to it (as opposed to endless tinkering) is a good one. But part of that is a matter of experience - with a particular room, particular instruments, particular pieces of equipment, and, of course, with recording in general.
     
  7. dvdhawk

    dvdhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Location:
    Western Pennsylvania, USA
    I have no doubt that you're ALL very good at what you do. People that do this well are usually very passionate about doing it, and always learning. However, I doubt you got to the level you're at by reading a book, or trying to assimilate content from the internet. What's wrong with encouraging a home-recording hobbyist to put in the time developing their own judgement? Personal opinions and preferences on the internet aside, there's a fundamental difference between knowledge and information. Kurt has learned what works for him. Chris has learned what works for him. Bob has learned what works for him. I've learned what works for me. All different, but equally valid approaches. And I think we all know when to alter our default approach based on the circumstances. We've all paid our dues, and had to learn that by doing it somewhere along the way. That's all I want for the OP.

    And I'm not suggesting recording a shitty sound bass and fixing it later. I've said "once he's got a good PreAmp / DI track recorded bass track - he can always use a relatively inexpensive re-amp box to add a mic track without worrying about bleeding into the other tracks". I stand by that and encourage him to try some different things to learn on his own, and find what works for him.

    The fact my personal personal direct bass chain includes a winding or two - Avalon U5 / TL Audio tube compressor / Klark parametric / dbx 160x doesn't do the OP in the "Microphones Forum" any good. But to my point, I have a several high-endish hardware pre-amps and compressors that cost a helluva lot more than the U5, I've tried them all with bass guitar. I learned that the U5 sounds better to my ears, with my bass, in my given style of music. But along the way I learned what character the other pres gave the bass and now have that knowledge cataloged in my brain rather than on my computer. So next time I know, 'let's skip that one and go to this one'. I am as efficient as anyone with mic-placement and getting the tone I want before I hit Record. I learned how to do that.

    Nothing but respect for you all. I'm tagging out.
     
  8. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    i love the enthusiasm everyone here exhibits and i'm all for discussion too. all approaches are valid. just some are better ...lol.

    but really if something works then i'm all in favor of doing it. along the way, i have recorded bass with and without mics ... live in the room with other amps blasting away and direct into a console. i really prefer live tracks recorded in one room with a lot of players at the same time. there really is a ju ju magic that occurs when it's done live bleed and all. what do think they meant when they said "Let it Bleed" ??

    something about the time it takes for one player to hear another player in the room along with the live interactions between fine musicians. there just no substitution for that. bleed / spill should be a minor consideration not something that winds up compromising a performance. talent, song and performance always outweigh recording technique. a good recordist should know how to stay out of the way.

    these guys have the right idea.
    Daptone, Home Grown: Gabe Roth’s Cottage Industry of Soul : SonicScoop – Creative, Technical & Business Connections For NYC

    check the cramped conditions and close proximity of the players in the live room there.


    Daptone_Studio.jpg

    i just love the idea they have about recording to 8 tracks. perhaps that's part of the problem. too much tech available to people who don't understand the approach of just recording / performing piece correctly in the first place ... too much i'll fix it later / i like to have my options blah blah blah blah ...

    just read what Shel Talmy had to say.
    http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep09/articles/classictracks_0909.htm

    i have never had a problem with mixing tracks that were recorded live. spill on a bass track or other tracks that were recorded at the same time has never been an issue for me. while i still think spill is a good thing i have always gotten plenty of separation / isolation. i line the amps all up in a row and stick some type of gobo between them. i also always take a decent di signal from the bass to capture the extreme low end and i have been known to use the direct to re amp the bass or even repace the original amp track by re amping and re miking through a different amp or cab. or with a different tone. but i always do both di and mic the amp when tracking the live rhythm tracks.

    of course i have never been a room mic freak either.


    mmmmph! arrghhhhh! suicideahhhhhh!
     
  9. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    One man's apple pie is another man's cheesecake. Or sumthin....

    I think its a very good thing to experiment during the 40 year apprenticeship we are all still going through, its this sort of training that gets us the "go-to" technique that never fails. At least it provides us with a starting place for any style or type of recording that we might undertake.

