[[email protected]]

It's been a while. I currently record in my home with octava mics into
a tascam US122 to laptop and use Cakewalk.
Results are pretty good but i'm looking to improve. I mainly record
classical and acoustic guitar and ocasionally piano. Someone suggested
the next logical upgrade would be a better pre-amp because the one in
the us122 is probably not that good. I want to keep using the laptop
setup and don't want to spend more than $500. Any suggestions?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
wrote:

It's been a while. I currently record in my home with octava mics into
a tascam US122 to laptop and use Cakewalk.
Results are pretty good but i'm looking to improve. I mainly record
classical and acoustic guitar and ocasionally piano. Someone suggested
the next logical upgrade would be a better pre-amp because the one in
the us122 is probably not that good. I want to keep using the laptop
setup and don't want to spend more than $500. Any suggestions?

I'm a total amateur in recording, but I'm having good luck with this:

http://www.samedaymusic.com/product--PRSBLUETUBEDP

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
It's been a while. I currently record in my home with octava mics into
a tascam US122 to laptop and use Cakewalk.
Results are pretty good but i'm looking to improve. I mainly record
classical and acoustic guitar and ocasionally piano. Someone suggested
the next logical upgrade would be a better pre-amp because the one in
the us122 is probably not that good. I want to keep using the laptop
setup and don't want to spend more than $500. Any suggestions?

Suggest more completely defining exactly what you mean by "looking to
improve"
For example: Improve what? What about your current recording do you
think you can improve with a different mic preamp vs. at least a half dozen
other things that would make much more obvious differences to the sound?
Wouldn't hurt to actually reveal which Oktava mic you are talking about.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


It's been a while. I currently record in my home with
octava mics into a tascam US122 to laptop and use
Cakewalk.

Tell us about your home studio - dimensions, surfaces, furnishing, etc.

Room acoustics are a big issue in recording.

Also, what efx etc., are you adding after tracking?

What about your monitor speakers?

Results are pretty good but i'm looking to improve. I
mainly record classical and acoustic guitar and
ocasionally piano.

What about your instruments?

Which Octava mics and capsules?

Someone suggested the next logical
upgrade would be a better pre-amp because the one in the
us122 is probably not that good.

Depending on the actual details, there are probably things you should look
at before mic preamps.

[Steve[_3_]]

The FMR RNP (Really Nice Preamp):

http://www.fmraudio.com/RNP8380.htm

The best $500 I ever spent (bought another one a year later). Easy to use,
excellent sound.

Google FMR RNP on this news group and you will see it suggested in this
price range over any other preamp. Record with one and you will hear the
reason why.

Steve

wrote in message
...
It's been a while. I currently record in my home with octava mics into
a tascam US122 to laptop and use Cakewalk.
Results are pretty good but i'm looking to improve. I mainly record
classical and acoustic guitar and ocasionally piano. Someone suggested
the next logical upgrade would be a better pre-amp because the one in
the us122 is probably not that good. I want to keep using the laptop
setup and don't want to spend more than $500. Any suggestions?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
It's been a while. I currently record in my home with octava mics into
a tascam US122 to laptop and use Cakewalk.
Results are pretty good but i'm looking to improve. I mainly record
classical and acoustic guitar and ocasionally piano. Someone suggested
the next logical upgrade would be a better pre-amp because the one in
the us122 is probably not that good. I want to keep using the laptop
setup and don't want to spend more than $500. Any suggestions?

Well, the first question is whether you can plug into the Tascam after
the preamps. A lot of that gear has line inputs that are padded down and
run into the mike preamp anyway, so a better preamp is just adding stuff
to your signal path rather than taking stuff out.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Well, the first question is whether you can plug into the Tascam after
the preamps.

As I recall, it has an insert jack which would be after the preamp stage.

A lot of that gear has line inputs that are padded down and
run into the mike preamp anyway, so a better preamp is just adding stuff
to your signal path rather than taking stuff out.

