How To Set Up A Mixer For Recording Vocals
Recording Vocals With Analog Mixers
Hi all. Outset post here, hopefully it's in the right section / category. A petty background get-go. I've been recording hip hop music for several years, probably more than ten. However, I've had a couple years of "down time" in the middle due to life priorities. I'thousand finally getting back into it. I'chiliad non a noob, and then to speak, simply I'1000 withal sort of in the dark on some things, particularly hardware.
Currently, I record vocals with the following:
PC (quad core CPU, 8GB RAM)
Cubase five
Rode NT1A mic
Grand-Sound Delta 1010LT PCI sound interface
Chiliad-Sound AudioBuddy pre (first and simply pre I've always endemic - I call back this is my biggest problem)
The vocals have always been decent. However, I recently recorded at a local studio. The guy is running a large analog mixing panel among other high end gear. The difference in quality between mine and his is pregnant, of course. While I'k not necessarily trying to attain the same level, every bit I'm on a budget, I do recall I could get much better quality, reasonably and affordably.
Am I correct in saying that the AudioBuddy pre is possibly the biggest trouble, currently? Or am I wrong? If I'm wrong, please fill up me in!
And then I have a Mackie DFX12 mixer that belonged to an uncle who passed several years ago. Information technology has no USB connexion. I'm wondering what else I may need to get the mixer hooked up to the PC / audio interface for the sole purpose of recording vocals, including monitoring the signal of course - the whole affair. And is it likely that doing so will yield a noticeable increment in song signal quality over my existing setup?
I would post a link to DFX12 specs, merely I'1000 not sure if I'm immune to post external links. I can edit the post with a link if requested, or you tin can look it upward / pull from personal knowledge. I practise know it has phantom power and a mic pre on channels one & 2.
Thank you in advance. Let me know if I left out any pertinent details and I'll exist glad to add them.
Gear Guru
The Audiobuddy is not doing you any favors.
You might attempt different mics... although the NT1A is OK. Not your weakest link.
Some kind of compressor on the way in will help circular things off. Fifty-fifty an ART Pro VLAII or a RNC.
The local studio might have a far better recording environment than your space.
I'd try the Mackie board preamps > compressor > Delta 1010LT. From in that location, go a decent mic pre and a better interface.
Quote:
Originally Posted past kennybro ➡️
The Audiobuddy is not doing you any favors.
Y'all might try different mics... although the NT1A is OK. Not your weakest link.
Some kind of compressor on the fashion in volition aid round things off. Even an Art Pro VLAII or a RNC.
The local studio might have a far better recording environment than your space.
I'd try the Mackie board preamps > compressor > Delta 1010LT. From there, go a decent mic pre and a improve interface.
The mic also belonged to my uncle, so that's why I've been using information technology. Before that, I used an AKG Perception 100, which was besides the first condenser I ever owned. At this signal, I simply haven't taken the fourth dimension to shop around for a new mic. Are at that place any particular mics you personally recommend for vocals, that would be the adjacent stride up from the Rode?
Also, I actually have thought well-nigh a compressor earlier. I've seen the Art before. It'southward not very expensive either, but I've considered the dbx 266XS (comp and gate). It is indeed cheaper, simply practise y'all know how the cheaper dbx may stack upward to something similar the Fine art.
Yes, the studio definitely has a better environment. He has a dedicated and treated vocal berth - another factor, I know. I like to take this stuff one step at a time, because it'due south more than a hobby than annihilation. No demand to accept huge leaps at a time.
I appreciate the input!
Lives for gear
Quote:
1000-Audio Audiobuddy pre (first and but pre I've ever owned - I recollect this is my biggest problem)
And you are right. Its a $25 'POS'
If information technology was me, i would upgrade the sound interface that has good pre-amps in it and do abroad with the thought of but getting a pre-amp to friction match with the Delta card. The shortest signal path to the recording source information technology the best way to go in my opinion.
This is what i would do, its your decision though
CJ
Quote:
Originally Posted past CJ Mastering ➡️
And you are right. Its a $25 'POS'
If it was me, i would upgrade the sound interface that has good pre-amps in information technology and exercise away with the idea of simply getting a pre-amp to match with the Delta carte du jour. The shortest signal path to the recording source it the best way to go in my stance.
This is what i would do, its your conclusion though
CJ
Yeah, I become it! Thanks for the input. I've had the AudioBuddy since 2007. LoL. It was my very showtime pre, earlier I knew that I'd savour making music every bit much as I do now. At the time, I besides had an equally "POS" estimator and no interface. :P
What interfaces do you recommend that have decent mic pres built in? I don't have a large budget - maybe $300 or less. If that's not realistic, well, I guess I'll just have to expect. Simply I'chiliad hoping I tin make something happen sooner rather than later.
