# Recording Chain: Mic - PreAmp - Compressor - Mac



## synthetic (Dec 17, 2010)

AT 4050 is a decent mic. I would invest into a mic pre and A/D converter first. Then go back and get the Neumann if you think you still need it. Or get a Royer or something for a different flavor.


----------



## dach (Dec 17, 2010)

you've already gotten some good advice but I'll give my two cents. Don't skimp on your front end. As far as mics there are lots that are similar to a U87 at less cost. The 4050 is a pretty good mic as well so you may want to upgrade other things first. The U87 is one of those that sounds pretty darn good on most everything. The older ones sound much better to me than the newer ones (last 10 years or so). I also have a U67 as well as a bunch of other mics. The only budget mic I've used a lot that I like better than a U87 is the Langevin CR3a... while I've not tried any of the Peluso's and while many of the U87 clones are quite good I always seem to find better results with the tried and true stuff.

Preamps are important too. For cost vs performance I'd go API. A Designs makes a good API type pre as well.... these are a bit colored and quite punchy but you've already heard this sound on tons of records. 

I almost always track through a compressor whether I hit it much or not. For the most mileage I'd get an FET and an opto type. There are lot's of great ones out there but it's rare that a Urei 1176 or LA2/LA3/LA4 type won't work. Software compressors to me are no where in the ball park as the real thing and what they do to the sound on the way in just can not be replicated in the box. They are worth the money and with only a couple of knobs, it's hard to make them sound anything but good... once again I like using stuff that I've grown up listening to...

As far as converters, I use the Lynx stuff (I also have a clock but rarely use it). There are better out there but I'm not so sure they are really worth the extra money unless you have large budget projects... 

ps: don't forget to make sure you use good quality cables like Canare star quad, etc. It does make a difference.... hope some of this helps... it will be money well spent.


----------



## lulgje (Dec 18, 2010)

Wow...

Guys, I really appreciate it.

Thank you for your advice!


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 26, 2010)

lulgje, I have read your other thread too. The question I have is: 

_How good is your recording room sounding?_ 

Every $ you invest into room acoustics is worth 5 $ to sink in a microphone and at least 10 $ that you put into a preamp. 

If you need to impress clients in your studio I say buy an impressive microphone, the bigger the better, and for rappers they even come with a gold grill now. That is part of the game. However if you are result orientated you better search for the real causes why your results with the AT4050 are not what you expected. (Hint: room, room, and room).

And, if money is not an issue then for winds and strings you want a microphone that has the _smallest _possible diaphragm combined with the _lowest _possible noise (which is sort of a contradiction and therefore costs real money). Plus if your room sounds great THEN you can use open cardioids or even omnis ... which sound considerably better but only if your room is up to it, just saying. A cardioid microphone is basically a compromise for solving problems (I know, most people will go on alert if I say this, and I have half a tongue in the cheek, but only half of it).

One approved approach would be to rent some gear that is in the range of what you want to buy, do your test recordings and then listen to the results in a blind test. It is not as expensive as you might think. Last year I spent 200 EUR and two weeks with such tests and afterwards I knew what to expect and what not ... highly recommended.

I was asking the same questions as you some while ago, and my resume is this:
It is a symptom of our materialistic times that people gyrate to any gear that promises to be an "instant sound betterer" ... some item (microphone, preamp, compressor, sample library, plugin, magic box) that costs a certain sum of money and afterwards everything is better. Problem solving by credit card. We have an impulse buying reflex and developers know to tickle that. However from time to time it is good to recapitulate the money vs. result ratio very soberly and often we will find that the real problems in most cases need mental activity and are better solved by a substantial amount of knowledge and experimentation than by _only_ throwing money at them (this is a very general observation and not at all targeted at you personally).

I really hope I did get the idea across why I am writing this ... maybe you are an old studio rat and know everything inside out that I wrote, in that case my comments might be ridiculous. But if I could prevent you from blowing your funds with shiny gear before you know whether that specific gear really helps in your individual situation then proper analyzing could save you a lot.


----------



## lulgje (Dec 26, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 26/12/2010 said:


> lulgje, I have read your other thread too. The question I have is:
> 
> _How good is your recording room sounding?_
> 
> ...




