PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I just had a little revelatory experience that should, on the surface, seem obvious except when one gets deep into the work, you (I mean 'I')forget to think about it.

I have been geared towards getting a new mic pre for a while... I've wanted to replace, or at least supplement my Fatman 2 with a Manley Langevin.

My reasoning was not so much pure gear lust, but that all my recordings sounded somewhat weak and distant. I had a hard time getting vocals and other recorded elements up front in the mix, even if I had my lips to the mic screen.

So I figured I had outlived my Fatman2. My friends have an Avalon 737(?) and I thought I'd do a little head to head. So I set up in my buddies walk-in closet and recorded the same song through each pre, just acoustic guitar and vocals. No comp, no EQ, just flat signals.

The results really freaked me out. I actually liked the tone of my Fatman 2 more than the Avalon; at least on the guitar. I found the Avalon to be a bit boomy, and over-emphasize the lower-mids, though the vocals sounded pretty smooth. Now granted I could've done some EQing and remedied that, but the point is, I learned something I had not expected to.

My Fatman sounded better there than it did at home. Mostly because I was in a closet filled with clothes to absorb reflections, etc. Room ambience is really important for certain tracks, but being able to isolate your recording environment makes A HELL OF A DIFFERENCE; even if it means walling yourself in with quilts. A few comforters are far cheaper than a $2000 mic pre. And to be honest I didn't hear too much difference that would warrant the $2000 to pony up for an Avalon or the like.

I'm starting to think that a couple of 4'6' Aurelex walls would be all I need. And experimenting with full iso, half-shell iso, and full exposure to check the differences in results will be the next task.

Food for thought. For those shopping around for a replacement pre... give this a try first. You might save some cash.

Sam

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2004-02-14 12:33 ]</font>

On 2004-02-14 12:28, dehuszar wrote:
I'm starting to think that a couple of 4'6' Aurelex walls would be all I need. And experimenting with full iso, half-shell iso, and full exposure to check the differences in results will be the next task.

Hi Sam

Thank you very much. I am realy happy to read this, as it lines up very nicely with some future plans I have. I wasn't shure, if they would work like expected, but your report encourages me

All that stuff in the quote above - I don't understand any off it. Can you guide me?

Hello!

Speaking from personal experience, I d like to stress too that the room you are recording/mixing in is of utter importance!
Before spending ANY money on gear, first spend some money to treat you room.
I have spent all my money on a mic (Rhode NT1000), on a mic-pre (SPL Track One) and on monitors (Mackie HR624)...
The improvement in sound that I experienced was not more than 10%... Do you know why? Because I am still recording/mixing in the same shity room! ...
Just my personal experience....

P.S. I was so disappointed by the small improvement that I had started to think that the gear I had bought was faulty... till I took it to a friend's studio and recorded some tracks in a proper recording room using my own gear... The sound was at least 200% better!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: rodos1979 on 2004-02-15 18:53 ]</font>

On 2004-02-15 06:21, Immanuel wrote:

On 2004-02-14 12:28, dehuszar wrote:
I'm starting to think that a couple of 4'6' Aurelex walls would be all I need. And experimenting with full iso, half-shell iso, and full exposure to check the differences in results will be the next task.

Hi Sam

Thank you very much. I am realy happy to read this, as it lines up very nicely with some future plans I have. I wasn't shure, if they would work like expected, but your report encourages me

All that stuff in the quote above - I don't understand any off it. Can you guide me?

Aurelex makes these tall foam plates (not unlike a door) which interconnect and disconnect. You can get four of them and have a little iso room for recording that cuts out room noise and can be broken down and thrown in your closet or behind the couch. OR, you could buy 3 of them and back the open piece against a wall, or leave it open to let a little bit of room noise in if you want to get a reflection or too for more of a sense of space.

OR, you could get two and throw them in a corner to wall yourself in, or leave it half shell and get more room sound and reflections. I imagine there are different instruments like strings and acoustics that would benefit from a bit of room, whereas vocals should be relatively isolated.

That's what I meant by half-shell (2 walls) full exposure (0 walls) or full iso (4 walls). If there is a standard set of terminology for that I don't know what it is, but that's how I think of it.

Some visual aid: http://www.auralex.com/category_max-wal ... x-wall.asp

What I'm thinking of is the product at the bottom right of the page.

Hope that helps,
Sam

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2004-02-15 23:46 ]</font>

Thank you again.
My room has about 2 seconds of flutter echo after I clap my hands hard. I need a change.

Auralex makes great products. I have about a thousand dollars worth of their foam hanging in my studio. Love it!

Anyway, regarding the mic pre's, I have an Avalon here along with a lot of other stuff. My perspective is that it's all good! Even my cheapo ART Tube MP's sound good. The real question is, when is it appropriate to use a $2K unit compared to a $100 unit? When you listen to, and understand the differences, you can make educated decisions on where and how to use these tools.

Mic pre's are like screwdrivers. Makes sense to have an assortment. Not all screws are created equal

Words to date by!

Sam

Maybe you would like this forum too
http://johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/index.php

A couple of weeks ago I finished building an acoustic screen. It consists of three 7ft tall timber panels, each 2ft wide and 6" thick. There are two 3ft by 2ft hardboard panels in each section, seperated by a crossmember. They are cladded with 100mm Rockwool/mineral wool and each panel is covered with two layers of closely stapled linen. The three sections are hinged, so the whole thing can become a small vocal area or a big non-reflective screen. I intend to cover the whole thing in fur material at a later date. It works brilliantly to deaden a room's reverb, but it is a bit cumbersome to move around. I may even put castors on it at some point. It cost around £100 in total.

Here are some pics:

http://81.107.108.98/screen1.jpg
http://81.107.108.98/screen2.jpg
http://81.107.108.98/screen3.jpg

guys,real studios are not dead. dead rooms are good for some types of recording,but they can also sound very strange and dull. the trick is DIFFUSION. you need all reflections to be scattered evenly so in the same way as frosted shades and bulbs scatter light so that the light is not harsh and full of shadows. also you need to absorb eccess low end. all square hard rooms have real problems in the low end that need to be absorbed.....

bass traps first,then diffusers.

Here is a real studio, that has both dead and vibrant rooms. Check out the snare samples on the individual pages from the different rooms.

forgot the link

http://www.electricalaudio.com/