Well, the US-122 has simple preamps that don't have enough design in them
to add any "creative color." The mic will have more distortion than the
preamp,
so about the only thing it will add is a little noise.

Generally when someone asks for "a better" or "the best" preamp, they don't
really know what they're asking for. Mostly, they know that there are
preamps
that cost $500 and $5,000 and they must be better than what's in the
interface
that cost less than $200. A "better" preamp in this context is one that
might be
a better match for the mic output and get a little more out of it, may
have tubes
or transformers for "color," or may have channel strip features such as
filters or
equalization. All of which may add more flexibility to the system.

There are things that may sound better with the mic plugged directly
into the
US-122. Or maybe not. It's nice to have a choice.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Ethan Winer]

Room acoustics are a big issue in recording.

Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

What about your monitor speakers?

Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

Depending on the actual details, there are probably things you should look
at before mic preamps.

Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what microphone preamp
you use.

And just for the sake of completeness, this is my favorite Craig Anderton
quote:

"No listener gives a damn what microphone preamp you used."

--Ethan

[Paul P[_3_]]

Ethan Winer wrote:

Room acoustics are a big issue in recording.

Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

If a preamp is noisy, no amount of room treatment will fix it. I
would have thought that first, the mixer could have noisy preamps and
second, a better preamp could reduce that noise. But I agree that the
room, and what you might do to it, could greatly affect the overall
sound.

Paul P

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:28:19 -0500, Paul P wrote:

Ethan Winer wrote:

Room acoustics are a big issue in recording.

Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

If a preamp is noisy, no amount of room treatment will fix it. I
would have thought that first, the mixer could have noisy preamps and
second, a better preamp could reduce that noise. But I agree that the
room, and what you might do to it, could greatly affect the overall
sound.

Paul P

Preamps are so easy to make these days that I think you would have to
try really hard to find one noisy enough to need changing before you
got stuck into the room (and I'm really going to argue with your final
use of the word "could" above - there is no question).

d

[Paul P[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

Preamps are so easy to make these days that I think you would have to
try really hard to find one noisy enough to need changing before you
got stuck into the room (and I'm really going to argue with your final
use of the word "could" above - there is no question).

Not if the poster is in a studio :-)

Paul P

[hank alrich]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

And just for the sake of completeness, this is my favorite Craig Anderton
quote:

"No listener gives a damn what microphone preamp you used."

If the majority of listeners are happy with ****ty mp3's, are we to go
there, too, as if we don't give a damn about quality?

I work in lots of different environments, many where tweaking the
acoustics isn't an option. Mic and source placement become extremely
important. Taking the Great River begets something rather different than
taking the Mackie. And the difference is in the mic preamps.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:57:36 -0500, Paul P wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Preamps are so easy to make these days that I think you would have to
try really hard to find one noisy enough to need changing before you
got stuck into the room (and I'm really going to argue with your final
use of the word "could" above - there is no question).

Not if the poster is in a studio :-)


Note the subject line...

d

[Mike Rivers]

Ethan Winer wrote:

Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what microphone
preamp you use.

You may have missed the first part of this movie, Ethan. The original
poster was
looking for a setup to record extremely quiet natural sources - bees'
knees knocking,
amoebas swimming, worms slithering along a plush carpet. He was looking
for higher
gain and lower noise than the typical for-music preamp.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Or am I thinking of a different thread?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:53:42 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Or am I thinking of a different thread?

'fraid so.

d

[Mike Rivers]

Don Pearce wrote:

Or am I thinking of a different thread?
'fraid so.

I that case: "Why do people ask such stupid questions? Just hook up a
microphone
to anything you got and write a really good song."



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

"Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what microphone
preamp
you use."

Sure, but don't you feel that a good preamp is an important part of
the audio path? The Oktava MK-012s work well on piano and most
acoustic guitars, so either the preamp or the A/Ds would seem to me to
be a good thing to upgrade - especially if he's using the Oktavas some
distance from the piano strings, which is where they work best.

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
"Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what
microphone preamp you use."

Sure, but don't you feel that a good preamp is an important
part of the audio path?

Certainly. But the relative definition of "good" depends A LOT on
a bunch of other variables. And it is rather common to find in many
home studios that an equivalent budget for a new mic preamp when
spent on other things, makes a bigger improvement in the recording.
Fixating on a new mic preamp (or a new mic, or whatever) is not a
very logical way to get the greatest benefit from your budget.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 4:13*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ...

"Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what
microphone preamp you use."

Sure, but don't you feel that a good preamp is an important
*part of the audio path?

Certainly. But the relative definition of "good" depends A LOT on
a bunch of other variables. And it is rather common to find in many
home studios that an equivalent budget for a new mic preamp when
spent on other things, makes a bigger improvement in the recording.
Fixating on a new mic preamp (or a new mic, or whatever) is not a
very logical way to get the greatest benefit from your budget.


I can't stand to write music until I have a good word clock generator.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:10:13 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 26, 4:13*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ...

Certainly. But the relative definition of "good" depends A LOT on
a bunch of other variables. And it is rather common to find in many
home studios that an equivalent budget for a new mic preamp when
spent on other things, makes a bigger improvement in the recording.
Fixating on a new mic preamp (or a new mic, or whatever) is not a
very logical way to get the greatest benefit from your budget.

I can't stand to write music until I have a good word clock generator.

Well, fersure, for most home (acoustical) recordings the most
important *technical* thing to fix is the room acoustics. But
maybe that's not the most serious problem.

Now, if I were trying to record Hank Alrich, or somebody
in that league, in a home environment, I might get all upset
about acoustics, and microphones, and yada-fricking-yada, but:

If I were to try to record myself (last time first Bush
admin) I'd want a certain, shall we say, "latitude" about
the sound.

And most importantly, I'd want what was once called
"plausible deniability" for the performance. "Hey, it's
just the download version". Arf.


Where mic preamps (interesting as they are to me, personally
and technically) fall into this spectrum is a tough call.
Old hands might insist on either "more practice" or "fix
the (unavoidable - 'cause no room is perfect) room sound",
and there's a lot to be said for both.

Personally, I'll always stink on ice, so some MP3 mud and
some room boom and a bad camera angle are all positives.

We're all somewhere on every gray scale.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[RD Jones]

On Feb 26, 7:13*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ...

"Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what
microphone preamp you use."

Sure, but don't you feel that a good preamp is an important
*part of the audio path?

Certainly. But the relative definition of "good" depends A LOT on
a bunch of other variables. And it is rather common to find in many
home studios that an equivalent budget for a new mic preamp when
spent on other things, makes a bigger improvement in the recording.
Fixating on a new mic preamp (or a new mic, or whatever) is not a
very logical way to get the greatest benefit from your budget.

Here's what I've determined about preamps.

Situations which require more gain is where the preamp
will make a greater difference. Most high output condensors
with typical [moderate to high level] sources don't care
much at all about the preamp. Lower output signals
[most dynamics and condensors on quieter sources]
may (or may not) show a need for a "good" preamp".
The quietest sources and the lowest level mics, ribbons,
need the better preamps.

These of course, are very wide sweeping generalizations.
There are cases where the desire for color, or the need for
matching (transformer or loading adjustment) are clear
exceptions.

In 99% of situations I encounter the stock Soundcraft
Delta and Venue preamps in the console are just fine.
If I want something different it's going to be downscale
rather than up, like a cheapo tooob for some grunge.

rd

[david correia]

In article ,
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Room acoustics are a big issue in recording.

Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

What about your monitor speakers?

Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

Depending on the actual details, there are probably things you should look
at before mic preamps.

Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what microphone preamp
you use.



Geez, I check in here to find this?? And I was having such a good day.
What a load of crap.

Put a pair of nice mics, say a pair of U87's, in front of a grand piano.
Plug them into a cheap preamp and record. Now plug them into something
like a gml and record. Compare the 2 piano sounds. We ain't talking
subtle here.

And if you want to hear a completely different set of sonic differences,
do the same thing with a pair of akg 414buls.

Try the same thing with a choral ensemble and you literally won't
believe the difference.

I'm always amazed when I read someone on rap saying that great mic pre's
are pretty much snake oil, which happens every so often. Please, do me a
favor and continue recording with cheap pre's.



And just for the sake of completeness, this is my favorite Craig Anderton
quote:

"No listener gives a damn what microphone preamp you used."

--Ethan



You can also be sure that no listener gives a damn about what mic,
monitor, compressor, eq, or room acoustics you used either.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Steve King]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:10:13 -0800 (PST),
| wrote:
|
| On Feb 26, 4:13 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
| wrote ...
|
| Certainly. But the relative definition of "good" depends A LOT on
| a bunch of other variables. And it is rather common to find in many
| home studios that an equivalent budget for a new mic preamp when
| spent on other things, makes a bigger improvement in the recording.
| Fixating on a new mic preamp (or a new mic, or whatever) is not a
| very logical way to get the greatest benefit from your budget.
|
| I can't stand to write music until I have a good word clock generator.
|
| Well, fersure, for most home (acoustical) recordings the most
| important *technical* thing to fix is the room acoustics. But
| maybe that's not the most serious problem.
|
| Now, if I were trying to record Hank Alrich, or somebody
| in that league, in a home environment, I might get all upset
| about acoustics, and microphones, and yada-fricking-yada, but:
|
| If I were to try to record myself (last time first Bush
| admin) I'd want a certain, shall we say, "latitude" about
| the sound.
|
| And most importantly, I'd want what was once called
| "plausible deniability" for the performance. "Hey, it's
| just the download version". Arf.
|
|
| Where mic preamps (interesting as they are to me, personally
| and technically) fall into this spectrum is a tough call.
| Old hands might insist on either "more practice" or "fix
| the (unavoidable - 'cause no room is perfect) room sound",
| and there's a lot to be said for both.
|
| Personally, I'll always stink on ice, so some MP3 mud and
| some room boom and a bad camera angle are all positives.
|
| We're all somewhere on every gray scale.
| Much thanks, as always,
| Chris Hornbeck

Thanks. My best laugh of the day. Maybe because I identify too much with
your 'confession'.

Steve King

[RD Jones]

On Feb 26, 11:57*pm, david correia wrote:

Put a pair of nice mics, say a pair of U87's, in front of a grand piano.
Plug them into a cheap preamp and record. Now plug them into something
like a gml and record. Compare the 2 piano sounds. We ain't talking
subtle here.

And if you want to hear a completely different set of sonic differences,
do the same thing with a pair of akg 414buls.

Both of which are transformered output mics and will show greater
differences among preamps.
You could have included the SM57 in your example, as well ;-

And just for the sake of completeness, this is my favorite Craig Anderton
quote:

* *"No listener gives a damn what microphone preamp you used."

--Ethan

You can also be sure that no listener gives a damn about what mic,
monitor, compressor, eq, or room acoustics you used either.

In many cases nowadays the listener won't care which artist you used
either.

rd

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Or am I thinking of a different thread?

You are. This poster mostly records guitars and such.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"RD Jones" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 11:57 pm, david correia wrote:

Put a pair of nice mics, say a pair of U87's, in front of a grand piano.
Plug them into a cheap preamp and record. Now plug them into something
like a gml and record. Compare the 2 piano sounds. We ain't talking
subtle here.

And if you want to hear a completely different set of sonic differences,
do the same thing with a pair of akg 414buls.

Both of which are transformered output mics and will show greater
differences among preamps.
You could have included the SM57 in your example, as well ;-

Yeah, but I just tried out my transformerless M930 on a new preamp I'm
reviewing (sorry, I can't say which), and it sounds better on my acoustic
guitar than I've ever heard it sound. Way better.

Peace,
Paul

[Sean[_5_]]

david correia wrote:
In article ,
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Room acoustics are a big issue in recording.
Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

What about your monitor speakers?
Indeed, far more important than what microphone preamp you use.

Depending on the actual details, there are probably things you should look
at before mic preamps.
Indeed, almost anything is far more important than what microphone preamp
you use.



Geez, I check in here to find this?? And I was having such a good day.
What a load of crap.

Put a pair of nice mics, say a pair of U87's, in front of a grand piano.
Plug them into a cheap preamp and record. Now plug them into something
like a gml and record. Compare the 2 piano sounds. We ain't talking
subtle here.

And if you want to hear a completely different set of sonic differences,
do the same thing with a pair of akg 414buls.

Try the same thing with a choral ensemble and you literally won't
believe the difference.

I'm always amazed when I read someone on rap saying that great mic pre's
are pretty much snake oil, which happens every so often. Please, do me a
favor and continue recording with cheap pre's.

I was going along with the pres in my MOTU gear. They're ok. Then one
day I found I had some money I needed to get rid of, so I got me a
Millenia HV-3C.
We ain't talking subtle indeed. Holy crap.
It's way more pre than I deserve or that I can justify having. But I
have it. So there.

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

Sure, but don't you feel that a good preamp is an important part of
the audio path?

Sure, but there isn't anything in the audio path that isn't important. It's
not likely that replacing the preamp will be life-changing.

either the preamp or the A/Ds would seem to me to
be a good thing to upgrade

I'm not sure where this tread started (I thought it was the other preamp
thread) so it depends on what he's using in the whole chain. It's also
possible that he has a reasonable recording chain and just can't hear
what he's doing very well. He may need a better D/A converter, better
speakers, or an improved listening environment so he can hear what
his recording (and, for example, mic placement adjustments) really
sounds like.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

RD Jones wrote:

Here's what I've determined about preamps.

Situations which require more gain is where the preamp
will make a greater difference. Most high output condensors
with typical [moderate to high level] sources don't care
much at all about the preamp. Lower output signals
[most dynamics and condensors on quieter sources]
may (or may not) show a need for a "good" preamp".

They don't make condenser mics like they used to. There
are a few "low output" mics these days, but most modern
mics are within a few dB of each other in on-axis sensitivity.
That's because too many people didn't understand that it was OK
to adjust the TRIM control or put a pad in line with the mic.

What's a little more valid generalization is that transformerless
condenser mics aren't affected by swapping preamps than
mics with an output transformer. If the preamp has an input
transformer, it will have more effect on the sound of a mic with
an output transformer than a transformerless preamp.

The quietest sources and the lowest level mics, ribbons,
need the better preamps.

Well, they can benefit from the quietest preamps.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Sean wrote:

I was going along with the pres in my MOTU gear. They're ok. Then one
day I found I had some money I needed to get rid of, so I got me a
Millenia HV-3C.
We ain't talking subtle indeed. Holy crap.

We're also not talking about a small differential cost, either. Would
you say
"Holy crap" with the same meaning if you had, for example, spent $100 on
an ART or Samson tube preamp as your upgrade?



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" wrote in message
...


Put a pair of nice mics, say a pair of U87's, in front of a grand piano.
Plug them into a cheap preamp and record. Now plug them into something
like a gml and record. Compare the 2 piano sounds. We ain't talking
subtle here.

You're not following the thread.

The OP's mics are Octavas.

And if you want to hear a completely different set of sonic differences,
do the same thing with a pair of akg 414buls.

That's way over the head of your average Russian/Chinese/Australian mic
owner.

Try the same thing with a choral ensemble and you literally won't
believe the difference.

Lots of people say stuff like this all the time. AFAIK, none of them have
ever done a truely authoritative test of this.

Time-matched, level-synched, bias-controlled.

I've seen what good testing has done to many urban legends that used to be
described using nearly identical words.

I'm far more convinced of the idea that Neumann can make better mics than
Octava. I'm even more convinced that LDs and SDs sound considerably
different, especially when everything else is equal. And the effects of a
room with good acoustics? Huge! You can do a heck of a lot to a home
studio's acoustics for the price of a Great River, no?

[Ethan Winer]

Lots of people say stuff like this all the time. AFAIK, none of them have
ever done a truely authoritative test of this. Time-matched,
level-synched, bias-controlled. I've seen what good testing has done to
many urban legends that used to be described using nearly identical words.

Yeah, I see a lot of those words in this thread. As soon as someone says the
difference between one competent mic pre or sound card or whatever and
another is "huge" I know they are not comparing properly.

You can do a heck of a lot to a home studio's acoustics for the price of a
Great River, no?

That's exactly my point Arny. For recording acoustic guitars in a home with
decent if modest gear, the most useful upgrade could be as simple as a few
moving blankets placed strategically to avoid the typical boxy off-mike
sound. THAT is the number one problem in all small rooms. It's never the mic
pre unless you're using the preamps in a 40 year old Radio Shack PA mixer.

--Ethan

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:35:45 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Lots of people say stuff like this all the time. AFAIK, none of them have
ever done a truely authoritative test of this. Time-matched,
level-synched, bias-controlled. I've seen what good testing has done to
many urban legends that used to be described using nearly identical words.

Yeah, I see a lot of those words in this thread. As soon as someone says the
difference between one competent mic pre or sound card or whatever and
another is "huge" I know they are not comparing properly.

You can do a heck of a lot to a home studio's acoustics for the price of a
Great River, no?

That's exactly my point Arny. For recording acoustic guitars in a home with
decent if modest gear, the most useful upgrade could be as simple as a few
moving blankets placed strategically to avoid the typical boxy off-mike
sound. THAT is the number one problem in all small rooms. It's never the mic
pre unless you're using the preamps in a 40 year old Radio Shack PA mixer.

--Ethan

I have a cupboard full of winter-weight duvets that do an amazing job
- right down to 100Hz or so. Fluffed up they are about eight inches
thick.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49ae1897.82514046@localhost...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:35:45 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Lots of people say stuff like this all the time. AFAIK, none of them
have
ever done a truely authoritative test of this. Time-matched,
level-synched, bias-controlled. I've seen what good testing has done to
many urban legends that used to be described using nearly identical
words.

Yeah, I see a lot of those words in this thread. As soon as someone says
the
difference between one competent mic pre or sound card or whatever and
another is "huge" I know they are not comparing properly.

You can do a heck of a lot to a home studio's acoustics for the price of
a
Great River, no?

That's exactly my point Arny. For recording acoustic guitars in a home
with
decent if modest gear, the most useful upgrade could be as simple as a few
moving blankets placed strategically to avoid the typical boxy off-mike
sound. THAT is the number one problem in all small rooms. It's never the
mic
pre unless you're using the preamps in a 40 year old Radio Shack PA mixer.

--Ethan

I have a cupboard full of winter-weight duvets that do an amazing job
- right down to 100Hz or so. Fluffed up they are about eight inches
thick.

Real men use out-of the box pieces of 705 in cloth-covered frames.

Actually, *R-E-A-L* men just hang up the pieces of 705 using dry wall
screws. ;-)

[philicorda[_6_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:35:45 -0500, Ethan Winer wrote:

snip
You can do a heck of a lot to a home studio's acoustics for the price
of a Great River, no?

That's exactly my point Arny. For recording acoustic guitars in a home
with decent if modest gear, the most useful upgrade could be as simple
as a few moving blankets placed strategically to avoid the typical boxy
off-mike sound. THAT is the number one problem in all small rooms. It's
never the mic pre unless you're using the preamps in a 40 year old Radio
Shack PA mixer.

That's all well and good, but acoustic treatment solutions are seriously
lacking in flashing lights and buttons compared to electronic equipment.

If you could glue a few LEDs, a couple of nicely lit valves and some
retro dial meters onto your traps then they would be far more desirable.


--Ethan

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:50:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49ae1897.82514046@localhost...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:35:45 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Lots of people say stuff like this all the time. AFAIK, none of them
have
ever done a truely authoritative test of this. Time-matched,
level-synched, bias-controlled. I've seen what good testing has done to
many urban legends that used to be described using nearly identical
words.

Yeah, I see a lot of those words in this thread. As soon as someone says
the
difference between one competent mic pre or sound card or whatever and
another is "huge" I know they are not comparing properly.

You can do a heck of a lot to a home studio's acoustics for the price of
a
Great River, no?

That's exactly my point Arny. For recording acoustic guitars in a home
with
decent if modest gear, the most useful upgrade could be as simple as a few
moving blankets placed strategically to avoid the typical boxy off-mike
sound. THAT is the number one problem in all small rooms. It's never the
mic
pre unless you're using the preamps in a 40 year old Radio Shack PA mixer.

--Ethan

I have a cupboard full of winter-weight duvets that do an amazing job
- right down to 100Hz or so. Fluffed up they are about eight inches
thick.

Real men use out-of the box pieces of 705 in cloth-covered frames.

Actually, *R-E-A-L* men just hang up the pieces of 705 using dry wall
screws. ;-)


Nah. Real men don't worry about being macho. You wanna see some pink
duvet covers?

d

[[email protected]]

On 2009-02-27 ethanwatethanwinerdotcom said:
You can do a heck of a lot to a home studio's acoustics for the
price of a Great River, no?
That's exactly my point Arny. For recording acoustic guitars in a
home with decent if modest gear, the most useful upgrade could be
as simple as a few moving blankets placed strategically to avoid
the typical boxy off-mike sound. THAT is the number one problem in
all small rooms. It's never the mic pre unless you're using the
preamps in a 40 year old Radio Shack PA mixer.
A good man who used to post here quite often a few years ago
said that putting the lion's share of your expense and
effort into what happens on the business end of the
microphone will pay off big in what comes out the other end
of the chain. IF the instrument doesn't sound good in the
space you're using to capture it chances are good you're not
gonna lay down a good sound on your captured tracks.

A well played part on a good instrument in a decent sounding
space is always going to be good, even if the mic preamp and
other electronics are less than stellar. IT's also easier
to get that good sound transferred even if the microphone
itself is less than stellar if the noise you're making
sounds good in the place you're making it g.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Mike Rivers]

philicorda wrote:

If you could glue a few LEDs, a couple of nicely lit valves and some
retro dial meters onto your traps then they would be far more desirable.

Auralex is getting pretty close to that, with custom artwork printed on
their
panels. They have a deal with Gibson to put pictures of their guitars on
the wall hangings. I suppose you could send them artwork for a nice tube
preamp to put on your absorber panels, and you'd have half the best of
both worlds.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Sean[_5_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Sean wrote:

I was going along with the pres in my MOTU gear. They're ok. Then one
day I found I had some money I needed to get rid of, so I got me a
Millenia HV-3C.
We ain't talking subtle indeed. Holy crap.

We're also not talking about a small differential cost, either. Would
you say
"Holy crap" with the same meaning if you had, for example, spent $100 on
an ART or Samson tube preamp as your upgrade?

I don't know, but I suspect not. The MOTU gear is pretty good. I don't
know what benefit an ART would add. It would be like the difference
between a Fender Deluxe and a Deville.
In that analogy, the Millenia was like upgrading from a Hot Rod Deluxe
to a Dumble.