Hannes_F:

Great advice, as with the rest of the guys.

Just to fill in the gaps with some more info re my set up.

My room is acoustically treated, not the best treatment possible, but pretty much takes care of the main problems that would compromise majorly the quality of a recording or playback. I am also looking into getting a recording booth that I believe will solve a lot of isolation problems.

As a matter of fact I wanted to make a thread on recording booths as well to see what you guys think would be the best choice out there.

Back to the microphone 

The Audio Technica 4050 has been been for me a great investment, I have recorded numerous sessions with that one and I have gotten great results and have been very satisfied with the audio quality - because of this I was seriously looking into the AT4060. I need a second mic anyways for recordings at my place and the reason of posting is to make sure that I don't through money out of the window.

I agree with you that it is better to know how too than to just have things....

I also think that there is no point of getting an extremely nice mic if you don't have a great pre-amp, or if your room is not properly treated, as you mentioned.

However, the simple fact is that great technology used properly will give great result.
I is a debatable subject what each one of us thinks what's right, wrong and so on, but it a fact that certain principles in recording must be followed.

I believe that:

proper booth
great mics
great pre-amp
great compressor
great AD coverters

is going to give a positive result 

In my case the $ is not an issue because I want to make this pro investment, I live out of this profession and film music and the 100% focus is on quality and not in gold and shiny plates to impress a wanna be singer  Who ever I record comes in to record some stuff that I may need, not the other way around, I do not do recordings for a living.

So far my only dilemma is should I get the Bock 151 or the Bock 251.
Any thoughts are welcome!

I will not makke any purchase before going to NAMM next month and see what's going on on new releases though.

Thank you to everyone!
=o


----------



## lulgje (Dec 26, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 26/12/2010 said:


> lulgje, I have read your other thread too. The question I have is:
> 
> _How good is your recording room sounding?_
> 
> ...




Hannes_F:

Great advice, as with the rest of the guys.

Just to fill in the gaps with some more info re my set up.

My room is acoustically treated, not the best treatment possible, but pretty much takes care of the main problems that would compromise majorly the quality of a recording or playback. I am also looking into getting a recording booth that I believe will solve a lot of isolation problems.

As a matter of fact I wanted to make a thread on recording booths as well to see what you guys think would be the best choice out there.

Back to the microphone 

The Audio Technica 4050 has been been for me a great investment, I have recorded numerous sessions with that one and I have gotten great results and have been very satisfied with the audio quality - because of this I was seriously looking into the AT4060. I need a second mic anyways for recordings at my place and the reason of posting is to make sure that I don't through money out of the window.

I agree with you that it is better to know how too than to just have things....

I also think that there is no point of getting an extremely nice mic if you don't have a great pre-amp, or if your room is not properly treated, as you mentioned.

However, the simple fact is that great technology used properly will give great result.
I is a debatable subject what each one of us thinks what's right, wrong and so on, but it a fact that certain principles in recording must be followed.

I believe that:

proper booth (still looking into it)
great mics (BOCK 151 or BOCK 251)
great pre-amp (PACIFICA)
great compressor (DAKING FET 3)
great AD converters (APOGEE SYMPHONY I/O + 64PCIe + Anolog 8 / Opticval 8 I/O

is going to give a positive result 

In my case the $ is not an issue because I want to make this pro investment, I live out of this profession and film music and the 100% focus is on quality and not in gold and shiny plates to impress a wanna be singer  Who ever I record comes in to record some stuff that I may need, not the other way around, I do not do recordings for a living.

So far my only dilemma is should I get the Bock 151 or the Bock 251.
Any thoughts are welcome!

I will not makke any purchase before going to NAMM next month and see what's going on on new releases though.

Thank you to everyone!

Happy holidays!

=o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 26, 2010)

I was going to write exactly what Synthetic wrote. The 4050 is a very good all-around mic.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 27, 2010)

Hi lulgje,

you have got quite some good advice here. However this is the part I don't understand:



lulgje @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> I want to make this pro investment





> I do not do recordings for a living.