Your mic is fine, but yous won't approach the sound of a professional person studio with the remainder of your set up-up. Y'all demand a amend interface, better preamp (you tin can combine the two) and probably a better room (audio treatment, song booth, etc.).
If you only have $300, I would wait honestly and save upwards until y'all can get something decent that has really skillful converters and decent preamps. There are lots around, but not for $300 that I know of. Once y'all get to $550 or so, yous tin get an Apogee Duet or RME Babyface. The divergence you feel should exist pregnant. Or buy used and perchance you can become ane of those for closer to $300.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snail ➡️
Your mic is fine, but yous won't arroyo the sound of a professional studio with the residuum of your set-up. You demand a meliorate interface, better preamp (you can combine the 2) and probably a better room (audio treatment, vocal booth, etc.).
If you only take $300, I would wait honestly and save up until you can become something decent that has actually expert converters and decent preamps. There are lots around, but not for $300 that I know of. Once you go to $550 or then, you lot can become an Apogee Duet or RME Babyface. The difference y'all feel should exist significant. Or purchase used and peradventure you lot tin get one of those for closer to $300.
No problem. I'thousand not in a position to record myself right now anyway. Simply planning ahead, considering I should be support and running in a year or and so. Thanks for the info. Once I pay down a previous purchase, I may consider one of these.
I have looked at the Apogee Duet and the RME Babyface, as they were recommended in other threads while I've been searching. I'chiliad not very familiar with these. Do these negate the need for the Delta 1010LT, or would these devices go into that interface? I can't tell exactly from what I'm looking at.
EDIT:
I come across now that you said a better interface. No worries. Then the RME, for example, is it USB -> computer?
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by bin_tenn ➡️
The mic also belonged to my uncle, so that's why I've been using it. Earlier that, I used an AKG Perception 100, which was also the starting time condenser I ever endemic. At this signal, I just haven't taken the time to shop around for a new mic. Are there any particular mics you lot personally recommend for vocals, that would be the next step up from the Rode?
I've gotten some pretty practiced stuff from Rode mics. They are not bad. I'd probably work on other stuff commencement, but shoot for something like an AKG 414 somewhen. It's tough to tell, because anybody's vocalism responds to different mics uniquely. But something like the Shure KSM32 is i helluva usable mic for 550 bucks. Continue and use the Rode, and outset collecting a few more nice pieces. You volition use them all.
You lot might want to have a look at iSK mics. Their 2B Beauty is a great tube mic at a dandy cost. And remember that something like an RE20 or SM7 will minimize room affects. Merely you may not similar a dynamic for a vocal mic.
Quote:
Originally Posted past bin_tenn ➡️
Also, I really take thought nearly a compressor earlier. I've seen the Fine art before. It'southward not very expensive either, but I've considered the dbx 266XS (comp and gate). It is indeed cheaper, only exercise you know how the cheaper dbx may stack up to something like the Art.
I utilize the Art at a guy's studio all the time, and I like information technology a lot. I've got DBX160VU's, UA LA2A'south, 1176'southward, and other classics at piece of work and at home hither, and the Art stands up nicely in comparing. It's not an LA2A, but it sounds very good. Very usable. It surprises me every time we use information technology.
I'd say steer clear of those DBX comps, especially the 266. Total crap. The 166 is not horrid, only for about the same price, the Fine art beats it hands down as a tracking compressor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bin_tenn ➡️
Aye, the studio definitely has a better environment. He has a dedicated and treated song berth - another factor, I know. I like to take this stuff one step at a time, because it's more a hobby than anything. No demand to take huge leaps at a time.
I appreciate the input!
I'd say endeavour the Kaotica Eyeball, but at $200 to $350, information technology's fashion overpriced, IMHO. So are those other ISO devices.
Build some kind of vocal isolation instead. Get some acoustic handling cream squares and hang them around the mic... try different things, and listen to how they bear upon the sound. Hang blankets around the mic. Practice whatsoever. Experiment.
Using a comp during tracking is going to accentuate room issues, but those will appear anyway if you compress the vocal while mixing, because they got recorded on the rails. Ameliorate to hear them up front end, and set problems while tracking. I always compress ii to 4 db while tracking vocal.
I know yous can become great vocal tracks with the Rode > Mackie pre > Fine art comp > interface. Specially if you go some decent treatment going effectually the mic. And don't forget, if you are hating your vocals, in that location is a huge run a risk that you need to work on your singing. But saying. Keep recording and evaluating your tracks, comparing them to pro recorded tracks, and identify what you need to do to get your closer to pro. It could be gear... information technology could be your vocalisation... probably a combo of both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro ➡️
I've gotten some pretty good stuff from Rode mics. They are not bad. I'd probably work on other stuff showtime, but shoot for something like an AKG 414 eventually. It's tough to tell, because anybody's phonation responds to different mics uniquely. Only something like the Shure KSM32 is 1 helluva usable mic for 550 bucks. Keep and use the Rode, and start collecting a few more than nice pieces. Yous will utilise them all.
You might want to take a look at iSK mics. Their 2B Beauty is a neat tube mic at a great price. And remember that something like an RE20 or SM7 volition minimize room affects. But you may non similar a dynamic for a vocal mic.
I use the ART at a guy's studio all the time, and I similar it a lot. I've got DBX160VU's, UA LA2A's, 1176's, and other classics at piece of work and at home here, and the Fine art stands up nicely in comparing. It's non an LA2A, but it sounds very good. Very usable. It surprises me every time we utilise it.
I'd say steer clear of those DBX comps, especially the 266. Total crap. The 166 is not horrid, but for nearly the aforementioned cost, the Fine art beats it easily downwardly as a tracking compressor.
I'd say try the Kaotica Eyeball, merely at $200 to $350, it's way overpriced, IMHO. So are those other ISO devices.
Build some kind of vocal isolation instead. Go some acoustic treatment cream squares and hang them around the mic... try unlike things, and listen to how they bear upon the audio. Hang blankets around the mic. Exercise whatsoever. Experiment.
Using a comp during tracking is going to accentuate room problems, merely those will appear anyway if you lot compress the song while mixing, because they got recorded on the track. Better to hear them up forepart, and fix problems while tracking. I always compress 2 to 4 db while tracking vocal.
I know you tin can go bang-up song tracks with the Rode > Mackie pre > ART comp > interface. Especially if you get some decent treatment going around the mic. And don't forget, if you lot are hating your vocals, there is a huge chance that you need to work on your singing. Just maxim. Continue recording and evaluating your tracks, comparing them to pro recorded tracks, and identify what you demand to do to get your closer to pro. Information technology could be gear... it could be your vocalisation... probably a combo of both.
Thank you for the detailed response, much appreciated. So for room handling, I've previously recorded in an open room. Maybe with the mic near a corner, and it seemed to minimize a lot of room dissonance the way I had it. Even so, earlier having to temporarily retire my setup final year, I actually built a 4ft ten 6ft x 6ft frame from PVC piping and fittings, and draped big blankets over information technology. It made a noticeable difference in the recording quality.
I don't dislike the style my recordings sound overall. They are still articulate enough that people are oft amazed at the quality when I tell them I tape in an open room with no special treatment. Granted, these people aren't musicians / engineers / any. But my electric current quality is still acceptable, no dubiousness.
What I'chiliad really missing is clarity, I believe. A lot of my vocals sound a tad dingy, lacking some of the crisp upper (mid upper?) frequencies. I hear that, though my average "listeners" don't necessarily point it out. This is really what I'g out to fix, it seems. And information technology seems every bit though the AudioBuddy (more than this, I think) and/or 1010LT are the root of that upshot. Correct me if I'grand incorrect though!
Every bit for commitment, working the mic, etc, I don't think I have any problems. I record at this tertiary party studio exactly how I practice at habitation, and his quality is noticeably greater. Again, he has a lot more loftier end equipment, only I'd still like to step mine up a lilliputian closer to that. The guy who records u.s.a. (my brother and I) has had no qualms with our arroyo thus far.
This lack of clarity also exists for my brother on my setup. He and I have quite different voices, tonally. Mine is fairly low, his is a bit more mid/high. He's also a lot louder than I am, naturally as well as when recording.
I'll look at possibly experimenting with the mixer and a compressor (probably the ART) when I get my equipment fix support. In the meantime, I'll continue researching and I'll also talk to the guy who records us currently, to run across what he may have to add.
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted past bin_tenn ➡️
Cheers for the detailed response, much appreciated. And then for room treatment, I've previously recorded in an open room. Maybe with the mic nigh a corner, and it seemed to minimize a lot of room dissonance the style I had it. However, before having to temporarily retire my setup last year, I actually congenital a 4ft x 6ft x 6ft frame from PVC pipe and fittings, and draped large blankets over it. Information technology made a noticeable difference in the recording quality.
Yeah, I've done this and it has worked very well for me. It'south non exactly scientific approach, but if it sounds good, it is skilful.
Quote:
Originally Posted past bin_tenn ➡️
I don't dislike the style my recordings audio overall. They are yet clear enough that people are frequently amazed at the quality when I tell them I record in an open up room with no special handling. Granted, these people aren't musicians / engineers / whatever. Just my current quality is nonetheless adequate, no doubt.
What I'm really missing is clarity, I believe. A lot of my vocals sound a tad dingy, defective some of the crisp upper (mid upper?) frequencies. I hear that, though my average "listeners" don't necessarily bespeak it out. This is really what I'yard out to ready, it seems. And it seems every bit though the AudioBuddy (more this, I think) and/or 1010LT are the root of that effect. Correct me if I'm wrong though!
The Audiobuddy could be an consequence, but from what I understand, the 1010LT is an OK piece. But yep, the Mackie pres will probably deliver better clarity than that audiobuddy thing.
If you accept been recording "near a corner" that could be a problem. Low frequencies tend to assemble and build in room corners, and your vocal mic might be picking upwards those bumps causing muddy buildup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bin_tenn ➡️
As for delivery, working the mic, etc, I don't call back I accept any bug. I record at this third political party studio exactly how I do at home, and his quality is noticeably greater. Again, he has a lot more loftier finish equipment, but I'd still like to pace mine up a fiddling closer to that. The guy who records us (my brother and I) has had no qualms with our arroyo thus far.
This lack of clarity likewise exists for my brother on my setup. He and I have quite unlike voices, tonally. Mine is fairly depression, his is a bit more mid/loftier. He'south also a lot louder than I am, naturally equally well as when recording.
The Rode mic can't be the culprit for this. It'southward a fairly even-counterbalanced piece across xx to 20k, as long as you don't crowd information technology and get proximity going. Really has a bit of a presence hump starting around 3k. I think possibly your muddiness might be room standing waves plus smearing from the cheap preamp. Perchance accept the Rode into the pro studio, and see how information technology differs from when its in your place. And remember, nothing wrong with a little EQ to brighten up a song. That might be what the studio guy is doing, who knows. But get it clear, without muddiness before yous EQ. Go a good solid sounding track first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bin_tenn ➡️
I'll await at possibly experimenting with the mixer and a compressor (probably the Art) when I become my equipment set back up. In the concurrently, I'll continue researching and I'll also talk to the guy who records us currently, to see what he may take to add.
Sounds like a good program. If you want to meliorate your recording audio, you lot need to get forward in small steps, understanding the impacts of each little affair you lot either eliminate or bring to the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro ➡️
Yeah, I've done this and information technology has worked very well for me. It's non exactly scientific approach, but if it sounds proficient, it is good.
The Audiobuddy could exist an consequence, merely from what I understand, the 1010LT is an OK piece. But yeah, the Mackie pres will probably deliver improve clarity than that audiobuddy thing.
If yous have been recording "near a corner" that could be a problem. Low frequencies tend to assemble and build in room corners, and your vocal mic might be picking up those bumps causing muddied buildup.
The Rode mic can't exist the culprit for this. It'southward a fairly even-balanced piece across 20 to 20k, equally long equally you don't oversupply information technology and go proximity going. Actually has a scrap of a presence hump starting around 3k. I recollect maybe your muddiness might be room standing waves plus smearing from the inexpensive preamp. Maybe accept the Rode into the pro studio, and encounter how it differs from when its in your identify. And remember, zilch wrong with a little EQ to brighten up a vocal. That might be what the studio guy is doing, who knows. But go it articulate, without muddiness before you EQ. Become a good solid sounding rails first.
Sounds similar a good plan. If you want to ameliorate your recording sound, you lot need to go forward in small steps, understanding the impacts of each piddling matter you either eliminate or bring to the table.
Thanks! I've been because the other communication given likewise. In doing so, I've actually been researching the Audient iD22, afterward looking at the suggested Apogee Duet and RME Babyface.
I currently only have a laptop and so fugitive unnecessary hardware would be slap-up. From what I tin tell, the iD22 could be a major step on both the laptop and even my desktop - am I reading into this correctly? That is, keeping the Rode mic and running the iD22, and eventually maybe a compressor.
I can swing the $500 or then for information technology, and so if it'd be a worthwhile investment now and when I get my desktop set dorsum upward, I'yard willing to do it. Practice y'all have whatever experience with these things?
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by bin_tenn ➡️
Thanks! I've been because the other advice given equally well. In doing then, I've really been researching the Audient iD22, later looking at the suggested Apogee Duet and RME Babyface.
I currently only have a laptop and so avoiding unnecessary hardware would exist bang-up. From what I can tell, the iD22 could exist a major step on both the laptop and even my desktop - am I reading into this correctly? That is, keeping the Rode mic and running the iD22, and eventually maybe a compressor.
I can swing the $500 or then for it, and so if it'd exist a worthwhile investment now and when I get my desktop set support, I'm willing to do it. Do you lot have any experience with these things?
Audient is good stuff. I have their ASP880... love information technology. But in your shoes, instead of the iD22, I'd go for something you lot tin abound into like the Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 ($499). I don't own it, but accept a few Focusrite interfaces, and they work very well. Information technology's got 2 proficient sounding preamps, and half dozen more XLR'due south on the back. A friend has one, and we use it every week. Two HP monitors.
We get into a Grace pre... You would utilise the Mackie lath pre, and come up out of the main XLR outs, into the ART compressor and and so into the back of the Scarlett 18i20. USB from Scarlett 18i20 into laptop.
Nice thing almost the Scarlett 18i20 is that it's got a lot of easy admission inputs and outputs. You could utilise the Mackie for ii pres (two channels panned to left and correct outs) then plug a few more mics directly into the front of the Focusrite, having four mics routed to six tracks. The monitor aux on the Mackie is pre-fader, so that gives you lot one more isolated mic pre. FX is post, so no go at that place. So, 3 from the Mackie and two into the Focusrite. Two of those (L and R Mackie chief outs) going through the ART comp for private compression or stereo linked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro ➡️
Audient is good stuff. I take their ASP880... dear it. But in your shoes, instead of the iD22, I'd go for something yous tin grow into similar the Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 ($499). I don't ain it, only have a few Focusrite interfaces, and they work very well. It's got 2 good sounding preamps, and six more than XLR's on the back. A friend has one, and nosotros use information technology every calendar week. Two HP monitors.
We become into a Grace pre... You lot would utilize the Mackie lath pre, and come up out of the primary XLR outs, into the Art compressor and and then into the back of the Scarlett 18i20. USB from Scarlett 18i20 into laptop.
Squeamish thing virtually the Scarlett 18i20 is that it's got a lot of easy access inputs and outputs. You could apply the Mackie for 2 pres (two channels panned to left and right outs) and so plug a few more mics directly into the front of the Focusrite, having four mics routed to six tracks. The monitor aux on the Mackie is pre-fader, and then that gives you lot one more than isolated mic pre. FX is postal service, so no go at that place. So, three from the Mackie and two into the Focusrite. Two of those (L and R Mackie main outs) going through the ART comp for private pinch or stereo linked.
That makes sense. Whatsoever item reason yous suggest the Focusrite over the Audient? I have indeed looked at that particular Focusrite piece, I just didn't know that information technology may be better than the iD22.
EDIT: Nevermind, you said "go for something I can grow into". Okay, we'll run into what happens eventually. I'm non quite set up to brand a movement yet. I'll come up back at some point if I need any more than help. I appreciate it.
These are all good suggestions. Do your inquiry and decide which of these fits your needs best.
I have the Audient id22. Information technology'south okay merely I'chiliad not a huge fan of it. I besides have an RME UFX. In my opinion RME is existent quality, which is why I suggested the Babyface. Audient stuff can be very good but the id22 is but so-and so IMHO. These options (Duet, Babyface, id22) are small and portable though, which may exist a plus for you.
Unless I missed it (I did skim some posts), did you ever say what equipment was used in the studio where you sounded improve?
In detail, what was the mic? A ten year quondam budget interface is not going to exist wonderful, simply I'm non sure that your problem is entirely the interface. A mode to cheque that is to take your mic to the ameliorate studio and tape a vocal there. If information technology comes out great, the mic is not the problem. If it sounds no better, or but a tiny fleck better, and then the mic is more of a problem than the other stuff. Generally, I hear the microphone more than I hear the interface in about every situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman ➡️
Unless I missed it (I did skim some posts), did yous ever say what equipment was used in the studio where you lot sounded meliorate?
In particular, what was the mic? A ten year old budget interface is not going to exist wonderful, but I'g not sure that your problem is entirely the interface. A style to cheque that is to accept your mic to the better studio and record a vocal in that location. If it comes out great, the mic is not the problem. If it sounds no better, or merely a tiny bit better, and then the mic is more of a trouble than the other stuff. Generally, I hear the microphone more than than I hear the interface in almost every situation.
Thanks for the info. Nosotros've been using his relatively cheap MXL mic.
Quote:
Originally Posted past Snail ➡️
These are all adept suggestions. Exercise your enquiry and decide which of these fits your needs all-time.
I have the Audient id22. Information technology'southward okay merely I'grand not a huge fan of information technology. I also have an RME UFX. In my opinion RME is existent quality, which is why I suggested the Babyface. Audient stuff can exist very good but the id22 is just so-and then IMHO. These options (Duet, Babyface, id22) are small and portable though, which may exist a plus for y'all.
Good to hear personal experiences with these things. What near the iD22 exercise you notice so-then? Is it the audio quality? The capabilities?
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snail ➡️
I accept the Audient id22. Information technology's okay merely I'chiliad non a huge fan of it. I also have an RME UFX. In my opinion RME is real quality, which is why I suggested the Babyface. Audient stuff can exist very good but the id22 is just and so-so IMHO. These options (Duet, Babyface, id22) are pocket-size and portable though, which may exist a plus for you.
Audient interfaces are all nearly the same quality. As in, they utilise the exact same mic preamp, the headphone amp circuitry, and equivalent counterpart path around the Advertizing/DA converters. The merely affair that changes between the iD4 and the iD44 in terms of audio is the converters, and all of them use very adept converters anyway. In my experience the iD14 is already on the same level as the iD44, which to me sounds basically the same.
The Babyface is slightly more than detailed in the Advertizement/DA, but I actually didn't intendance for op-amp preamps. Same with the Duet and to a lesser extent the Clarett preamps, they're very clean and detailed merely sound somehow "pinched" when compared to the Class A Audient.
What I must say, though, is that the Babyface, like annihilation RME, is the best at low latency on USB I've ever seen. Rock-solid functioning with lower buffer settings that I tin accomplish on the Audient models on Logic and Mainstage, and as I mentioned, slightly more detail in the conversion.
I'd consider the iD14 for the nicest mic inputs for recording in a portable package, that is also clay cheap. If you can't make pro recordings with this, it's not the interface. It will be a breakthrough leap in terms of sound compared to what OP has.
If I wanted even nicer sound, I'd go for an ART MPA II with the Babyface, or the Tascam UH-7000 actually, but and so it's less portable and a lot more than money. For ultimate reliability, RME is the best, though.
Lives for gear
Somewhere on here...over the years, I posted that to me, most every modern converter is at to the lowest degree usable.
Hell, I take stuff on 1993 blackness face adats that sounds OK.
Somewhere in that thread, I noted 1 exception in those converters.
I got flamed pretty heavily for information technology, but I'll stick to my guns.
Those converters were early MAUDIO converters. They may be before than your converter, I don't know. I don't call up the precise time catamenia / era of manufacture. Withal, a couple of people I knew had MAUDIO converter boxes at the time. Information technology sounded grainy, ...almost band limited and bit crushed slightly compared to other manufacturers at the time.
This was long before they were purchased by AVID / Digidesign.
Before you lot start spending on other gear, please replace your sound buddy box.
I'm not saying it will fix all of what you lot are not liking, just I bet it fixes some at least.
My Two cents.
Skillful luck.
I been using the 1010LT for over 10 years. They do a decent job recording.
First off, did you know those Boards really accept two mic preamps? Channels 1 & 2 take jumpers on the lath for setting the proceeds levels. Volume levels are set within the M-Audio Control panel via the DSP mixer. The problem is those boards have no phantom ability then you'd need to use a separate phantom power supply for powering a condenser mic.
As far as using a mixer as a preamp, you lot tin take a tap off the mic inserts of many mixers for this. Unless yous have a really decent mixer the results are typically lac luster at best. You could as well use the output of a mixer and so use the entire channel strips every bit a preamp but over again, if its merely your typical PA mixer you lot'll likely discover the fidelity isn't all the smashing. Stage mixers are designed to prevent feedback so you lot tin get mics loud. High fidelity takes back seat.
I run two of those boards. I use ane for recording drums. I've used many different mixers as preamps over the years. Lately I'm using an 8 aqueduct Nady Mixer which winds up working pretty skillful. I'm able to use come compressors betwixt the preamp and interface and tweak things upwards nicely.
The other card is used for recording the rest of the ring. I have some vocal taps off the PA for scratch vocals, I run bass directly, and I run guitars using Amp modeling sends and miced amps. Having both is very handy.
I typically overdub the vocals using a high quality mic and preamp. I neither EQ or compress the vocals tracking. The goal is to get the singer to maintain his dynamics, not give him a crutch. You can add all that stuff in afterward when mixing and employ it in the verbal amounts needed using plugins. If its added when tracking and yous find you used also much you lot're screwed. Something like pinch tin can get noisy as hell if you find you demand to EQ the vocals later. If you simply capture a apartment response where all the words tin exist heard with reasonable fidelity, then adding that stuff afterwards in whatever amounts needed is simple.
If its a affair of making the vocalist comfortable and having them sing well - don't put the furnishings on the recorded track. Put the effects in the headphone mix so the singer hears the result but it doesn't get recorded. Or you could split the bespeak and record an additional dry track straight off the mic. From there you can manipulate the singers performance past using those effects. Instance: You lot know the headphones are anything simply apartment and often tend to have scooped mids and boosted bass response. The vocalist is going to change the tone of his voice to make the response sound flat which typically means they'll over emphasize the mids and back off the mic to avert bass boost. The raw track will no effects winds upward sounding thing because of this.
What you lot can do is EQ in some mids, reduce the bass to flatten out what he's hearing and the raw rail winds upwards existence ideal because the singer isn't trying to dispense the voice to a faux target. Same affair with pinch. Words may sound fine when compressed but there may exist major dropouts on the raw rails. It might be better to use and expander on the vocals which forces the vocalist to maintain a steady volume level or loose his facial pilus when he bellows as well loudly. Helps you become the ideal proceeds levels set too. if y'all come across a singer bankroll too far off a mic and the sound is getting thing, he obviously hears himself too loud. Back it downward and make him piece of work for his audio. He'll get closer to the mic and fear singing strongly less.
Information technology actually works well, but I suppose these tricks take a little more understanding on cause and issue and then near people are willing to invest. If you work with enough amateurs you'll eventually resort to annihilation that will yield good results in the shortest fourth dimension. You merely accept to attempt them first hand to know how thay modify the results.
Hey, some corking communication and experience in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted past Snail ➡️
Hey, some slap-up communication and experience in here!
I agree! I appreciate everyone's input on this thread. It'south definitely opened my optics to a lot of things I didn't actually know before!
I wanted to update everyone. I did end up purchasing an interface at my local Guitar Center over the weekend. They don't comport Audient products, simply I went with the Clarett 2Pre. I also picked up a used mid-2012 MacBook Pro, as I've been wanting to give Mac a attempt for music for a while. I've recorded a few things to test it out (granted, without room treatment of any kind) and I must say the Clarett has yielded fantastic results so far. Everything is so much clearer than my old setup.
So hither's what I'm working with now:
* MacBook Pro
* Reaper (evaluation license)
- I'm because trying Logic Pro X at some point
* Focusrite Clarett 2Pre USB
* Rode NT2 mic (I said NT1A previously, but I was incorrect; got it out of storage yesterday)
Compared to the AudioBuddy, I discover very little dissonance when the Clarett's gain is cranked. The AudioBuddy has all sorts of noise at even moderate levels of gain. So while this may non exist "top notch", information technology is certainly many levels above what I was working with before in terms of quality / clarity.
The Clarett too has MIDI In/Out, which is great considering I also have a Roland FA-06 and an AKAI XR20.
Cheers all for your help / input / sharing your experiences.
Lives for gear
You should exist capable of pro results with that setup, equally long as your room sounds practiced. The differences between the Clarett and the Audient preamps are in terms of "flavour", but whatsoever decent engineer should exist able to coax a similar quality of sound from either.
I would suggest if you experience you're lacking something, that the showtime thing to update, before interface, preamps or mics, is acoustic treatment.
Lives for gear
Yeah, although some converters from that audio buddy era were adept, like the Lynx etc, the maudio line was a stand out to me as wrecking your sound.
Evidently they are amend now, but the erstwhile ones. CD players and DAT machines at the time sounded way better.
Congrats, go brand a hit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack ➡️
You should be capable of pro results with that setup, as long as your room sounds skilful. The differences between the Clarett and the Audient preamps are in terms of "flavour", just any decent engineer should exist able to coax a similar quality of sound from either.
I would suggest if y'all feel you're lacking something, that the first thing to update, before interface, preamps or mics, is audio-visual handling.
I'm currently stuck recording in a bedchamber, but I'm in the process of finding ways to clean upwards the sound, such every bit hanging blankets and similar when I want to record. This is definitely something I'm enlightened of, and information technology became more apparent when I listened to a test recording I did with the Clarett. Information technology had that indigestible / tinny audio that I hate and then much. Haha. Cheers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack ➡️
Y'all should be capable of pro results with that setup, as long as your room sounds good. The differences between the Clarett and the Audient preamps are in terms of "flavor", only any decent engineer should be able to coax a similar quality of sound from either.
I would suggest if you lot feel you're lacking something, that the beginning matter to update, before interface, preamps or mics, is acoustic handling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEWTON IN ORBIT ➡️
Yeah, although some converters from that audio buddy era were expert, like the Lynx etc, the maudio line was a stand up out to me equally wrecking your sound.
Obviously they are ameliorate now, but the old ones. CD players and DAT machines at the time sounded way better.
Congrats, get make a striking!
Understood. I was only about xviii when I started and I had no clue what I was doing. The AudioBuddy served me very well, especially when I was just getting started, and so no existent complaints. Thanks! I'm glad to finally footstep it upwards a notch.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted past bin_tenn ➡️
Understood. I was simply about 18 when I started and I had no clue what I was doing. The AudioBuddy served me very well, especially when I was just getting started, and then no real complaints. Thank you! I'm glad to finally step it up a notch.
Human, I hear ya. I have made many purchases I regretted, or but didn't know any better.
One existence guitar modelling devices. Chased that for years until I figured out tube amps are the merely way to go. Total circle so to speak. Glad to hear y'all are up and rocking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEWTON IN ORBIT ➡️
Human being, I hear ya. I have made many purchases I regretted, or just didn't know whatsoever better.
Ane being guitar modelling devices. Chased that for years until I figured out tube amps are the only way to go. Full circle so to speak. Glad to hear you are upward and rocking.
Yep, now I'm wondering what my side by side n00b error may be, and if I can avoid it.
Quote:
Originally Posted past wrgkmc ➡️
I been using the 1010LT for over 10 years. They do a decent job recording.
Get-go off, did you know those Boards actually have two mic preamps? Channels 1 & 2 have jumpers on the board for setting the gain levels. Volume levels are set inside the G-Audio Control panel via the DSP mixer. The problem is those boards have no phantom power so y'all'd demand to utilize a divide phantom ability supply for powering a condenser mic.
As far equally using a mixer as a preamp, you tin take a tap off the mic inserts of many mixers for this. Unless you accept a actually decent mixer the results are typically lac luster at best. You could also use the output of a mixer then use the entire channel strips every bit a preamp only again, if its just your typical PA mixer you'll likely find the fidelity isn't all the great. Stage mixers are designed to prevent feedback so you can go mics loud. High allegiance takes back seat.
I run 2 of those boards. I utilize ane for recording drums. I've used many different mixers as preamps over the years. Lately I'm using an viii channel Nady Mixer which winds up working pretty good. I'm able to use come up compressors betwixt the preamp and interface and tweak things up nicely.
The other carte du jour is used for recording the balance of the band. I have some vocal taps off the PA for scratch vocals, I run bass straight, and I run guitars using Amp modeling sends and miced amps. Having both is very handy.
I typically overdub the vocals using a loftier quality mic and preamp. I neither EQ or shrink the vocals tracking. The goal is to become the singer to maintain his dynamics, not give him a crutch. You can add all that stuff in later when mixing and apply it in the exact amounts needed using plugins. If its added when tracking and yous discover you used too much you're screwed. Something like compression tin get noisy every bit hell if you discover you demand to EQ the vocals afterwards. If you only capture a apartment response where all the words tin can be heard with reasonable fidelity, and so adding that stuff later in any amounts needed is simple.
If its a matter of making the singer comfortable and having them sing well - don't put the effects on the recorded track. Put the effects in the headphone mix and so the singer hears the effect only it doesn't get recorded. Or y'all could carve up the signal and record an additional dry track direct off the mic. From at that place you tin can dispense the singers performance by using those effects. Example: You know the headphones are anything but apartment and often tend to have scooped mids and additional bass response. The singer is going to change the tone of his voice to brand the response sound flat which typically means they'll over emphasize the mids and dorsum off the mic to avoid bass boost. The raw runway will no effects winds up sounding thing considering of this.
What y'all can do is EQ in some mids, reduce the bass to flatten out what he's hearing and the raw runway winds up being ideal because the singer isn't trying to dispense the vocalisation to a simulated target. Same thing with compression. Words may sound fine when compressed just in that location may exist major dropouts on the raw track. It might be improve to apply and expander on the vocals which forces the singer to maintain a steady volume level or loose his facial hair when he bellows too loudly. Helps you go the platonic gain levels set too. if you lot see a singer backing too far off a mic and the sound is getting affair, he obviously hears himself too loud. Back it down and brand him work for his sound. He'll get closer to the mic and fearfulness singing strongly less.
It actually works well, but I suppose these tricks have a little more understanding on cause and effect then most people are willing to invest. If yous work with plenty amateurs you'll eventually resort to anything that will yield proficient results in the shortest time. Yous but take to attempt them first hand to know how thay change the results.
Wow astonishing advice im going to utilize on recording myself for sure! Thx im trying to learn as i got stumbled upon this and boom
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro ➡️
I'd say try the Kaotica Eyeball, just at $200 to $350, it'due south way overpriced, IMHO. So are those other ISO devices.
.
y'all can get a knock off of that for cheap on ebay https://www.ebay.com/p/Alctron-PF8-M...oam/2284684831
How To Set Up A Mixer For Recording Vocals,
Source: https://gearspace.com/board/newbie-audio-engineering-production-question-zone/1225305-recording-vocals-analog-mixers.html
Posted by: bondvize1962.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How To Set Up A Mixer For Recording Vocals"
Post a Comment