My original plan was to make my own album and write about it. Then I thought maybe just a three or four track EP would be more attainable. And then the quarter hit me hard and my kid started to run and climb. My equipment went up on a shelf or got buried in boxes or anything else to keep it safe from a toddler on a rampage. Like Godzilla, he brings destruction everywhere he lays his foot down. My only free time is when he sleeps: AKA quiet time.
I started charging people to do recordings a while ago, and needless to say I get less calls than I used to. It's not because the product is so insanely good that I deserved professional compensation, but because my time is worth something. The last project I worked on took me one hour to record and around 20 hours to edit, mix and do some light mastering work. All that for a 60 minute CD. And I wasn’t even the musician. If I had been, you could add rehearsal time plus the time it takes to track the bass, the guitar, the vocals…
Hopefully, I can get back into recording when my monsters get out of their chew/throw/stomp everything phase. Until then, I’m just gonna get some practice in here and there. Maybe someday, I’ll have something to show for the time I’ve put into this hobby.
Take care,
Aaron Mevis
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Crowdsource: Recording Fail
There are a million ways to ruin a recording. From bad mixes to an overzealous use of effects, and at any stage of the process, you can turn your hard work into something no one will ever want to listen to (or at least pay for). The point is some music isn’t fit for an audience. But sometimes, musicians and producers don’t seem to know the difference.
Take for example Tool’s 2001 album Lateralus:
I love Tool. They make complex music – a mix of heavy rock and metal played in difficult time signatures and laced with industrial sound throughout. Their lead singer, Maynard James Keenan is one of the most dynamic rock vocalists of our time. And they make it a point to write thoughtful (although usually angry) lyrics. So when I first listened to the album, I had one question: Where the hell are the vocals?
Mixing music is like pouring several glasses of water into one. It’s all about proportion—too much from one means not as much from another. Lateralus fell victim of pitting too many instrument tracks against the vocals. I’ve been told the lyrics tell a deep story about the nature of humanity, but I’ve never heard it. I would rebuy the album if it were remixed and remastered. But as it is, I just stash it away with the other CDs I’ll never listen to. I’m talking about you, Batman Returns soundtrack.
I wanted to ask some music listeners about the worst recordings they’ve ever heard, so I solicited some responses from Facebook.
Sometimes a recording can start out bad and just get worse from there. Todd Buckingham, a network engineer from Dayton, told me about his experience in high school with an infamously bad recording.
I love Tool. They make complex music – a mix of heavy rock and metal played in difficult time signatures and laced with industrial sound throughout. Their lead singer, Maynard James Keenan is one of the most dynamic rock vocalists of our time. And they make it a point to write thoughtful (although usually angry) lyrics. So when I first listened to the album, I had one question: Where the hell are the vocals?
Mixing music is like pouring several glasses of water into one. It’s all about proportion—too much from one means not as much from another. Lateralus fell victim of pitting too many instrument tracks against the vocals. I’ve been told the lyrics tell a deep story about the nature of humanity, but I’ve never heard it. I would rebuy the album if it were remixed and remastered. But as it is, I just stash it away with the other CDs I’ll never listen to. I’m talking about you, Batman Returns soundtrack.
I wanted to ask some music listeners about the worst recordings they’ve ever heard, so I solicited some responses from Facebook.
Sometimes a recording can start out bad and just get worse from there. Todd Buckingham, a network engineer from Dayton, told me about his experience in high school with an infamously bad recording.
“It was a song I liked. A local band trying to cover Kiss' “Rock and Roll all Night,” said Buckingham. “We had a TV studio in the high school and we reused the same track when we were making fun of something.”
Other times it’s not the musicians that ruin the recording, but a terrible engineer.
Richard Lykins, a manager at an engineering firm from Kettering, is a huge Metallica fan, but when he heard their album Death Magnetic, he did some research into why it sounded so bad.
“While the music was a return to classic Metallica type riffs, the recording itself is indeed crap. I’ve read in forums how a lot of music nowadays is recorded at high levels to try to be louder than the next guy, and this album was recorded in that manner. At the same output level, Death Magnetic seems like it may be 50% louder than say Master of Puppets. It’s like it’s intentionally recorded poorly,” says Lykins.