    One thing I have found as far as an important and valid point of reference, ALWAYS have a dedicated and thoroughly tested recording path for , A: Vocals, especially lead vocals, and B: Bass instruments.

    I say "bass instruments" simply because the micing technique for a Tuba or an Upright Doghouse is vastly different than an Electric Bass Guitar. Electric Bass Guitar played by the Neanderthal of the Rock Band is an EVEN DIFFERENT animal altogether. So it goes too, with vocalists in general.

    But the STARTING POINT of the recording can be something you can rely on when the meter is running and developing and honing this skill is something that will last for your career.....whatever that is.....

    For me, and this may seem funny, but when I am Meester Eng-gin-ear, I always record the bass with a DI of some sort and a mic if I have the time. Now some players come in and have a preference and if they are relatively skilled and seasoned players, I will always take their direction on this. Some even bring their own amplification devices and that suits me just fine. It enables me to assess many more options than the ones I can afford to pay the electricity for. However, and this is the other side of the coin, when I am Bassist Lord of the Underworld (which I am) I ALWAYS use just a DI. Mostly because I'm lazy. I will mic my amp but never both for my own useage. I have three or four go-tos that have served me for a lot of years. It wasnt long ago that I had a bass preamp in the rack for just such things. Those are pretty darned handy when you want a bass to sound like a bass on short notice. The SWR Interstellar Overdrive or the Alembic F-1X or F-2B as well as the Demeter are fine examples of great bass preamps to have in a rack. Having a dedicated use pre certainly cuts down on the indecisive searching for that elusive bass sound. I dont have one now, I primarily use the DI feature on my ADK AP-2 pre, or the DI off of my TC Electronics B500 bass head. Which has become the go-to around here. First, you can run it without a load. Nice. Second, it has a very comprehensive set of EQ controls as well as special features stuff like tube-tone, tweeter-tone, and a damn good compressor. It is TC after all...they should know by now how to build this kinda stuff. This has another benefit in that you can run a cabinet and the DI out of one unit....I did mention the lazy factor didnt I??? Plus it sounds good if a Neanderthal shows up with an SVT cabinet.


    I agree 123.7% about the plethora of choices actually being a detriment to the quality of the recording. I dont care how much DSP processing power you have or how many tracks you can generate, one perfectly performed, perfectly mic'd, perfectly tonal within the context of the song, and perfectly placed in the mix will always trump something that needs 29 tracks to stand on its own. I made a lot of 16 track records. Some of them still sound good sonically. Most of the songs sound like "what were you thinkin????" (actually 'what were we drinkin.....or smokin...'.). Dont get me wrong it takes a tremendous talent to deal with a bunch of tracks. Long hours editing and comping....and maybe its worth it in some cases.....When I start approaching 35 tracks I know I have some deleting to do.


    There's one thing I've learned, and interestingly enough I continue to learn and have it affirmed nearly every time the red light goes on.....The minute I think I know what works, and works without a doubt, it doesnt.
     
  10. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    tech 21 sans amp serves me quite well at the studio. we'll mic it up w/ a d112 or 421 sometimes as well. i think maybe ive used artificial receive on a bass once in 10 years.

    I agree building/owning a studio is a money pit, and an extremely challenging way to turn a profit, after all it's record labels that are rich, not musicians. But, i would personally way rather drop 10k of some drywall and 2x6's, than on the latest platuim, tdm bundle. that bundle is now obselete for the state of the art pluggin format rewrite. But yet a nice sounding room, would still be standing strong, and be just as relevant 30 years into the future.

    like i told my boss before i built the studio, it's alot eiser to upgrade a computer, or add new rack toys, than is is to re-do construction. haven't rewached for a verb for anything but vocals in 2 years. there's something satisfying about just pushing up the faders for room sound, instead of mousing around a pluggin window. i love plugins, i'm no purist to anything, analog digital, replaced drums, whatever, this is art. it'd be like a painter saying oh, i don't use red...it's not as good as the other colors. and even if he did, that's their prerogative.