Eh?

Professional gear investment means for me 
a) you earn your living with it
b) after you subtract the costs for your working time (= your living) then still the gear will pay for its investment within three years, and after that it pays for the investment of the next generation of gear.

That is the definition of pro gear investment in my book, anything else is hobby gear investment (nothing bad with that since it funds maybe 80 or 90 % of the music gear industry).

That is a sobering test: Run through your studio gear list including computers, sample libraries, plugins etc. and rate every single item whether it earned (or is about to earn) its investment within the first three years of use plus a decent hourly wage for every time that you installed, tested and used it. If yes, it was a tool ... if not, it was a toy. That is the business economics approach at least.

The good part of this is that if you can expect for example 4 k more turnaround with model A of a mic than with model B then it is reasonable to spend 2 k more on it, and that still works if you put some zeroes behind the figures.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 27, 2010)

With that point of view even very unsexy pieces of gear can become highly pro and vice versa. One of my best studio tools for example is a 35 EUR air humidifier (plus EUR 50 for a good hygrometer) ... string instruments sound significantly better in humid air than in dry air and also I save a fortune of repair costs. This thing makes a bigger difference than preamp A vs preamp B.

While we are at it, never use an ultrasonics air humidifier in a studio. The calcium carbonate will go into every piece of gear and ruin it. And anything with mats and fans will pollute lots of germs within eight weeks no matter how much disinfectant you put into it. The only option of air humidifying that I found suiteable in a studio are those that evaporate water by electrical current.


----------



## lulgje (Dec 27, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 27/12/2010 said:


> Hi lulgje,
> 
> you have got quite some good advice here. However this is the part I don't understand:
> 
> ...






What I mean is that I am not a producer or recording engineer that makes a living by producing singers or recording them. I am a composer for film / TV that will use these pieces of gear for my own work, basically, I do not care for the looks of them to impress whoever shows up - as someone brought up in the thread. My goal is to impress with the sound that comes out of them.

Pro investment means spending money on pro level gear. There is a lot of semi-pro or simply 'hobby' level gear that is reflected on the price. You can make money with them, maybe a lot of money, but as far as quality is concerned, you're going to get your moneys worth. Unless you're a genius in making simple machines become amazing sounding machines, and I am not one of these guys 

You're sobering test is great 
However, I do not think that it is correct in all cases simply because if you take music libraries:

Not one of them will be put to use on their own. Having a collection of them means that you're ready when the project comes. Unless you're writing a solo instrument score, then it would make sense in theory because in such a case I would just hire a musician and there is no need for samples, otherwise I do not see the point in analyzing each plug in separately.

When it comes to hardware it's the same story, everything will work to complement each other. In my book what makes professional and business sense is that if you stick to the principle of having a set music production budget that comes out of a overall music budget then you're in a good path. Usually my ratio of music production costs is to not to exceed 40% of the total music budget. This ratio is not set in stone though because different needs depend on every specific project but this is a percentage that I try to use as a starting point.

When it comes to Bock 151 or Bock 251 my dilemma is strictly quality and which one would serve me better as an overall mic for the price, and not if it makes sense only from the business perspective.

The AT4050 that I have was indeed one of the best investments I ever made on gear. Bough it in 2000 I think, have used in many many many recordings, and still have it in great condition and will be using it for a few years more probably. But it is not a high end mic. It's a great one, but not a Bock or a Brauner or a Neumann for that matter 

I am just trying to get through the 'confusing' path of the gear selection and try to make a great choice for my purchase.

Anyways, just my 2 cents here....

P.S. I am printing your recommendation by the way. Will take more time to analyze it and hopefully implement some of your 'sobering test' advise 

Thank you....


----------



## windshore (Dec 27, 2010)

Seems that a logical question is: What Instruments do you record most often.

Before making absolute suggestions, this would be my first question. I would also suggest that depending somewhat on how you answer you would do well to consider at least 2 different mics. One large-diapghram one small-diapghram. (you might potentially be smart to invest in a stereo pair - again depending on what you are primarily recording.)