So some closing advice to recordists out there: Before you start handing out copies of your music to your friends or a distributor, find someone else to give it a critical listen and take their suggestions seriously. You don't want to end up an example of what not to do or the butt of a running joke at your local high school.
Crowdsource: Vinyl Lives
What does classic rock legend Bruce Springsteen, Indy rock group The Decembrists, heavy metal band Iron Maiden and pop-vocalist Adele have in common? They’re still putting out records on vinyl.
Some younger folks may have never seen a record before. If this is you, go into your parents basement and look around for old orange crates. They’re full of these round, black plastic things with grooves on them. That is a record and it used to be the way people listened to music. Now try picking that orange crate up. Aren’t you glad we have iPods nowadays?
Some younger folks may have never seen a record before. If this is you, go into your parents basement and look around for old orange crates. They’re full of these round, black plastic things with grooves on them. That is a record and it used to be the way people listened to music. Now try picking that orange crate up. Aren’t you glad we have iPods nowadays?
In the home recording studio, we don’t mess with analog format anymore. It’s too expensive and time consuming for something that’s about the same quality as a low-end digital recording. I wouldn’t even know where to buy a record press if I wanted to. But does this mean we’re missing out on something? Is there even a difference?
There’s always a rumor among vinyl lovers that records are a more accurate reproduction of the original performance. That may have been true 20 years ago when digital was in its infancy. But more powerful computers and better software actually makes digital more accurate than any physical medium like vinyl records or magnetic tape.
There’s always a rumor among vinyl lovers that records are a more accurate reproduction of the original performance. That may have been true 20 years ago when digital was in its infancy. But more powerful computers and better software actually makes digital more accurate than any physical medium like vinyl records or magnetic tape.
So why hasn’t vinyl gone out of this world completely?
Deirdre Glassford, a UC journalism student and music fanatic, isn’t picky about what medium her music is on. Glassford may not have a love of one over another, but because she’s not willing to pick a winner, vinyl lives on.
“I love ALL formats of music. My music collection is probably my prized possession,” says Glassford. “It consists of Albums, cassettes, CDs and digital stuff. I used to work in a music store, so I own more CDs than anything else...but there are certain albums that I also own on vinyl, as well.”
Vinyl is an experience that isn’t limited to just listening to the music. There’s the feel, smell and size that isn’t as easily avoidable with other formats. And unlike CDs or mp3’s that can go everywhere, listening to vinyl is an activity that keeps you close to your wood-paneled den.
“The nostalgia and novelty of vinyl are very attractive to me,” says Perry S, a UC journalism student. “Though, when it comes to everyday listening I think I’d much rather have my iPod.”
There’s also an inheritance factor. Many people, including myself, have stacks of old records because they’ve been passed down by the previous generation.
“Then there's tons of old shit that I refuse to buy, again, because I have it on my parents' records. I figure eventually I'll buy one of those handy-dandy players that converts it all to MP3s, so it will be more readily available,” says Glassford.
Any difference in sound quality doesn’t seem to affect readers’ opinions one way or another. Perry compares the three competing formats:
“Though sound quality varies from file to file, the convenience of iPods and the like win over the novelty of vinyl or CDs. I'd even take a CD over vinyl for the quality.
Charlie Balcom, a UC communication a journalism student could live without vinyl.
“I never got interested in vinyl. The only experience I have with vinyl is Simon Pegg throwing records at zombies in Shawn of the Dead,” says Balcom.
“I never got interested in vinyl. The only experience I have with vinyl is Simon Pegg throwing records at zombies in Shawn of the Dead,” says Balcom.
The inconvenience of vinyl makes it an obsolete technology. Skipping tracks and mixing playlists from a library of thousands of songs is much more important than the nostalgic experience of listening to a record.
How long vinyl will keep spinning along before it's final demise is still to be seen. But at least none of my readers are die hard vinyl fans, which is a good thing if I ever want to get my music to them.
How long vinyl will keep spinning along before it's final demise is still to be seen. But at least none of my readers are die hard vinyl fans, which is a good thing if I ever want to get my music to them.