    The problem isn't what people have, dead tiny closet, mixng on headphones, it's people being use to hearing shoddy recordings, and people now knowing how to use what they have got. I;f you live on a second floor one room apartment next to some railroad tracks, well your gonna need to probably use samples. If your lucky enough like me to have open access to a six room studio, w/ a house drum kit, amps, and mics. well i'm not gonna be step sequencing drum beats unless the project needs that. There's no excuses. i can mic some pillows and get a pro drum sound w/ drummagogg, provided i'm tastefull w/ the mixing.

    The problem is people seem unwilling to want to learn the fundementals. even at schools, it's all about software manipulation. i talked to a kid who took like a 6mo. recording program and they spent 1 week on micing a kit. one week. Maybe it's just cuz of the work that's been available, but i make as much money problem solving, and the like, than i do recording music.

    adversity and limitations lead to invention. have to figure out which cable is busted in the middle of the bands set. make a good mix sub becuase you have only a few tracks. here's a new one, have the vocalist sing in pitch. Recordists are doing musicians a diservice by comping 30 takes and every syllable. You don't have to be a hardass about it, but isn't it part of our job to get the best possible performace tracked, then tweak it? People feel real good when they do something they didn't know they were capable of (after they get over being angry at you for making them do it :). i know it's all relative, but modern rock and roll sucks big time for the most part, becuase people can't leave the comtuer stuff alone. it has no sack, no firey emotion, no flavor ya know? i mean how many times is nickleback gonna release the same sound song, w/ the same samples? Electronic music is a different animal, it's supposed to be 'perfect' but that is what fans connect w/ that pulse, the layering of sounds woven in and out (w/ is a facsinating part in itself.

    I think new people just are overwhelmed w/ toys, and think cuz t.pain did it, well they need to. well it's the innovators who always have the most success in art. Maybe it's because i got into right at the very end of when 4 tracks casesste machines were being sold in stores, so i was forced to use mics/sub mixing, 1 effect. maybe i'd feel differently if most of my work wasn't w/ live mucisians. But all i know is when i finally got a cpu powerful enough to run 20 plugins, i did, and my mixes sucked for w while, till someone pointed out to me, the question of if i was just using the effx cuz i could. turns out i like the sound of the raw tracks, w/ a splash of stuff on couple buses, much better. it sounded more real. So i agree w/ keep it simple, especially at first. you gotta know how to swing a hammer before you go building a house.

    i see live recording making a huge comeback. evrything i read, is oh we wanted to do it live, and w/ limitied tracks. people are sick of one up at a time i think. which is why i encouraged a studio design that catered to that. the 'oh crap' when they hear their drums never gets old. and while we generally keep the instruments isolated, so we have the option of overdubbing, the energy from a good band wailing on the other side of the glass is not the same any other way, it's more interesting for me as an engineer and music fan, and i think it's much more comfortable for a lot of bands who are used to playing together every weekend. the studio becomes a really nice sounding practice space w/ mics, as opposed to this laboratory, where each player goes under the microscope individually. depends on the situation, i think its the knowledge of knowing what approach would be best, and the best way to execute that approach. that's where experience is unrivaled, and most of you have lots more than i do, i'm always learning.

    i think people any age need to have an open mind. if someone comes in and wants to sound like cher yodeling thru antares, you either do it, or you don't, but i don't know too many average engineers in the position to turn down work cuz of taste preferences. and i'm also getting a little sick of dudes like phil who i work w/, always saying how good everything he 'use to have' was. well ya know what we don't have 4 la3's, and a u47 serial number 59, so get over it and make music w/ what ya got. ya know life does go on after the ssl e series and 50 thousand dollar tape machines. if it really was that good, it wouldn't have gotten sold. i wish it didn't get sold lol, but still, it's like get over it, and get to making music.

    interesting stuff everyone. cheers!
    -kyle
     
  11. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Nice points and a fun topic. So here I go with an observation and some brassy edge to rial up the crowd lol, intended to just make us think.

    There is a lot hypocrisy in this business. More evident from people out of touch. And more in the recording business than I ever imagined. How do you guys even keep busy I ask?
    I read posts from so many expressing how plug-ins are replacing hardware in the same topic about room acoustic from purest. So I have to ask which plug-ins and why, or even better, compared to what and how did you come to this conclusion? Is your opinion hearsay from another person similar to your tastes and recording methods or did you actually compare this with the real deal and in what contexts. I mean, what gear did you use? What kind of song? Maybe a song that was poorly produced. or not your idea of talent? Maybe you don't know the difference when its done well? After all, we notice mistakes.

