*Audio Geek in residence* - ask away

No worries, I love to have a Mac but w/only sucky internet here where I live I feel it's a waste.

Shawn, What do you think of this plug in? I guess it is supposed to fix the damage done in The Loudness Wars.

http://www.terrywest.nl/utils.html

ReLife.
Bring back life to a heavy clipped audiofile
Revolutionary way to recover transients and lost peaks

chewie wrote:

Shawn, What do you think of this plug in? I guess it is supposed to fix the damage done in The Loudness Wars.

http://www.terrywest.nl/utils.html

ReLife.
Bring back life to a heavy clipped audiofile
Revolutionary way to recover transients and lost peaks

I'd have to play around with it. I understand the theory behind it, but I remain skeptical. No matter how good the tool is, it's a band-aid fix. You can't recover something that's gone...not really. You can improve it, but you're not really repairing it.

To test it I would have to take a well produced master. Then purposely compress the shit out of it. Then run the tool. Then compare the result with the original version.

I played with it a bit using the Death Magnetic album. It looks like it did something interesting to it. It wasn't squashed anymore and I couldn't tell if it was distorted. I'm using cheap computer speakers after all. I would hve top listen to it in the car or on the home stereo for that.


............ and it was free!

chewie wrote:

I played with it a bit using the Death Magnetic album. It looks like it did something interesting to it. It wasn't squashed anymore and I couldn't tell if it was distorted. I'm using cheap computer speakers after all. I would hve top listen to it in the car or on the home stereo for that.


............ and it was free!

Just download the Guitar Hero mix of Death Magnetic, it's not compressed at all.

S.D. wrote:

chewie wrote:

I played with it a bit using the Death Magnetic album. It looks like it did something interesting to it. It wasn't squashed anymore and I couldn't tell if it was distorted. I'm using cheap computer speakers after all. I would hve top listen to it in the car or on the home stereo for that.


............ and it was free!

Just download the Guitar Hero mix of Death Magnetic, it's not compressed at all.

I already have that. I was just using something that I know was heavily compressed and clipped.

[quote="S.D
Just download the Guitar Hero mix of Death Magnetic, it's not compressed at all.
[/quote]

How does that sound?

Akeldama wrote:

[quote="S.D
Just download the Guitar Hero mix of Death Magnetic, it's not compressed at all.

How does that sound?[/quote]

It's fine, that version was prior to Rick Rubin brickwalling it. Easily the only really listenable version of that album.

Shawn,

I'm getting back into home recording so I'm gonna be loaded with questions haha. I dusted off my Roland 880 VS840 and Zip disks (yup it's been that long) and I have a caveat with this station that I wish to overcome. Namely, there are no XLR input jacks, only quarter inch. I have to use an XLR to 1/4" adapter for vocal work. So do I lose power or mismatch impedance per this method? My vox tend to clip before peak and always sit behind in the mix no matter how much I fiddle with the eq, perhaps this is why? Is there any way around this, like a mic preamp, that would improve the signal?

The adapter shouldn't cause those problems. I don't know how good the mic preamps are that are built into those machines, you might want to try an outboard mic preamp and run that direct into the recorder.

I think the 840's preamps are a bit cheap and noisy if it has nothing to do with the adapter (that's good to know btw). I've been wanting to try a mic pre. What's a good one these days (I remember Joemeek being the shit back when I was doing this)? And is it necessary for the unit to have a compressor as well?

Personally, in your situation I'd buy a mixer. A small 8 channel would probably suffice for home recording. Something like Mackie, Yamaha, Soundcraft, etc. Then you could either output that into your multi-track recorder or you could hook it up to a computer and use a software method. The mixing boards would have better mic preamps.

Or you could look at standalone mic preamps, there are several kinds on Amazon, I haven't used a standalone mic preamp for a long time so I'm a bit out of the loop. My preference would be for a tube mic preamp every time.

I've had my eye on a Behringer for some time; it's a 16 channel but it's half the price of a Mackie and even has the onboard FX processor: http://www.amazon.com/BEHRINGER-UB1222FX-PRO-Ultra-Low-16-Input-Preamplifiers/dp/B0002FOXD8/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1408571810&sr=8-13&keywords=mackie+mixer. Still need to research it further, though.