Setting Up a Cheap(ish) Home Studio
I know a lot of you aren't into home recording, but I wrote this a while back (although I never posted it). I want to give you a picture of what a modern home studio looks like, starting with the basics.
---
One thing you should know about me is that I'm cheap. If you're looking for advice on how to build a "professional" home studio this isn't the place for you. But for those of you without unlimited cash for room treatment and stacks of outboard gear, you've found a home in The Basement Music Studio.
Today, I want to focus on the four essential pieces of equipment that can get you started recording without severe damage to your wallet. Let's start with what you already have: a computer.
For recording one track at a time, any computer will work. I've used a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 processor and 256 MB of RAM IBM ThinkPad laptop with good results. If you're not a spec nerd, let me put this into perspective: That would have been considered junk a decade ago. A high-end computer will let you work faster and without the hassles of an outdated machine, but there's no need to drop a fortune on today's most expensive computer if you're a soloist.
Mac has a reputation for being the best creativity platform, which is partly true. The system comes optimized and is made with quality parts- but you pay a premium for out-of-the-box performance. If you go the PC route, you'll need to tinker with your settings to optimize for recording, but it's a completely viable and lower cost alternative. The more important question is whether to go with a laptop or desktop. You probably have a laptop for school or work, so you can just use that to save some money. If you're looking for a dedicated recording machine, get a desktop. It's by far the most cost effective solution. If you know a bit about computers and you want to go the PC route, you can save hundreds of dollars building your own. Otherwise, any current Mac desktop will do everything you need. The only reason you need to settle on the side of Mac or PC is that the recording software (DAW) isn't always cross-platform.
A software digital audio workstation (DAW) is the software that records the audio to the computer, and is also used for editing process. There tons of different DAWs out there. Most run from about $100 up to a few thousand (industrial-grade ProTools 10 HD comes in at a whopping $2,499.) Unfortunately, you get what you pay for here. GarageBand for Mac is the cheapest and least functional without add-on$, but it'll get your music into the computer. I've had bad experience with the outdated Cubase 4 LE that still comes bundled with a few older interfaces, and I wouldn't recommend that for anyone.
A digital audio interface converts the analog sound from your mic or instrument to digital signal for your computer. Your sound card does the same thing, but unless you have a professional (not gaming or multimedia) level audio card (if you don't know if you have one or not, you don't), you'll be better off with a USB or Firewire interface. What matters most is the deciding how many inputs you'll need. If you're just by yourself, you'll only need two inputs. If you're in a full band, you'll need at least eight. Beware: When buying a USB mixer, it often has the amount of inputs you need, but only sends 2 channels to the computer. Save yourself an unnecessary purchase and just get an interface.
Another thing to think about when picking out an interface is whether it has available phantom power or not. If you're using a condenser microphone (discussed in next session), you'll need phantom power. If not, you can live without it.
A microphone.
If you're doing anything more than plugging a bass guitar into your interface, you're going to need a mic. There's a million and a half review sites out there, so I'm not going to focus on one particular mic. Instead, let's just look at the two basic types of microphones and why you'd pick one over the other.
Dynamic mics are the heavy wand looking mics that you think of when you imagine a live performance. Most of them have a bulb cover at the end that blocks too much wind from registering. They are directional mics, meaning they only pick up noise from the front end, which makes them great at isolating sounds. They actually have a heavy spring in them that converts sound waves to electric signals. They're cheaper than condenser mics and much more durable. If you're recording loud instruments or sing rock music, you want need anything more than a dynamic mic.
Condenser mics are the same type that are in your cell phone. They're extremely sensitive, so you won't be using these in front of a loud guitar amp. But what they do excel at is capturing the human voice, acoustic instruments, and recording room ambiance. These are what you think of when you imagine someone singing in a studio. There's always a big disc in front of the mic, called a pop-screen. It's for softening 'P' and 'S' sounds that condensers tend to exaggerate. They're far more expensive than dynamic mics, but for classical, pop, country and hip hop vocals, there's no other way to go.
So there you have it; four pieces that can get you recording at home in no time.
---
One thing you should know about me is that I'm cheap. If you're looking for advice on how to build a "professional" home studio this isn't the place for you. But for those of you without unlimited cash for room treatment and stacks of outboard gear, you've found a home in The Basement Music Studio.
Today, I want to focus on the four essential pieces of equipment that can get you started recording without severe damage to your wallet. Let's start with what you already have: a computer.
For recording one track at a time, any computer will work. I've used a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 processor and 256 MB of RAM IBM ThinkPad laptop with good results. If you're not a spec nerd, let me put this into perspective: That would have been considered junk a decade ago. A high-end computer will let you work faster and without the hassles of an outdated machine, but there's no need to drop a fortune on today's most expensive computer if you're a soloist. Mac has a reputation for being the best creativity platform, which is partly true. The system comes optimized and is made with quality parts- but you pay a premium for out-of-the-box performance. If you go the PC route, you'll need to tinker with your settings to optimize for recording, but it's a completely viable and lower cost alternative. The more important question is whether to go with a laptop or desktop. You probably have a laptop for school or work, so you can just use that to save some money. If you're looking for a dedicated recording machine, get a desktop. It's by far the most cost effective solution. If you know a bit about computers and you want to go the PC route, you can save hundreds of dollars building your own. Otherwise, any current Mac desktop will do everything you need. The only reason you need to settle on the side of Mac or PC is that the recording software (DAW) isn't always cross-platform.
A software digital audio workstation (DAW) is the software that records the audio to the computer, and is also used for editing process. There tons of different DAWs out there. Most run from about $100 up to a few thousand (industrial-grade ProTools 10 HD comes in at a whopping $2,499.) Unfortunately, you get what you pay for here. GarageBand for Mac is the cheapest and least functional without add-on$, but it'll get your music into the computer. I've had bad experience with the outdated Cubase 4 LE that still comes bundled with a few older interfaces, and I wouldn't recommend that for anyone.
A digital audio interface converts the analog sound from your mic or instrument to digital signal for your computer. Your sound card does the same thing, but unless you have a professional (not gaming or multimedia) level audio card (if you don't know if you have one or not, you don't), you'll be better off with a USB or Firewire interface. What matters most is the deciding how many inputs you'll need. If you're just by yourself, you'll only need two inputs. If you're in a full band, you'll need at least eight. Beware: When buying a USB mixer, it often has the amount of inputs you need, but only sends 2 channels to the computer. Save yourself an unnecessary purchase and just get an interface.
 |
| Some neat interfaces, like my Zoom R16 shown above, combines interface with DAW controller, and can even be used without the computer. |
A microphone. If you're doing anything more than plugging a bass guitar into your interface, you're going to need a mic. There's a million and a half review sites out there, so I'm not going to focus on one particular mic. Instead, let's just look at the two basic types of microphones and why you'd pick one over the other.
Dynamic mics are the heavy wand looking mics that you think of when you imagine a live performance. Most of them have a bulb cover at the end that blocks too much wind from registering. They are directional mics, meaning they only pick up noise from the front end, which makes them great at isolating sounds. They actually have a heavy spring in them that converts sound waves to electric signals. They're cheaper than condenser mics and much more durable. If you're recording loud instruments or sing rock music, you want need anything more than a dynamic mic.
Condenser mics are the same type that are in your cell phone. They're extremely sensitive, so you won't be using these in front of a loud guitar amp. But what they do excel at is capturing the human voice, acoustic instruments, and recording room ambiance. These are what you think of when you imagine someone singing in a studio. There's always a big disc in front of the mic, called a pop-screen. It's for softening 'P' and 'S' sounds that condensers tend to exaggerate. They're far more expensive than dynamic mics, but for classical, pop, country and hip hop vocals, there's no other way to go.
So there you have it; four pieces that can get you recording at home in no time.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Crowdsource: Is Music Cheating Listeners Part 2
When I got into digital recording, I
started listening to music in a new way. My love for great instrumentation and
harmony had to share some attention with the production of the album: dynamic
range, stereo position, reverb, and all kinds of technical stuff the average listener
hears but may not pay much attention to. Let’s just say there’s a ton of
processes that go into making an album that I would consider engineering, not
musicianship.
I blogged about Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters dissing the music industry for their over-reliance on digital tools to make music sound supernaturally good. Whether it’s digital or old fashioned analog, many musicians including Grohl himself can use these tools and techniques to cover up mistakes and add that post-performance sparkle to make it sound like it deserves a Grammy.
I blogged about Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters dissing the music industry for their over-reliance on digital tools to make music sound supernaturally good. Whether it’s digital or old fashioned analog, many musicians including Grohl himself can use these tools and techniques to cover up mistakes and add that post-performance sparkle to make it sound like it deserves a Grammy.
I started wondering if this was somehow
cheating the listener, so I asked my readers if it actually mattered to them whether
they’re hearing a genuine unedited performance or a technologically perfected
recording.
“These days, people seem to expect their
music to be perfect when it comes out because that is the trend in society
today,” said Charlie Balcom, a UC Communication and Journalism student. “People have this idea that these million-dollar artists should be
able to hit every note perfectly but this is only possible with a little help
from a computer and other devices.”
Sam Weinberg, a UC journalism student, has
great appreciation for old school musicians who had to perform without the crutch
of technology.
“I
grew up listening to the great jazz and blues composers, such as B.B. King,
Count Basie, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington and many others. What did they have?
Just their instruments, fellow band members and their talent,” said Weinberg.
Diedre Glassford, a UC journalism student, believes that a bit of
post-recording work can be attributed to an artist’s perfectionism.
“Of course I think that music should rely on talent, but I don't
think that having a little digital emphasis in the studio necessarily negates
talent,” said Glassford.
“What I think is important to remember is that music is made for
an audience to listen to and enjoy,” said Joe Doerger. “There isn't a magic
formula for what makes a good sound - it's up to a listener to determine that.”
Doerger sums up what most people have been saying about the topic:
it only matters if you like what you hear.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Crowdsource
Are you a die-hard vinyl fan? Why do you prefer records over CDs? CDs over records? Have you even listened to a record? Tell me about your favorite format and why.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Crowdsource: Is Music Cheating Listeners?
The Foo Fighters took home five Grammys this Sunday for their home recorded album Wasting Light. Lead singer and guitarist David Grohl (former drummer for Nirvana) took the opportunity to take a swipe at the current state of popular music.
What Grohl is advocating is for music to return to a more "honest" live sound without all the technological enhancement. Phooey. Grohl may be taking a purist stand on what music should be, but where does he draw the line? Dave Grohl's "garage" and "tape machine" is worth more than my house. He admits that his tracks are spliced together from different takes, and this old school editing process is exactly what a computer does except instead of scissors and adhesive, digital uses (ctrl+x) and (ctrl+v) respectively. And the album was digitally mastered anyway. So in the end, what you hear coming out still isn't the same as when it when in. Isn't that still using technology to convince listeners that you're better than you are?
Even before Grohl made his point about enhanced modern music, I was looking for ways to get my non-recordist readers involved. I thought I would talk about so-called "studio magic," or exactly what Grohl is talking about. So I headed over to HomeRecording.com, an online forum for - wait for it - home recording to ask some of the members whether using technology or editing techniques was "cheating" or "lying" to listeners.
"Honestly, if you're recording something in any way other than completely live; no [effects], no pitch correction, no level automation... And you're doing it all in one take, it's technically cheating," says MrWrenchey, a home recordist.
But for MrWrenchey and every other forum participant (from hobbyist to professional) whether it's cheating the listener or not isn't the point. The processing or lack thereof is just part of the artistic process.
"Just call your efforts 'art' and POOF! it's art. There is no 'cheating' in art." says wheelema.
The truth is that many recordists and most of the music industry doesn't care whether we're given an accurate account of the musician's talent, nor do they have "humanity" in mind. They just want it to sound good and will do whatever it takes to do it. There's a lot of tinkering involved which just isn't natural. If I screw up on a verse 99 out of 100 times, I can just copy and paste the good take. I can mute out or replace a bad note. If I'm singing out of tune, I can run a pitch correction program (the infamous auto-tune). It's standard to run voice through an EQ and a nice reverb to make it sound more pleasant than it naturally is. Even live music can use the full weight of technology to enhance a performance.
So yes, musicianship matters. The heart and the head matters. But let's be real: A recording artist is like a magician. You practice and perfect your slight of hand, but at the end of the day, it's the secret pocket in the bottom of the hat that makes the rabbit appear.
Thanks to bruiser1964 for the Foo Fighter's tip and everyone else at www.homerecording.com for their input.
------
I want to know your opinion! Are you a purist who thinks music should rely solely on talent, not technology? Or is it the product that ultimately counts? Is there something wrong with presenting a performance as natural when it isn't? Does it change your thinking about music knowing that a multi-Grammy winning singer has millions of dollars worth of technology behind her?
 |
| Girl you know it's not the Foo Fighters. |
"This is a great honour, because this record was a special record for our band. Rather than go to the best studio in the world down the street in Hollywood and rather than use all of the fanciest computers that money can buy, we made this one in my garage with some microphones and a tape machine... To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what's important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that's the most important thing for people to do... It's not about being perfect, it's not about sounding absolutely correct, it's not about what goes on in a computer. It's about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head]," said Grohl during his acceptance speech for Best Album.
What Grohl is advocating is for music to return to a more "honest" live sound without all the technological enhancement. Phooey. Grohl may be taking a purist stand on what music should be, but where does he draw the line? Dave Grohl's "garage" and "tape machine" is worth more than my house. He admits that his tracks are spliced together from different takes, and this old school editing process is exactly what a computer does except instead of scissors and adhesive, digital uses (ctrl+x) and (ctrl+v) respectively. And the album was digitally mastered anyway. So in the end, what you hear coming out still isn't the same as when it when in. Isn't that still using technology to convince listeners that you're better than you are?
Even before Grohl made his point about enhanced modern music, I was looking for ways to get my non-recordist readers involved. I thought I would talk about so-called "studio magic," or exactly what Grohl is talking about. So I headed over to HomeRecording.com, an online forum for - wait for it - home recording to ask some of the members whether using technology or editing techniques was "cheating" or "lying" to listeners.
"Honestly, if you're recording something in any way other than completely live; no [effects], no pitch correction, no level automation... And you're doing it all in one take, it's technically cheating," says MrWrenchey, a home recordist.
But for MrWrenchey and every other forum participant (from hobbyist to professional) whether it's cheating the listener or not isn't the point. The processing or lack thereof is just part of the artistic process."Just call your efforts 'art' and POOF! it's art. There is no 'cheating' in art." says wheelema.
The truth is that many recordists and most of the music industry doesn't care whether we're given an accurate account of the musician's talent, nor do they have "humanity" in mind. They just want it to sound good and will do whatever it takes to do it. There's a lot of tinkering involved which just isn't natural. If I screw up on a verse 99 out of 100 times, I can just copy and paste the good take. I can mute out or replace a bad note. If I'm singing out of tune, I can run a pitch correction program (the infamous auto-tune). It's standard to run voice through an EQ and a nice reverb to make it sound more pleasant than it naturally is. Even live music can use the full weight of technology to enhance a performance.
So yes, musicianship matters. The heart and the head matters. But let's be real: A recording artist is like a magician. You practice and perfect your slight of hand, but at the end of the day, it's the secret pocket in the bottom of the hat that makes the rabbit appear.
Thanks to bruiser1964 for the Foo Fighter's tip and everyone else at www.homerecording.com for their input.
------
I want to know your opinion! Are you a purist who thinks music should rely solely on talent, not technology? Or is it the product that ultimately counts? Is there something wrong with presenting a performance as natural when it isn't? Does it change your thinking about music knowing that a multi-Grammy winning singer has millions of dollars worth of technology behind her?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Shure SM48 Mic Review
Shure has a reputation for making quality microphones. I've used (but never owned) the SM57 for vocals, guitars and drums in the past. It certainly earns its place as the most popular all-around mic for musicians. I haven't yet have the opportunity to use an SM58, the vocal variant of the 57.
Holding the 48 just gives me warm feelings inside. It's solid steel construction makes it extremely heavy for its size (half a pound for something the size of a banana). It certainly doesn't feel like a toy. Shure is known for durability, and some musicians carry their 57s and 58s around for decades before they go bad. I have the same confidence in this mic, though only time will tell.
I bought the SM48-LC version of the microphone. The only difference between the LC and XLR version is that the XLR version comes with a cable. But I was very happy with the accessories it did come with: A hard plastic mic clip, a mic bag and a cable tie.
So how does the SM48 perform in the basement studio?
My first experience with the mic was frustrating. The 48 takes a lot of gain to even register. When I tried plugging the XLR straight into my Zoom R16 audio interface the pre-amp could barely push the signal above audible. So instead, I had to use my Mackie 1402-VLZ Pro mixer with higher quality pre-amps. Much better.
The sound doesn't meet the performance of the 57, and presumably the 58. It's very dim and took some EQ work to brighten it up and grab some air. This may of course be due to my low singing, but it's something I didn't have problems with on the 57.
But after the pre-amp switch and the EQ fix, it sounds decent and worth the money I paid for it. I would not, however, pay the full $49.99 asking price when I could get a top-shelf 57 or 58 for under $100. But for $20 off and the added accessories, it was definitely a value buy and will get me through 'til I'm looking for a serious vocal mic.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Digital Killed the Radio Star.
Last year, I did an interview with Dan McQuinn, drummer for alternative rock band July for Kings, about his home studio. My intention was to talk equipment and method; which digital audio workstation (DAW) software he used, which audio interface he preferred – stuff home recording guys like us geek out over. I ended up with a story of the changing music industry instead. In 2002, JFK was signed to major record label, MCA. The Cincinnati natives recorded in studios in Los Angeles and Massachusetts with a well-known producer. They toured with Muse, Collective Soul and Counting Crows. But just a year later, without the sales to justify record company resources, they were dropped from the label. It wasn’t the end of JFK. They just went back to the studio– the home studio. In 2007, JFK released their first homegrown album to a warm reception from longtime fans.
In the past 10 years, quality home recording became more accessible to the masses with a new generation of digital products. Today’s home studio requires little more than a computer and some experience. Not only has the recording become DIY, but the Internet is now the new norm for distribution with iTunes and smaller independent sites like CD Baby allowing self-released albums to hit a wide market without much upfront cost ($39 per album upload on CD Baby). It can even be more profitable than going through the traditional label since the online distributors take a much lower percentage than the record companies ever would.
For us home recorders, profit is usually the furthest thing from our minds. What we really want is to preserve those musical moments and ideas that deserve another listen. I’ve been doing this for years. I get the same pride from listening to a good recording as a painter does when he fills his canvas. I can even hear the evolution of my style or how a song has changed over the years. Every recording becomes immortal.
But something I’ve never done is to collect enough material of consistent quality to make a true album. Over the next few weeks I’m going to explore how an independent album is created and released, and some of the tricks I use in the recording process. I also want to hear about your interest and experience in audio recording. Have you ever dreamed of becoming a recording artist? Does your band do its own recordings?
In the past 10 years, quality home recording became more accessible to the masses with a new generation of digital products. Today’s home studio requires little more than a computer and some experience. Not only has the recording become DIY, but the Internet is now the new norm for distribution with iTunes and smaller independent sites like CD Baby allowing self-released albums to hit a wide market without much upfront cost ($39 per album upload on CD Baby). It can even be more profitable than going through the traditional label since the online distributors take a much lower percentage than the record companies ever would.
For us home recorders, profit is usually the furthest thing from our minds. What we really want is to preserve those musical moments and ideas that deserve another listen. I’ve been doing this for years. I get the same pride from listening to a good recording as a painter does when he fills his canvas. I can even hear the evolution of my style or how a song has changed over the years. Every recording becomes immortal.
But something I’ve never done is to collect enough material of consistent quality to make a true album. Over the next few weeks I’m going to explore how an independent album is created and released, and some of the tricks I use in the recording process. I also want to hear about your interest and experience in audio recording. Have you ever dreamed of becoming a recording artist? Does your band do its own recordings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)