mike_mccue


If you want to make it cut and dry I suggest someone throw those preamps in front of a Baritone Sax and hit record.

:-)

Maybe close mic a grand piano played in concert style as second test.


Making two channels sound the same doesn't even begin to suggest that the two channels offer the same range of capability.


If there was some investigation about what the two choices can not do similarly it might be easier to appreciate why some designers continue to specify an adequate budget while making a state of the art preamp.

This test serves as good explanation of why you can might be able to get by with what ever you have... but the results do not negate the easy to appreciate benefits of buying better gear if you can afford it.

best,
mike

jamescollins


OK, let's put you all out of your misery – both the mixed and raw versions 'A' were recorded using the high end setup:

Version A
Avalon AD2022
Lynx Aurora 16/LT-USB
Neumann KM184 on neck of guitar
1967 Neumann U87 on body of guitar
Blue Kiwi on vocals

Version B
Cakewalk UA-25EX
Shure KSM109 on neck of guitar
Rode NT1-A on body of guitar
Rode NT1-A on vocals

Actually, version A is probably worth more than what I said, because of the '67 U87, but it's irrelevant really.

So here are my thoughts – hopefully I can articulate them clearly so that I'm not misunderstood:

In this situation, I would say that having expensive gear is definitely not an essential pre-requisite to creating commercial-quality recordings. We are all familiar with the 'point of diminishing returns' theory, and I think that, when close-mic'ing instruments in this way, this point is very low in the price range – I'm quite certain that a good player and engineer could make a beautiful sounding pop album using only equipment from version B.

And even those who did have a preference between the two versions, I would say that if those preferences were based solely on tonality (eg. mix 'A' sounds a little too muddy, or mix 'B' is more present) then they can be ignored. Reason being, that in this test, consistency between versions was paramount, not the overall outcome, meaning I could not position each microphone so that it was capturing the best sound that it could. So if I was making a record using the cheap gear, and it sounded a little muddy, then I would move the mics around until I achieved a balanced sound. I would then further enhance and correct it using EQ. Do you see what I mean? I don't think differences in frequency balance should be considered here, because those can be rectified easily.

Rather ask, was there an overall fidelity issue with either of the version 'B' mixes? No! Through further tweaks in microphone placement and EQ, could I achieve a beautifully balanced tone with the cheap gear? Yes! Would mix 'B' stand up against other commercially released material? Yes! Did the high end setup sound vastly superior to the budget gear? No!

Now it may sound as though I'm bashing the expensive gear, which I am not, I'm merely pointing out that it is not necessary to go out and buy $11k worth of gear to make a good pop record. Am I annoyed that my expensive gear didn't stand out as a clear winner? No, it absolutely did not come as a surprise! I was fully aware when I bought this stuff that it would not transform some of the sounds which I record – so why did I buy it?

Firstly, equipment like the Avalon pre is just beautifully engineered – I'm a total sucker for build quality – touch an Avalon knob, and you're hooked! But in relation to sound, I know from experience that the equipment used for version 'A' would perform noticeably better in different recording contexts. For example, I know that the Aurora converters and the Avalon pre are going to capture a much better 'real ambience' in a hall. They reproduce more apparent depth when recording large ensembles or recording the sound of a good concert hall. I also know that the KM184 has got a much better off-axis response than the Shure, same with the U87 vs. the NT1-A. But this is really only relevant when mic'ing an ensemble, a drum kit, or using them as room mics. The high end gear also has better transient response and reproduction, but you would really have to be listening specifically for this in an A/B test to notice it. And finally, the Avalon pre has a lot of headroom, and performs very well up until crunch time!

So as Mike pointed out earlier, yes, I was playing to the cheap gear's strengths, or rather, not exposing its weaknesses. But for probably 95% of the recording population, the context in which I tested the equipment is spot on, that is, close mic'ing a single instrument. But having said that, even though the differences between the gear will be more apparent in say, an orchestral recording, I still do not believe that those recordings using the cheap gear will be unacceptable.

So to conclude, I think this comparison supports my initial response to the OP, that his problems achieving a good vocal recording do not lie with his gear. We are surrounded by marketing hype - sales of pro-audio gear is a huge business - remember that! I can say with 100% certainty, and will fight anyone to the death to argue this (!!) that the absolute largest contributor to the sound of any recording is the playing. The gear you use is responsible for such a tiny percentage of the overall sound, that I think many just need to forget about it! I loved an article Paul White wrote a few months ago in SOS, saying that next time we think about upgrading our gear, we should start with upgrading ourselves!

I hope people don't take this the wrong way, because I'm really not an arrogant **** I promise , but some have mentioned that they liked my playing. Firstly – there you have it! The first thing that stands out in a recording is the playing. Secondly, playing well doesn't just happen! I was fortunate enough to make a living as a concert guitarist for about a year in the UK when I finished my studies, but to get to that point, there were literally tens of thousands of hours of practice which preceded. Everybody has heard it a lot, but there really are no shortcuts for hard work and practice. Spending an ungodly amount of money on gear is not going to help poor playing – I could post examples of clients who have recorded through my choicest pieces of gear, but were not great players, and guess what? They still sounded bad! If they released those recordings, the public wouldn't be thinking, “oh my, what beautiful equipment he must have used in this recording” - the first and only impression they get is, “man, this guy sucks!”

In short, forget about your gear, it's almost insignificant. If you're a novice and are dissatisfied with your recordings, the worst thing you can do is to go out and buy new gear – I promise you it won't change a thing (unless you're recording on a Fisher-Price tape recorder from the 80's!). When you feel as though you are a competent engineer, then, and only then, should you go out and spend a fortune on equipment.

It may seem as though I don't care about fidelity – nothing could be further from the truth. I crave gorgeous recordings, and I have bought some very nice gear to add that final 5%. I'm just trying to put some perspective on it – there are other far more imminent factors which you should consider before you start blaming your gear.

Finally, these are of course just my opinions, but they are opinions formed from experience, not speculation.

This has been fun – flame away!