I like the idea of a mic pre to save on space, but your idea for a mixer is good too. Looks like the tube preamps are a heavy price, anyway.

Much thanx for the help btw.

I have a couple small Yamaha mixers at work I use when bands play or when a singer needs a monitor mix. They work well and have onboard DSP. I also have a large Yamaha in the downstairs ballroom and a Soundcraft in the larger ballroom upstairs. Overkill for your purposes but I can vouch for the quality of the products. I also learned to mix on a Soundcraft originally, they had one at college in the smaller recording room.

Behringer I've only really used their outboard DSP boxes, they make good stuff.

There's a Yamaha MG10 that's going for 150 on Amazon, very meat and potatoes but I like the single-knob compression and looking around it seems that their preamps are top notch. No DSP, I suppose, but I get a good set with my Roland (seems to be where they put most of the money in manufacturing, honestly).

I think I'll go for the mixer like you said. I still need to outfit the Roland for SD card storage rather than those cruddy ZIP disks so I can transfer the WAVs to my laptop (my computers suck so a soft DAW is out of the question).

I'm curious, is your current work live or studio or both?

Currently it's all live sound.

Right on. Got another one for you.

What's your opinion on recording methods for acoustic guitar? Direct in or mic it? If mic, what's the best placement? I understand every guitar is different (I'm using a Taylor w/Fishman electronics and Takamine) but note I'm going for a Neil Young/Tom Petty sort of sound, if that makes sense.

Bonus question: how do you normally EQ/shelf the guitar, and do you ever employ a HPF.

Definitely mic the guitar...and you need a GOOD condenser mic, dynamic mics don't do a good job on acoustic guitars. If you don't have a condenser mic then just run it direct.

For mic placement I like to position the mic about 1 foot above the sound hole with the microphone pointing down toward it at an angle. You don't want the microphone parallel to the sound hole. Positioning the mic angled down allows you to also capture the sound of the wood and the strings themselves (neither of which you get running direct).

Tom Petty uses 12-string guitars a lot, so keep that in mind when trying to capture...he probably also uses $5000 microphones to record the guitar.   

I almost never use high pass or low cut filters. I like to record as dry as possible, leaving any EQ or DSP manipulation for the mixing phase.

I have an AKG Perception 420--large diaphragm condenser, it has good neutrality but like I said I've never truly known due to the (theoretically) crappy preamps in my Roland. It was $199, if that means everything (I'm saving for the $5000 model lol). It was charting well when I purchased it back in 2006.

I've never tried to point it at the soundhole; now I'm really excited. I've always played to the face of the mic. It never seemed to come out right (again, also the nature of the Roland itself). And running it direct always results in a flat sound, especially on 12-string and baritone. So what you're saying is sheer motivation for me to get this going.

BTW I've heard of some guys positioning a ribbon at the nut of the guitar in addition to the soundhole. Would that really add anything?

I'm waiting for the circuit board to come in; after I modify the Roland I'll try this techniques and report back here. Thanks again, Shawn.

I also like recording acoustics in stereo.  Two condensor mics placed above the sound hole in a coincident pattern, you can get a cool sound that way.

It's the top example in this picture...

THAT. Is awesome. Time to save up for another mic...

So my dad has Pro Tools with the interface. We're wondering if the preamps on the interface are worthy or if it would work better to get a tube preamp (seems like an obvious question, I suppose). There's an Art tube pre for 40 bucks, seems to get good reviews on Sweetwater and Amazon.

It has been many years since I used a Pro Tools interface so I can't really offer an educated opinion on their preamps. However, the general rule of thumb is that standalone preamps are usually the best way to go, especially if you can get a good tube preamp.

S.D. wrote:

It has been many years since I used a Pro Tools interface so I can't really offer an educated opinion on their preamps.  However, the general rule of thumb is that standalone preamps are usually the best way to go, especially if you can get a good tube preamp.  

Good rule of thumb; I'll let him know.

I see a lot of audiophiles like Blue Jean and not Monster interconnects. Is there a big difference? I'm thinking of trying to go in an upward direction with my rca interconnects, looking for suggestions.

Are there other quality brands as well?