There are a lot of very good mics that don't cost a ton. You can get a good ribbon and good sdc for around $700-$900 each. If you do a lot of vocals, particularly pop, your investment in ldc is going to be a bigger concern and you might be better off to go the route you're thinking - the 87 or try others. Your choice is so dependent on the type of voice and style of music.

As far as pre's and eq's... you should borrow and audition as many as you can in order to find out if you generally like a particular "flavor" as in Neve or API. They both sound great of course, but some people gravitate strongly toward one or the other. 

I think you will be best to decide what your *real* budget is going to be. Decide *what* you record most. If you are getting a stereo setup, you can spend $15k per channel between mic, pre, eq, comp & converter for each channel. Sky is the limit so even though you say money is no object, ... you can easily spend anywhere up from $7k for one channel on up to.....


----------



## lulgje (Dec 27, 2010)

windshore @ 27/12/2010 said:


> Seems that a logical question is: What Instruments do you record most often.
> 
> Before making absolute suggestions, this would be my first question. I would also suggest that depending somewhat on how you answer you would do well to consider at least 2 different mics. One large-diapghram one small-diapghram. (you might potentially be smart to invest in a stereo pair - again depending on what you are primarily recording.)
> 
> ...




windshore:

Thanks for the feedback.

I am in the film music business, again, whatever I record is in the context of that. No pop songs or similar for me. Hence, an LDC makes sense. A Royer 121 0r 122 may make sense for winds or something but as an overall mic I feel more comfortable with a Large Condenser.

Fully agree with you about the stereo pair of microphones. That's why I am asking the opinion of everybody because I want my next purchase to serve as a basis for my next one - microphones, too many options. I have heard a few mics, and I have been impressed with a couple of them. Bock, Brauner, Neumann, and Manley, with a real surprise the AT 4060 which is really a bang for the buck. Neumanns are a bit overpriced for me. But for my taste + deal that I am getting, the Bock 151 or 251 makes the most sense.

Again, one concern that I have not addressed yet is: Bock 151 or Bock 251.
Should I I stick with only cardioid (151) or pay the extra money now to have access to the multi pattern 251 that in the context of time will make the most sense. 

To answer your question, I have recorded mostly ac. gtr, solo string instruments (vln, cello), different kind of winds, vox, some quartets, etc. Mostly, cardioid was used for the recordings.


Pre amps:
You cannot go wrong with Neve or API.... or A-Design for that matter. At that point it's just a question of taste for everyone. That's why the Pacifica for me, it sounds great and amazing. Maybe I'll even add to the chain the REDDI, sounds amazing on El. Bass. 

My dream analog board is the API 1608, so I'll get thatAPI sound at some point 

The UA 1176 is a great compressor, like many API, NEVE, etc. out there. But for me it was the same story with the Daking FET III, great product and amazing sound.

Same dilemma I had for the AD converters as well and it was in between Metric Halo LIO-8, Prism, API A2D and Symphony I/O. Too bad that the LIO-8 doesn't support ADAT, would have been my first choice, with Apogee as a second. But I need at least one ADAT port for my setup, hence, the Apogee becomes my choice.

Cheers....



















I am going for the stereo path, here is my pick - after a lot of research 

recording booth: Seulx design, double walls / ceiling / roof / window. 

mic: Bock 151 or 251 - Will need to decide on this one.

pre-amp: Pacicfica (A Design)

compressor / limiter: Daking FET III

AD coverter: Apogee Symphony I/O + Analog 8 & Optical 8 I/O + 64 PCIe

It looks like this is going to be somewhere in the 15K range for the stereo - which is my estimate based on advertised prices. Only thing to add a bit later on is a second mic to fully complete the stereo path. Definitely agree with you on 'sky is the limit', but i am putting a limit on the 15K, otherwise it's overkill.


----------



## windshore (Dec 27, 2010)

Wow, it's just kinda scary because even legendary mics like the Telefunken 251 can sound like crap on the wrong source / wrong purpose.

My own inclination would be to make sure you have a good outboard EQ to use for recording too. IMHO it makes a huge difference to EQ going into the box rather than trying to fix later.

Honestly you can get very good results with a pair of KM184's or KM140's which you can get cheap. They will sound good on acoustic guitars and strings esp. as stereo pair. Then also have a good ribbon or even 2 like the AEA R84 which you can get used around $700. The money you save there will get you a good EQ and you'll have a versatile setup. Relying on only one type of mic is risky - in my experience.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 27, 2010)

Like I said on the other thread you have, I have an ELUX 251. Love it. 

Like windshore I don't think any large capsule condenser is right for everything...

Great mic, especially for vocals (get a pop screen), but prefer a pair of small capsules on acoustic guitar. Sounds good on strings if you have it back & above a bit. I like ribbons on brass, combo of condenser (large or small) and ribbons on sax. (Sax and guitars, both acoustic and electric respond well to multi-mic situations.) 

On choirs you might try the 251 above the main singer with stereo small capsules for the choir en toto.

.


----------



## lulgje (Dec 28, 2010)

Jack Weaver @ 27/12/2010 said:


> Like I said on the other thread you have, I have an ELUX 251. Love it.
> 
> Like windshore I don't think any large capsule condenser is right for everything...
> 
> ...




Thank you!


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 28, 2010)

windshore @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> Wow, it's just kinda scary because even legendary mics like the Telefunken 251 can sound like crap on the wrong source / wrong purpose.



Noooo ... bigger diaphragm always sounds better. Because bigger is always better, you know. I mean, on these tiny Schoeps mics they are saving on the material and that is why they are sounding so crappy, they are too small. Not a pro investment. And there must be a tube in it or it ain't gonna sound right. If you had done any recording in your life you would know that, man! :lol:

Hint: If you ever need live sax, clarinet, flute, look here:
http://windshoremusic.com/iwinds.html


----------



## wst3 (Dec 28, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue Dec 28 said:


> Noooo ... bigger diaphragm always sounds better. Because bigger is always better, you know. I mean, on these tiny Schoeps mics they are saving on the material and that is why they are sounding so crappy, they are too small. Not a pro investment. And there must be a tube in it or it ain't gonna sound right. If you had done any recording in your life you would know that, man!



In the spirit of the holidays I will generously and gladly pay $10 a piece for those lame old solid state small capsule microphones, especially KM-84s and CMC5/5's with them really horrible MK41 capsule, and of course anything that says DPA or B&K! Am I a nice guy or what?

For those that need to add a small capsule microphone to their locker - there are deals to be had because (sadly) Hannes' quote has become something of a popular myth. You have to be a little watchful, microphones designed specifically for measurement purposes can work well, but they do tend to have a higher noise floor than microphones designed specifically for recording. Why? Well, in most cases measurement rigs don't care as much about noise as recordists... a topic for another post<G>!

There are also some gems that come up used quite frequently on auction and trading sites. A couple of my favorites include the AT-4031 (predecessor to the AT-4051 that is current), and the Nak/Teac PE-120. Neither is as quiet as most current models, but they sound great on the right instruments.

As an example, I have an old PE-120, never could figure out quite what to make of it (it came in a package deal.) One day I stuck it in front of my Martin D-18. For whatever reason, this particular guitar has always been difficult to record, but the combination of the PE-120 and the D-18 is borderline magical. The frequency response of the microphone just compliments the sound of the guitar, placement isn't even critical, just get it close. I don't care for that microphone on any of my other guitars, but it works on that one! The next closest match is an Earthworks SR30/SR77, which is another fine microphone, but alas it seems everyone has figured that out, so they don't show up used as often.

The thing is, you really do need to have a variety of microphones available to you if you are recording, because they do all sound different. An LDC is a great place to start because it has character. An SDC is a great place to start because it has a different character...

and you thought picking sample libraries was challenging!!!


----------



## windshore (Dec 28, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 12/28/2010 said:


> Noooo ... bigger diaphragm always sounds better. Because bigger is always better, you know. I mean, on these tiny Schoeps mics they are saving on the material and that is why they are sounding so crappy, they are too small. Not a pro investment. And there must be a tube in it or it ain't gonna sound right. If you had done any recording in your life you would know that, man! :lol:



HAHAHA! Now you're sounding like an American! :wink:


----------