    Kurt, just recently said, "The cat is out of the bag" I am selling my hardware because a $500 bundle, laptop and some software is good enough.
    And once 64bit hits, OTB may be obsolete.
    http://recording.org/studio-lounge/53339-recording-gear-off-shore-manufacturing-like.html

    I know you're half fun but, full earnest and truthfully I kind of believe you are finally realizing something that I've known was 34 years coming. Thus, why and how I learned what I know too.
    Yet, all of sudden a processor like a Bricasti (something I doubt many here have even heard), is lame. And if you used it kurt, I'd have to ask, for what song? Show me and prove to me that you actually used it on the appropriate kind of song. And don't give me the old school is the best way. Your music is better than what? . Lets leave it at that, I really don't need proof or an explanation. I just want us to know there are more ways to finish a song and its not always about acoustics. This business is about sounds. Sounds rule. Sounds attract youth. Sound is what attracted me to music. The sound and effects are what inspired me to learn. Sounds date you like clothes do. Maybe we don't care how we look, maybe we do.

    To me "right" is what works, pays the bills and keep more of "what ever you are doing "right" , coming day after day. This business is about trends and sounds. But that's my take on it. So does this make me right? Who's right?

    And even though live music may be returning ( please please please), computer generated music and technology isn't slowing down. I guarantee the music that makes the most profit and what attracts the new generation will always be including cutting edge technology. Its been like this since the electric guitar and definitely since I started making money in the business 34 years ago.

    Did you all know that a DAW (Pro Tools) is really just a multitrack sampler?
    This all started a least 34 years ago.
    When did Pro Tools start up?

    I'm not trying to pick a fight or act like I know it all. I merely bringing up a really evident point.
    Being the devils advocate:
    How can one plug-in be good to you but a digital reverb all of a sudden is lame? Lame as in, lame compared to ? and for what type of music are we talking about and for what engineering style or production? Maybe just the kind of music you only are able to produce, within your skill or tools or that you like, think is the best?
    I really don't follow how we make the rules up as we go.

    This reminds me of Mitt Romney lol.

    fire away!

    And on a side note, look at this dated gem soon to be another part of history.


    There is something to say about real or the basic but there are other things that just aren't worth holding on to because times are changing. You'd be crazy to buy something like this IMO.
    http://recording.org/buy-sell-used-...41-euphonix-system-5-for-sale.html#post395243
     
  12. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    the question is what's good and what's good enough. is the latest 3700 dollar reverb good enough? i'd bet YES! (and kudos to you for getting one i am super envious!)

    is a real room better? i'd venture always. even without hearing what a Bricasti does (i admit i am a bit out of the loop) i can equivocally say there's going to be some new super duper box or plug in or update come along in the near future that will blow it out of the water. the manufacturers always have to have the next big thing, waiting in the wings. it's how it is.

    there have been life changing moments for me in my career in audio. one of them was when i built my first big room to record in and i heard what could be done in a real acoustic space. no only as a space for musicians to play in but used as an effect. Bill Putnam had it right all those years ago. i wonder what he would say today?

    i love great reverbs . the variety of sounds and effects they can offer can be very liberating.i invested bucket load in some. at one time i had lexi's up the tuchass. pcm 60/70/80/90 and that was when 90's were the latest. had an eventide hd3000 too. none of them sounded as good as a pair of pa speakers in the live room miked up with a Neumann or my C24. "one mans cheesecake" as some one just said.

    i especially liked what kmetal had to say about a room lasting forever while the latest reverb box will be next weeks door stop. i seen 'em come, i seen 'em go. nothing beats real imho.
     
  13. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    hey,

    I agree with all you said and I am actually planning on building an acoustic room at the lake. But you miss the point over and over. There is more to recording than a mic and one room sound, or a room sound, especially when it comes to the pop and electronic culture. But I'm getting the feeling this isn't considered music or "recording" to some so its going right over our heads. There is a sound that a live room has that can sound dated. I don't care how great your room is, it doesn't mean it fits the mold for every song, sound, voice or instrument on the planet.
    The open sound of Bruce Springsteen comes to mind. Pretty hard to get bottom end punch on that bleed. But to some, that's the most glorious sound, yet to me, it would kill me if that's all I could ever get or if that was my sound all the time. In fact, that real sound is about as bad as it gets. You are talking about bring in the band, set up and record. I'm not. I'm talking about fixing or avoiding that. But if you really need that sound or facility, there is always a good church available, a StudioLive 24.4.2 and a laptop. So simple and so 70's sounding. And feasible.

    I'm just trying to make a point that not everyone here is shooting for the sound of the 70's or vinyl as an entire mix. Generally speaking, Talk about studios going broke. Who can compete these days. I know there is a place for that (more like samples or recording demo's for broke musician or the old timers band), but it isn't my kids bag or their friends music. And its never been mine and I am in my 50's. However, I love sitting back and playing my old albums but its not where my head is at when it comes to the music business and putting my kids through college.
    I think we get performance confused with electronics in topics like this as well. And I don't think anyone here thinks of their DAW as a sampler.

    howdy
     
  14. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    The Pop and electronically based and generated music is simply one style of production out of many. Is it better than the Zac Brown Band and their obviously Roots oriented sound and their throwback nod to Southern Rock with a big dose of Austin Country in it? It is feeding the families of their team and probably setting up their kids to go to college without a problem. If the bottom line of work for hire and making money is the point of a persons participation in this business, and is the underlying motivation AND they are successful at it, then kudos and regards! I'm not a person who thinks one way is better than another, but these days there are SO MANY WAYS, it would be a long day in hell to try and attempt to conquer them all. It would seem that the best course of action would be to perfect what you like and what you know works for you and then perhaps bring elements of other techniques to the table. Its like the Jazz guys playing the Blues, or the 70's Rock God guitarists all playing Modern Country mostly because it pays the bills.

    Hey, its ALL good. We get to geek out on gear and listen to music traveling through the air into our capture devices and then manipulate it to our sense of taste brought about by our individual experiences and expertise. And all it costs us is an arm and a leg to do it well. My education in this business is well over a million at this point. And I have no idea what I'm doing, but I sure love it.

    That being said, as a comparative exercise, especially referring to being "out of touch", there's a HUGE movement in artists to reattain that big studio room sound. It IS moving towards live recording in many cases, though not so much with the pure 'Pop" and electronica.....I mean why bother with that format, its unneeded...the 70's sound is still alive and well and its a good thing that the marvelous reverbs and production devices all include algorhythms that encompass rooms of all sizes and shapes. Room emulations are included in these devices for a reason.
     
  15. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    arrrrgh! how can i make a connection, get you to understand what i am trying to communicate. ???

    when you have an acoustic environment you are NOT stuck with one sound. if the room(s) is (are) decent, you can modify it in all sorts of ways. you can make a live room dead but you can't make a dead room live. you can make a large room sound small but you can't make a small room sound large. it's just another tool. i look forward to the day you do build a live room at the lake ... i can hear it already; "i never realized what a live room could do for my recordings. i have to reconsider a lot of what i have thought before." i've seen you do this many times before.

    there are lots of recordings recorded live that have plenty of punch. i have seen 'em come and go and the live room approach is returning with a vengeance. Green Day, just recorded a 3 cd set in there studio in Oakland CA using live rooms. it would take me 10 minutes to come up with 10 more bands doing the same. it's what's happinin' baby!

    you are correct in assuming that i have difficulty in viewing a lot of the modern electronic stuff these days as real music. i have a significant distaste for rap / hip hop. i can't even keep up with all the sub genres' it all pretty much sounds like the same stuff to me. btw it's not cutting edge. it's already here. don't think you are hip doing the kind of music your kids listen to. you are just jumping on the band wagon. in ten years no one and i mean no one will be listening to it. they will still be playing tom petty, elo, roy orbison, elvis, springsteen records. and i don't think anyone would say the records from STAX in the 60's and 70's lacked punch.

    the stuff from today that will live on will be the records that were recorded by real songwriters like L.P. with real bands in real rooms. the common thread is REAL. Springsteen still sells records and tickets. Skrillix is a flash in the pan in comparison. more of a fashion icon who makes organized noises than a musician. a button pushing monkey. in 20 years people will still be listening to and buying Beatles records (that which by the way were recorded in live rooms with spill etc and still have plenty of punch).

    and let's not forget the largest selling / radio play genre' out there country music is all mostly exclusively recorded with live musicians in large live room studios.

    all meant with love and affection;
     
  16. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Do you really think im so stupid and disputing a real acoustic room isnt of value?

    I'm trying to educate you on a product and area of music where it serves well lol.

    I agree with all you've said, my point from the very beginning here was disagreeing that your way is better and simply pointing out that something like a Bricasti is close enough and in some ways better for certain styles of music.





    Sent from my iPhone
     
  17. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    no chris i do not think you are stupid. i apologize if you think what i wrote was insulting. i didn't mean it to sound that way.

    as far as educating me or others, that's great but i guarantee you that the bricasti will be outdated some day. it's just another box. something "better" will coming along. there's more to music and recording than the latest piece of equipment. the same things you say / tout / brag on about the bricasti was said years ago about the Lexicon 224. same song, different tune. second verse, same as the first. i'm takling about method, not product promotion /placment. sometimes you make it sound like all that matters is the equipment.

    i guess i could have been insulted when you wrote this;

    the "broke musicians and old timers" crack is kind of pejorative don't you think?

    for me this recording thing is more than making money and you could do worse than to pay a little attention to what us old geezers have to offer. much of it is just as relevant today as it was in the '70's.
     
  18. hueseph

    hueseph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Topic is getting way too sensitive. Do what you need to do to get the sound you want. Ideally using the acoustic environment to get the sound you need would be awesome. There's empty silos, warehouses, barns that I would love to record in. I think that's part of being an audio engineer in the traditional sense. There was a science involved at one time. Now that there are machines and plugins, not so much science except at the developers lab. At any rate, I thought I'd add this wrench for the conversation:

    Top Producer Puts A Spanner In Most Of Our Acoustic Posturing - Pro Tools Tips, Tricks & More... - Pro Tools Expert Blog

    You don't have to agree with it necessarily. I'm not particularly a fan of Jeff Lynne but it's interesting at least.
     
  19. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    A person's choice as to their particular business model doesn't necessarily dictate that this is whats best for anyone else.

    As I have stated over and over, kudos to anyone who can make a decent living at this business and I personally dont care one bit whether they record in a basement, on a converted barge on a river ( ! ), or in a dedicated control room with just a vocal booth, or at Abbey Road. The location, the gear used, the techniques employed, and the style and type of music being produced is only relative to that person at that moment in time.

    Capturing a source is all about the moment.

    Electronic based music including the highly stylized and formulaic pop that we hear on the pop radio and video TV doesnt require a dedicated sound room other than a quality mixing environment and a couple of booths with decent acoustics for possible live drums and definately vocals. In my research of this, they are STILL generally producing this kind of music in very very good rooms even though its doubtful that they are using the live rooms as was done in the past. BUT they are still having to "capture the moment" at some point in the process.

    Great tools will obviously enable an editor to fashion whatever level of quality is necessary for the project to become a professional release with the ability to fill the bottom line for the producer, artist, and the record company. These days we see the business of this style of music also including to a LARGE degree, fashion and media blitz on a level that makes it seem to be a part of everyones everyday lives. Whether we like it or not. Media exposure is rampant and more likely to break an artist, even one of questionable talent level, than any one piece of gear or even the environment which it was produced in. But lets be honest....your Justins, and Gagas and all of these mainstream pop artists ARE recording in great rooms with highly skilled staffs, wonderful gear, and very savvy producers at the wheel.

    These producers know how to use a room, much as Kurt has described, and aren't going to base their decisions on types reverbs in the racks or emulations of rooms available to them through high-end software. Of COURSE they use these tools, but they use them in the context of the studio they choose to make their products in. And I guarantee they choose great live rooms to start with.
     
  20. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    I watched that and it was awesome. I agree with him on so many levels.Its kinda where I like to go with production.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice