And thanks playon, these guys are making a big deal out of nothing...

I'm not thick headed people, I just have a lot of confidence in my
talent.

When was the last time a 15 year old came by and posted a thread like
this and took all the advice given asking one question after another
and showing respect to all the people helping him out? I'm just trying
to learn.

AND OF COURSE I AM NOT GOING TO RECORD TRACKS FOR 2 HOURS EACH JUST TO
HEAR THE QUALITY OF THE RECORDING! I'm recording the vocals raw without
adding any adlibs, reverb, eq, compression, etc in my software. If I
took those recordings I posted the links to, made a nice instrumental
to them and polished them up with VST plug-ins...of course they gonna
sound much better. This is my raw work...what do you expect? Yea, I'm
talkin to you Joe....do you want to hear my vocal abilities or my
studio's quality? My studio's quality is easily heard with these
"trash" recordings...and no, they are not my best work...they are just
recordings to get a hint of the sound quality...not a hint of my talent.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I'm sick too. Ok, climbing into
the Wayback Machine...

Hassan Ansari wrote:
Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
to go into my soundcard?

The easiest way, and one which allows you to avoid building a patch panel,
is go to Radio Shack and get the 4-pushbutton input A/V switch box with the
3 RCAs per input, and connect it between the Mackie and Eureka and the
RCA-ins on your sound card. While you're there, also get an XLR
Female-to1/4" Male transformer adapter to convert the XLR-out on your Eureka
to unbalanced 1/4". Then use a 1/4" female-to-RCA male to connect the
Eureka to one of the inputs on the switch box. You can have the Eureka on
Input A and the Mackie on Input B and easily punch between them as needed.
I'll probably get flamed for telling you to use Radio Shack transformers,
but they're cheap and they work. While you're at Radio Shack, make sure you
have whatever adaptors and cables needed to make it work, probably at least
a couple more RCA-RCAs. Radio Shack stuff isn't the best, but it's
convenient and if you get a bad cable you can take it back.

Okay, I turned the attack and release knobs all the way to the left
because that's where is says "fast". I don't know what you mean by 10db
and 4:1..hopefully not 10db of gain on the compressor...cuz that kills
the sound....4:1...I have no clue what knob to touch and where to put
it.

You got the attack and release right. Put the ratio knob on 4:1. Set the
VU meter to gain reduction. Then while singing into the mic, adjust the
threshold knob until the meter kicks back to around -10dB on the loud parts.
I also suggest you push in the "soft knee" button for smoother compressor
action.

Okay, I put thresh knob to number 6.

No, you have to use the meter, ignore the markings on the threshold knob for
now.

Some knobs honestly make so little of a difference to my ears
(and my friends' ears) that I don't really know where to put them.

The EQ control marked "Q" is the bandwidth control. It adjusts the width of
the response peak or dip and can come in handy after a lot of practice. But
for now, just leave them all set on 2, the mid position, as the other
controls will have much more impact at this point.

The effect of the "soft knee" button is somewhat subtle until you know what
you're listening for. Just know for now that you'll get a smoother sound
with it engaged. The "saturate" knob is useless marketing bull, and make
sure it is always on 0 for a clean sound. The "impedance" knob should be
all the way to the right unless you're using a ribbon mic. You can play
with the effect of input impedance later as it is also rather subtle.

So lets make sure you've got this thing set up for good gain structure.
We'll move left to right across the front panel.

First put the impedance knob all the way to the right and the saturate knob
all the way to the left. Now you can set the input gain on the preamp.
While singing loudly, increase the gain knob until the 0 dB LED blinks. The
clip LED should never blink, it is a true warning light.

Now get some initial settings on the compressor. A starting point. Push in
the "GR to Meter" button at the far right so that the meter will switch to
gain reduction mode. Compression is the automatic reduction of gain. Set
the side chain high pass knob all the way to the left to take it out of the
circuit for now. Set the attack and release all the way to fast. Engage
the "soft knee" button. Set the ratio control to 4:1. Now, while singing,
adjust the threshold knob until the meter is kicking back to about -10 dB on
the loud parts. This will make the overall volume lower, so you may have
to turn up the compressor output "gain" knob some to compensate.

Now set the EQ. My usual preference would be to have the compressor before
the EQ, so leave the EQComp button out. Turn all the Q controls to 2. Set
the low freq to 80 for future use, but set the low gain to 0, no boost or
cut. Set the mid freq to 2.8kHz and the mid gain to +4 dB. Sorry I didn't
know the mids only went up to 2.8k before. Just go with it for now. Now
set the high freq to 12kHz and the high gain to +6. These settings will
sound VERY bright in your headphones, but will make the vocal sit better in
the mix. And remember, we're just creating a starting point right now. You
can play with variations later to get a feel for what's going on.

Now the Master output gain (level). You can leave the "GR to Meter" button
engaged, as you need to adjust the output gain while looking at the meter in
Audition, not on the Eureka. While singing loudly, adjust the output gain
so that the meter in Audition hits up to about -10 to -6 dB, and never hits
0 dB. That'll give you a good playback level, but with some margin of error
for the loudest parts. Some of the guys will be more conservative and tell
you to set it even lower; I'm just telling you what I like.

Now you're set to a good starting place. The input preamp won't hiss or
distort, the compressor will be quite obviously riding gain on your voice,
and the EQ will be very bright to match the clarity of your backing tracks.
Try recording a full song with these settings and see how the vocal now sits
in the mix more clearly. Then try changing one knob at a time and listen to
the effect that knob has. That's the way to learn.

Somebody mentioned getting Bobby Owsinski's book, and that's a good idea.
The more your read and experiment, the more will gel in your mind about
what's going on with your controls. It also pays to read the Eureka manual
more than once; it should be regular bathroom literature until you know it
inside out. At Results Video, we called that the Christian Science Reading
Room due to the number of epiphanies causing guys to call Jesus' name in
exclamation. At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;-)

Mike Rivers is a little sensitive about people dissing Mackie, as he's done
a lot of good work for those guys and they do make good gear. I've used a
lot of Mackie gear myself, and still use an 8-bus to monitor and for non-mic
inputs. Having the switchbox to select between the Mackie and the Eureka
just helps keep your soundcard input path as clean as possible. If you had
a bunch of separate components you really would need a patch panel instead,
but the switchbox is really, really convenient. I've also used one as a
SMPTE sync router to sync my workstation to various video sources, but
that's not something for you to bother with unless you're doing audio for
video.

Happy Editing.

Jeff Jasper
Jeff Jasper Productions, West Funroe, La.

On 25 Dec 2004 23:51:18 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
wrote:

I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann?


Better equipment will maybe add a few percent to an otherwise great
recording. Look to your performance, the room and your recording
technique. What are you doing right on the good recordings you've
made? What are you doing wrong on the bad ones? Sort that out before
throwing money around. The problem isn't the gear.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On 27 Dec 2004 00:43:33 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
wrote:

Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
to go into my soundcard?

What a strange question :-)

Indeed, if you insist in feeding the soundcard from the Mackie RCA
outs, that is what you'll feed it from. Maybe you could feed it
from something else?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On 27 Dec 2004 00:43:33 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
wrote:

Okay, how do I get the Mackie out of the way if I'm using its RCA outs
to go into my soundcard? Do I get a new, more versatile interface with
XLR and 1/4" jacks or is there another way to do it?

Adaptor cables. Or a patchbay.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On 27 Dec 2004 11:05:56 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy"
wrote:

Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
run the Eureka through them? I have my monitors, speakers, headphones
and rca outs from my soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked
up to my Mackie...getting the Mackie out of the way would really be
hard for me. Is there a good replacement? Some mixer or interface which
would allow me to get all those things hooked up like the Mackie does
and not ruin the Eureka's sound? There are no headphone outs in the
Eureka...I see a TRS out in the back and an XLR out...then it has
insert send and return. I use the XLR out and plug it into my Mackie's
XLR in for mics. What would I do to get the Mackie out and still have
all my stuff organized and hooked up?


Is the Eureka's XLR out a mic level signal? I suspect it's line
level, which will overload the Mackie mic input. Use the jack
output to Line in on the Mackie.

You seem over-concerned with the connector type. You should worry
more about what electrical signal it carries. Adaptor cables are
easy to make. An XLR may be carrying line level, mic level (or a few
other things). So may a 1/4" jack.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On 27 Dec 2004 12:25:30 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
/ Rapper / Producer" wrote:

Okay, I did what you said immediately... I got the adapter and got the
Mackie out of the way. Then I recorded the same thing through the
Mackie without touching any settings on the Eureka. Here are the
results:

With Mackie:

http://www.abnoticrecords.com/mackie.mp3
http://www.abnoticrecords.com/nomackie.mp3


Can't be bothered to listen - and on the laptop I use for email I
probably wouldn't notice any difference :-)

Which sounds better?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

My first response would be that looking at the end you sing into, which
appears to be a couple of fine mics, is the wrong starting point. A) if you
move the Eureka out of the line and like the Mackie by itself better (as you
said), then at least that's one step forward. B) if you want even better,
then look at the pres and see what might benefit you if you absolutely HAVE
to spend money (like money burning a hole in your pocket), but for all
practical purposes if you can't get a good recording with your existing
equipment then I'd start looking at your gain staging and your recording
methods, your placement of the mic in the room (which you mentioned is now
dead) and the placement of yourself as you sing into the mic.

But if you can't get something good with what you have, it's not the
equipment that's the problem.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
them (I have gotten some, but most recordings turn out awful). I'm
using a Presonus Eureka and a Mackie 1202VLZ. I was wondering if it
would be a good idea to sell both of the mics, add a few hundred
dollars, and get something top notch like a used Lawson or Nuemann? The
only reason I'm considering this is because I only use the mics on my
voice, so it's not like I need different mics to match different
voices. Plus, I've never heard any major released CDs being recorded
with a Rode K2 or Baby Bottle, but I have heard many being recorded
with M147, etc. Should I make the upgrade? Even if I get like a Neumann
TLM 103, would it be a good decision or if I'm going to upgrade, I
should go with only the best? I want to eventually move up to a setup
with a Manley Voxbox or something similar and a well known and
respected microphone...and selling my cheap stuff is the only way I'm
gonna get there. I just don't know if I should though. I try again and
again but never get those "soft", "warm", "blended in with the
instrumental" vocals. They usually turn out either too low, distorted,
not blending in with the instrumental, etc...and even when they turn
out good, you can tell it's not from a big time studio. What's the
difference between them other studios and my studio? I read the
equipments most studios are using and pretty much the main stuff are a
good preamp, compressor, eq and mic. I got acoustic treatment for my
room so I can't do much more in improving my room, the only other thing
I see is the gear...they're using a little more expensive stuff than I
am. So is it a good idea to spend some money and get what the big guys
are using?

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
I was about to get the RE-20 because it was recommended to me quite a
few times, but then I was like, wait, will it really be better than my
Rode K2 tube mic? So I kinda stopped.

Go and try it. You will be surprised. If you don't try things, you will
never know.

Also realize that what is "best" on one source is not "best" on another.

The acoustication made the room
dead....and different. I don't know if better or worst is the
word....just different. The room is more bassy but quieter. I was
pretty satisfied as it only cost me 2 hours of my time and $70...the
room looks more professional...lol.

Is it totally dead? Is it too dead? If the room is very small, the only
solution might be to make it totally dead. There's only so much you can
do with a small room, and if you are stuck working in a place like this,
artificial reverb can be your salvation.

There are no places around here to
rent equipment...I've tried looking for a while and gave up. There are
studios around...but how would I know it's the mic which is making me
sound better, not their preamp, compressor, eq, interface, console,
etc. So I didn't try that either. I compared the Eureka to the Avalon
and it held its own...I was pretty surprised, so I didn't buy the
Avalon 737SP.

By bringing your own mike and trying your mike against theirs. Almost
certainly you will find it's _not_ the mike that is making things better,
which is a good thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
lol, that's a new one...SM-7....that just might be it though. The
Mackie does make it sound better...I tried goin in without the Mackie
and it didn't sound as nice....

The SM-7 is a good choice... it's more or less in the same league as the
RE-20 although it doesn't have the variable-D stuff so it is more touchy
about staying on-mike.

Oh, and I'm using BX5 for monitors...their low end SUCKS but they are
pretty ok for the price to tell if a mix is good or not. I would rather
spend like a thousand bucks on a better mic or preamp then
monitors...you know what I mean? I can easily burn the tracks on a CD
and listen to them on like a dozen different systems and get the
feeling of how good the track is recorded, but the mic and the preamp
or even the interface are the things which would make the sound better.

Have you spent a lot of time listening to commercial releases on the
BX5s? Spend a few weeks just listening to stuff carefully on them. Getting
a sense of how the monitors work and how the control room sounds is half
the struggle.

Did you guys listen to the sound from the link I posted? That might
help. So far I got:

Better preamp

an SM-7

an RE-20

The SM-7 and RE-20 are about comparable. A better preamp might be a good
idea. Staying out of the 1202 EQ section is a much better idea.

Change tube on Rode K2 ( I really would rather buy a better mic if I
have to do that...I don't know where to buy um or how to replace um )

Call Triode Electronics in Chicago. Tell them what you have, and what your
budget is, and ask for a decent upgrade. The JJ tubes from the former
Jugoslavia are pretty good and cheap. I don't think you will find the tube
upgrade to be a huge improvement, but it'll cost you ten bucks or so and
it might be more than ten bucks worth of improvement.

a distressor

It's a handy thing to have. The RNC is also. But neither one of these are
absolute necessities.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article .com,
Is there some mixer or interface I can use which would allow me to keep
everything hooked up like I have it on the Mackie and at the same time
not ruin the Eureka's quality? The Eureka has an XLR out and a TRS jack
for outputs. I have my monitors, speakers, headphones, rca outs from my
soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked up to the Mackie...how
would I hook all of them up without the Mackie there?

With a 1/4 to RCA cable. Markertek stocks them, or you can make your own.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:
Are there any mixers out which would improve the sound quality once I
run the Eureka through them?

No. Electronics don't improve sound quality. Sometimes electronics do
useful things, but you always have to deal with some level of degradation.
Use a cable.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article .com writes:

I was thinking...there are 2 chanels on the
Mackie where you can pretty much bypass the eq and they have 1/4"
inputs. I can take my Eureka's TRS, put it into those jacks without any
eq so the sound is nuetral and get it out to my soundcard....

Those are the AUX RETURN jacks, and yes, you could indeed connect your
preamp to those and it will go through a fairly direct path to the
main and tape outputs. You don't have the ability to solo it coming in
that way, and you don't have a good way to check the signal level, so
it's not as convenient as a regular channel, but it's a fairly simple
signal path.

Since this input is conventionally used for bringing the signal from
an effect such as a reverb unit back into the mix, and that isn't
considered a particularly "high fidelity" signal. Some manufacturers,
and I don't know if (or to what extent) this is the case with Mackie,
cheap out on these inputs, not putting in as well designed circuitry
or as quiet amplifier chips. But you're right - no EQ controls so
there's no need to worry that you have it really set flat. Give it a
try. It may not make your recordings sound any better, but it may ease
your conscience.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. 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 can only think of one Major's hit that used an SM7, which was Michael
Jackson's Thriller. And I wasn't impressed with it for that reason. But I
have an SM7 and it's great for trumpet, kick, guitar amp and a number of
other applications where some real dynamic range was required, as well as
some high SPL handling circumstances.

Then again, one has to assume that Bruce Swedien knew what he was doing in
his mic selection and that Quincy would have corrected the situation were it
not acceptable.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Truth" wrote in message
...
I own a Blue Baby Bottle and a Rode K2 Tube Microphone. They both are
decent mics but I haven't gotten many great recordings with either of
them

The Shure SM-7 costs a LOT less, and will blow all other microphones away.

www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer
wrote:

When was the last time a 15 year old came by and posted a thread like
this and took all the advice given asking one question after another
and showing respect to all the people helping him out? I'm just trying
to learn.

Get over yourself. Our best prior teen posters didn't bother to tell us
they were teens until well into their discussions. In the end they
impressed with their lack of self-importance.

--
ha

On 27 Dec 2004 21:50:12 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
/ Rapper / Producer" wrote:

I can deffinetly hear a difference...the sound going into my Mackie
sounds better on singing and without the Mackie it's more fuller and
better for my hip hop vocals....well that's how it sounds to me.

Right, to me it sounded noticeably "bigger" and more detailed with the
Mackie bypassed. I used to use a Mackie too... for just a couple of
hundred more $ I bought a used Soundcraft Delta off ebay that is
worlds better than the Mackie, although it takes up a lot more room.

Al

It's OK, these guys just love to give a free lecture with the free
advice... you get what you pay for.

Al

On 27 Dec 2004 22:09:07 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
/ Rapper / Producer" wrote:

And thanks playon, these guys are making a big deal out of nothing...

I'm not thick headed people, I just have a lot of confidence in my
talent.

When was the last time a 15 year old came by and posted a thread like
this and took all the advice given asking one question after another
and showing respect to all the people helping him out? I'm just trying
to learn.

AND OF COURSE I AM NOT GOING TO RECORD TRACKS FOR 2 HOURS EACH JUST TO
HEAR THE QUALITY OF THE RECORDING! I'm recording the vocals raw without
adding any adlibs, reverb, eq, compression, etc in my software. If I
took those recordings I posted the links to, made a nice instrumental
to them and polished them up with VST plug-ins...of course they gonna
sound much better. This is my raw work...what do you expect? Yea, I'm
talkin to you Joe....do you want to hear my vocal abilities or my
studio's quality? My studio's quality is easily heard with these
"trash" recordings...and no, they are not my best work...they are just
recordings to get a hint of the sound quality...not a hint of my talent.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:18:06 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
wrote:

I can only think of one Major's hit that used an SM7, which was Michael
Jackson's Thriller. And I wasn't impressed with it for that reason.

Really? When you first heard that record did you say "damn I hate the
sound of an SM7 on vocals"?

Al

But I
have an SM7 and it's great for trumpet, kick, guitar amp and a number of
other applications where some real dynamic range was required, as well as
some high SPL handling circumstances.

Then again, one has to assume that Bruce Swedien knew what he was doing in
his mic selection and that Quincy would have corrected the situation were it
not acceptable.

No, I said "turn up the damned vocals"! g

But I have to admit that I put a tune on the last RAP CD when the trumpet
player (well, I thought he was going to play trumpet on this one) used the
SM7 for a very small harp, which he proceeded to tear up on "I'd Love Me".
Check it out. I'll bet it's the only time an SM7 has been used for
harmonica.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"playon" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:18:06 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
wrote:

I can only think of one Major's hit that used an SM7, which was Michael
Jackson's Thriller. And I wasn't impressed with it for that reason.

Really? When you first heard that record did you say "damn I hate the
sound of an SM7 on vocals"?

Al

But I
have an SM7 and it's great for trumpet, kick, guitar amp and a number of
other applications where some real dynamic range was required, as well as
some high SPL handling circumstances.

Then again, one has to assume that Bruce Swedien knew what he was doing
in
his mic selection and that Quincy would have corrected the situation were
it
not acceptable.

Set the ratio control to 4:1

So ratio knob at the number 4?

Turn all the Q controls to 2.

There are no numbers on the Q knobs, but there are about 20 little
lines around it. So put it on the 2nd line starting at the right?

I've also used one as a
SMPTE sync router to sync my workstation to various video sources, but
that's not something for you to bother with unless you're doing audio
for
video.

OMG! I've been trying to record a video to sync in with one of my
tracks perfectly and after days of stress I gave up...I wanted to match
my lips with the words on the track and it just wasn't working. Is that
what that thing allows you to do? If so, I'm very interested. I want to
make a low budget video for fun and then maybe get some better video
equipment for a video which I can get aired on local TV stations.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!!! I'll get that book too and start
reading.

Oh, I've been trying that for the longest time. I actually made my best
recording yet using a ADK 51 with my Mackie (no Eureka, Baby Bottles or
Rode K2s). The technique I used....um I really don't know. I do
remember that I had the preamp gain quite high and was pretty far away
from the mic (maybe 16 inches). I had turned down the beat really low
in Audition and the vocals were being recorded at pretty normal volume
since I was quite far, not too loud and the gain was set pretty high.
Then at the end, I mixed the track down and normalized it at around 2db
so everything was louder (music and vocals) and it blended in pretty
well. I love how that recording turned out even though there are some
issues in it like hiss and slight distortion (my ADK was dropped too
many times).

Set the ratio control to 4:1

So ratio knob at the number 4?

Turn all the Q controls to 2.

There are no numbers on the Q knobs, but there are about 20 little
lines around it. So put it on the 2nd line starting at the right?

I've also used one as a
SMPTE sync router to sync my workstation to various video sources, but
that's not something for you to bother with unless you're doing audio
for
video.

OMG! I've been trying to record a video to sync in with one of my
tracks perfectly and after days of stress I gave up...I wanted to match
my lips with the words on the track and it just wasn't working. Is that
what that thing allows you to do? If so, I'm very interested. I want to
make a low budget video for fun and then maybe get some better video
equipment for a video which I can get aired on local TV stations.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!!! I'll get that book too and start
reading.

www.HassanAnsari.com - Teen Prodigy wrote:

lol, that's a new one...SM-7....that just might be it though. The
Mackie does make it sound better...I tried goin in without the Mackie
and it didn't sound as nice....


The SM-7 is a good choice... it's more or less in the same league as
the
RE-20 although it doesn't have the variable-D stuff so it is more
touchy
about staying on-mike.


Oh, and I'm using BX5 for monitors...their low end SUCKS but they are
pretty ok for the price to tell if a mix is good or not. I would
rather
spend like a thousand bucks on a better mic or preamp then
monitors...you know what I mean? I can easily burn the tracks on a CD
and listen to them on like a dozen different systems and get the
feeling of how good the track is recorded, but the mic and the preamp
or even the interface are the things which would make the sound
better.


Have you spent a lot of time listening to commercial releases on the
BX5s? Spend a few weeks just listening to stuff carefully on them.
Getting
a sense of how the monitors work and how the control room sounds is
half
the struggle.


Did you guys listen to the sound from the link I posted? That might
help. So far I got:

Better preamp


an SM-7


an RE-20



The SM-7 and RE-20 are about comparable. A better preamp might be a
good
idea. Staying out of the 1202 EQ section is a much better idea.


Change tube on Rode K2 ( I really would rather buy a better mic if I
have to do that...I don't know where to buy um or how to replace um )


Call Triode Electronics in Chicago. Tell them what you have, and what
your
budget is, and ask for a decent upgrade. The JJ tubes from the former
Jugoslavia are pretty good and cheap. I don't think you will find the
tube
upgrade to be a huge improvement, but it'll cost you ten bucks or so
and
it might be more than ten bucks worth of improvement.


a distressor


It's a handy thing to have. The RNC is also. But neither one of these
are
absolute necessities.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


I'm going to give the SM-7B a try if it's still not working out for me,
only because it is cheaper than the RE-20 and I've heard some
impressive recordings with the SM-7. Yea, the monitors I'm still not
used to yet. If I turn them up more than quarter of the way, they add
serious hiss. I have to then turn up the Mackie which also adds
hiss....so I'm not getting the true sound quality of the recording
listening to them...but HR824 are probably the only monitors I'll get
if I upgrade simply because I haven't seen one bad review about them.
They are a little expensive though, so I think I'll be sticking with
these little 75 watt guys for a while. The room is almost fully
dead...not all the way, but very close to it (I was trying to save
money so I didn't put the foam one next to another, they all have about
a 6 inch gap between them). Reverb plugins do help out a lot and I use
them on every recording...they open up the sound. I'll spend some
private time with my monitors, listen to them, and get to know them
better. lol.

In article .com,



Is there some mixer or interface I can use which would allow me to
keep
everything hooked up like I have it on the Mackie and at the same time
not ruin the Eureka's quality? The Eureka has an XLR out and a TRS
jack
for outputs. I have my monitors, speakers, headphones, rca outs from
my
soundcard and rca ins to my soundcard all hooked up to the
Mackie...how
would I hook all of them up without the Mackie there?


With a 1/4 to RCA cable. Markertek stocks them, or you can make your
own.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


I did that and posted the links to the 2 files...one with Mackie,
another with the Mackie out of the way.

Mackie in the middle of soundcard and Eureka:

http://www.abnoticrecords.com/mackie.mp3

TRS from Eureka converted into RCA and right into my soundcard:

http://www.abnoticrecords.com/nomackie.mp3

The Mackie makes the sound thinner..but brighter.

If you have time, give this song a listen...I just recorded it
yesterday with the Mackie in the middle of the Eureka and soundcard:

http://www.soundclick.com/util/strea...D=1928052&q=Hi

(My friend is on the first verse, I'm on the 2nd verse and singing at
the end. Turned out pretty good...just wish the vocals blended in a
little more).

I didn't tell you guys I was a teen either until someone brought it up.
I actually changed my nickname before someone even said anything. I'm
not advertising my age at all.

Can you give me a link to a site which carries the Soundcraft Delta
which you are talking about? I looked it up on Google and only found
consoles for like $6,000. Upgrading my Mackie to a slightly better
mixer wouldn't be a bad idea...I've had this thing for about 6 years. I
was looking at A&H before...or even a new Mackie...I like the Mackie.
My friend will buy this one off me for about $200...so adding $500 or
so to that and getting a better qualiy mixer wouldn't hurt me.

Take a listen to this:

http://www.abnoticrecords.com/quality.mp3

I think my quality is slowly improving as I change settings and methods
of recording. That's with the Eureka and the Mackie. Give me some
feedback on the instrumental if you don't mind...I was trying to test
my piano skills...lol...I don't know if it turned out good or not.

Take a listen to this:

http://www.abnoticrecords.com/quality.mp3

I think my quality is slowly improving as I change settings and methods
of recording. That's with the Eureka and the Mackie.

How absolutely hilarious! We are supposed to just the quality from a
crap MP3 file, and only at 128 kbps yet!

Hey next time broadcast it over an AM radio station first so we can judge
the quality even better yet!

...I don't know if it turned out good or not.

Of course you don't. Not surprising at all.

I found mine on ebay... a guy in the bay area was liquidating a video
post-production place. I had to buy a new power supply for it, so I
ended up spending around $1200 all told. It could use a little TLC but
it works well. I was real happy to get it since as you discovered
these boards new go for a lot of money. Search google for "used
Soundcraft Delta" They made them in 8, 12, 16, 32 channel models.

http://www.proaudiosystems.co.uk/aca...soles_149.html


The new Onyx Mackie boards are supposed to be an improvement and that
might be a better way to go for you... usually older gear needs some
attention. I've never heard the Onyx line so I can't speak from
experience as to how good they are.

Al

On 29 Dec 2004 11:33:37 -0800, "www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer
/ Rapper / Producer" wrote:

Can you give me a link to a site which carries the Soundcraft Delta
which you are talking about? I looked it up on Google and only found
consoles for like $6,000. Upgrading my Mackie to a slightly better
mixer wouldn't be a bad idea...I've had this thing for about 6 years. I
was looking at A&H before...or even a new Mackie...I like the Mackie.
My friend will buy this one off me for about $200...so adding $500 or
so to that and getting a better qualiy mixer wouldn't hurt me.

www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer
wrote:

Can you give me a link to a site which carries the Soundcraft Delta
which you are talking about? I looked it up on Google and only found
consoles for like $6,000. Upgrading my Mackie to a slightly better
mixer wouldn't be a bad idea...I've had this thing for about 6 years. I
was looking at A&H before...or even a new Mackie...I like the Mackie.
My friend will buy this one off me for about $200...so adding $500 or
so to that and getting a better qualiy mixer wouldn't hurt me.

A Mackie of their Onyx persusasion. Pretty good little mixers.

--
ha

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:22:20 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer
wrote:

Can you give me a link to a site which carries the Soundcraft Delta
which you are talking about? I looked it up on Google and only found
consoles for like $6,000. Upgrading my Mackie to a slightly better
mixer wouldn't be a bad idea...I've had this thing for about 6 years. I
was looking at A&H before...or even a new Mackie...I like the Mackie.
My friend will buy this one off me for about $200...so adding $500 or
so to that and getting a better qualiy mixer wouldn't hurt me.

A Mackie of their Onyx persusasion. Pretty good little mixers.

So you've heard them? Are they a significant improvement over the old
smaller mixers?

Al

playon wrote:

The new Onyx Mackie boards are supposed to be an improvement and that
might be a better way to go for you... usually older gear needs some
attention. I've never heard the Onyx line so I can't speak from
experience as to how good they are.

Better preamps, better EQ that is bypassable; don't know about the
busses yet as I haven't mixed much on one.

--
ha

Roger W. Norman wrote:

No, I said "turn up the damned vocals"! g

But I have to admit that I put a tune on the last RAP CD when the trumpet
player (well, I thought he was going to play trumpet on this one) used the
SM7 for a very small harp, which he proceeded to tear up on "I'd Love Me".
Check it out. I'll bet it's the only time an SM7 has been used for
harmonica.


Or maybe not:

http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rap/vol.../tonebarge.htm

You want me to upload multiple 30MB wave files for you then and make
all the people with 56Kbps wait over 5 hours to download them everytime
I upload new ones? The changes in quality are easily noticeable through
128 kbps mp3. I'm not an idiot...you're just deaf if you can't hear the
differences. As a matter of fact, I am almost positive I know a WHOLE
lot more than you do about computers...I've taken local college level
classes. I know what I'm doing, so if you aren't trying to help, don't
post. If you are trying to make a point, say it with a little respect.
How about..."I can't really judge the quality at that much compression
rate, can you upload them at a higher bitrate?"

playon wrote:

(hank alrich) wrote:

www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer
wrote:

Can you give me a link to a site which carries the Soundcraft Delta
which you are talking about? I looked it up on Google and only found
consoles for like $6,000. Upgrading my Mackie to a slightly better
mixer wouldn't be a bad idea...I've had this thing for about 6 years. I
was looking at A&H before...or even a new Mackie...I like the Mackie.
My friend will buy this one off me for about $200...so adding $500 or
so to that and getting a better qualiy mixer wouldn't hurt me.

A Mackie of their Onyx persusasion. Pretty good little mixers.

So you've heard them? Are they a significant improvement over the old
smaller mixers?

Yes, I have used one for some simple stuff here, not including actually
doing a mix. It's quite a bit better, and no longer priced at the
bottom, where there is hardly room anymore for quality. See my brief
comments in another post to this thread. To those I'll add it still has
60 mm faders, and it also has ventilation via perforated chassis along
the top rear of the chassis, where it could take liquid hits in a bar
scene.

--
ha

Hassan Ansari wrote:
Set the ratio control to 4:1

Right.

So ratio knob at the number 4?

Right.

Turn all the Q controls to 2.

There are no numbers on the Q knobs, but there are about 20 little
lines around it. So put it on the 2nd line starting at the right?

Wrong. The front panel photo I saw was marked with more than just hash
marks. But if all ya got is hash marks, a Q of 2 is apparently straight up
and down at the 12:00 o'clock position, halfway thru the knob's rotation,
according to the online photo.

OMG! I've been trying to record a video to sync in with one of my
tracks perfectly and after days of stress I gave up...I wanted to match
my lips with the words on the track and it just wasn't working. Is that
what that thing allows you to do?

No, the switchbox I was using in that case just switched between time code
*sources* (different VTRs) for the SMPTE sync card in the workstation. The
SMPTE card listens to a digital code from the video tape to start recording
or playback at exactly the right moment, and then keeps the workstation in
sync with the video tape as the video plays. Thus they are "locked in
sync."

There are cards available that can use "MIDI time code," SMPTE time code
(the real standard), or both. So you can lock your audio to a video tape or
a video workstation. And of course, there's plenty software these days that
has both video editing and multitrack audio editing all in one. I don't do
video, but there are plenty of guys on this and the desktop video newsgroup
who can tell you much more about dealing with video in 2004 than I can.
These days I'm just doing voiceovers and mixing canned audio for spots, and
the video is no longer my problem. (Yay!)

If so, I'm very interested. I want to
make a low budget video for fun and then maybe get some better video
equipment for a video which I can get aired on local TV stations.

If you think audio is a bottomless money pit, video is the black hole. LOL!
Good luck. At least it's cheaper than ever to do video.

Jeff Jasper
Jeff Jasper Productions, West Funroe, La.

I was looking at this cool little thing too:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MEWA:IT
What you think?

lol, thanks for the help Jeff. I'm gonna hold on for the video and get
my audio knowledge boosted up more...then maybe start messing with
video next year or so. I recorded myself acting last night just for fun
on a camcorder...I was impressed. lol. But I'm not giving up music for
anything.

I've been looking up duplication companies and distributions
companies...so hopefully by May of 2005 I can have something on the
shelves of FYE and Sam Goodys. If you know any companies, please do
share. I know www.discmakers.com has a great reputation. I was also
looking at www.gatemedia.com. I mean if I can sell about 5,000 copies
making $7 off each copy, it's not bad at all. I talked to my local
radio stations so I'm already getting advertising setup and renting a
club or a theater to do a concert right before the release. So it will
be a small $15,000 project or so and I'll end up making around $40,000
at the end of the year after the CD sales and concert. Works for me! :-)

www.HassanAnsari.com - Writer / Singer / Rapper / Producer wrote:
You want me to upload multiple 30MB wave files for you then and make
all the people with 56Kbps wait over 5 hours to download them
everytime
I upload new ones?
= = = = =
Suggestions for posting 'quality evaluation' clips.

Use wave files if at all possible.
Keep it short: 30-45sec. to a minute at most.
24bit preferred
DON'T NORMALIZE / COMPRESS / CLIP / HAMMER !
set levels right ahead of time and leave it clean.
Zip (WinZip) the file.

Zipping won't make as small a file as MP3, but then
you aren't throwing the baby out with the wash, either.

If you absolutely have to MP3, use the highest bitrate
and best encoder you have.
(lame? someone else help me out here)
I don't ever make MP3's - can't stand the sound of them,
but I do know that some suck way less than others.

RD

ps - you might try being a little more humble,
the precocious self-agrandizing attitude wears thin real fast.
(I meant that in a nice way)
(really)

In article writes:

The new Onyx Mackie boards are supposed to be an improvement and that
might be a better way to go for you... usually older gear needs some
attention. I've never heard the Onyx line so I can't speak from
experience as to how good they are.

I have one of each of the Onyx boards here for evaluation now. I
haven't worked them very hard or done any critical listening with them
yet but they look nice and have some well thought out features. I
don't use EQ enough to be fussy about it (I'm one of those people who
doesn't know how awful the Mackie EQ is because I don't use it much)
but reports are that the EQ in the Onyx boards sounds better than in
the previous design. I'm sure the mic preamp is at least as good as
ever, probably better.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo