Reluctant to drop cash on a ?Flashy? LDC

[losthighway]

I?ve used the standard d112, b52, 57 on inside kick quite a lot, all acceptable, but when I want to open up the kick and add deep lows I have turned to the aforementioned mics. I am pretty sure it's a combination of my inexperience, and at times poor placement. However my least expensive mic on that list (EHR1 ribbon) has given me the closest to what I?m hoping to achieve. (Same height as center kick about 3-4' away)

This thread has hit on some interesting psychology/business. I think 'opening' up your kick drum sound is a great idea, especially for certain types of music. I recently started a thread in Recording Techniques about some of my observations on kick drum sounds on awesome records. I've put my sounds up against recordings I like and realized I was trying to get way more power in a kick drum sound than most (but not all) genres and mixes need. I realize a lot of time's recording gets 'oohs' and 'aaahs' less for 'power' and more for 'focus' and 'presence' (which people's ears tend to perceive as power/hugeness).

I put kick drums next to vocals for some of the easiest things to sound mediocre, and hardest to sound impressive.

I will say after renting a Neuman for a session, if you're matching the wrong mic for the instrument it will still sound weak. I was able to let go of my adolescent ideas about mic bling when I hit playback hearing someone sing into that Neuman and thinking "Nope, not awesome." On a different voice maybe.

I know people always say it, but if you don't like the sound you're getting the mic is one part. The other parts are what kind of drum you're micing, how much crap is inside it, how you tuned it, how your room sounds, what kind of preamp you're using. Maybe even in that order. I even discovered with another engineer how important the beater on the kick pedal is: plastic, wood, soft stuff. We came to the conclusion that those flat beaters that look like hammers, sound crappy when they hit the drum soft, and that a round beater is better for dynamic playing.

Meanwhile I've heard people mention the following for much enjoyed kick LDCs:

AT 4033, 4047, 4050
Blue Mouse
MXL Vsomething cheapo

[losthighway]

Dude, I just thought of this. Stop messing around, I got your kick drum sound right here:





.



.


.

Not!

[ThePaloverdeBeetle]

Something like a used U87 is a crap shoot. I was doing tech work in this guys studio and
he was complaining about something not sounding right. Put a his U87 and it sounded wierd.
I asked him if he had any other LDC for a troubleshooting comparison with the same mic line
mixer channel etc. "Just some Rode mic someone gave me". Don't remember what model.
The Rode sounded great, the U87 sounded like crap. I'm suye there was something wrong with it.

[Jay Reynolds]

But Lava Lamp is such a huge sponsor for NPR.

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.c ... ID=2645162

[Nick Sevilla]

This is a tricky situation...

Are these clients going to actually use you?

Are they ones you have worked with in the past?

When I managed a studio, back in the day, I used to get cold calls like this all the time :

"Do you have Pro Tools" was the very first thing I heard...

I would answer "Yes, do you have money?"

95 % of the callers would hang up right there.

I never, ever, ever would say to unknown persons what equipment we had. Instead, I would tell them "If you want a tour of the studio, I'll be glad to take your name and address, two references, and then you can come by and check us out".

Again, 95% of these calls would end right there.

So, if someone is asking you if you have "XXX" equipment, half the time, they don't know what "XXX" actually is, and the other half of the time, they might be scoping you out for a robbery.

Answer those calls with info, at your own risk...

Cheers

[Ryan Silva]

Thanks guys, it is an interesting subject, one that I have never really had to think about untill recently.

But as I contemplated increasing customer satisfaction I was distracted by my girlfriend complaining about how her back hurt. You see, she said that if she sits on my studio couch for More than 20min it gets really uncomfortable.




Hmm...maybe it's time for a new studio couch.

(cut to three hours later)


Went to Macy's where there having a great furniture sale, picked up a super comfy sofa for way less than a U87, and I bet it will make more people happy. Even my girlfriend.

[calaverasgrandes]

But Lava Lamp is such a huge sponsor for NPR.

dude, seriously? Seriously? There are some rather morally suspect companies that "support" NPR. Especially Marketwatch. Ditto for PBS.

The other studio bling I cant stand;
RCA 77dx's. If you have those in your studio its only because you are a David Letterman fan. They weigh too much and pick up sound from everywhere but where you point them. They dont even "have 20 to 20 on each end" like the shure 58 apparently does( according to Tad Donnelly). Just disconnect it from your worthless Siemens preamp, unscrew it from the starbird and send it to me. I will dispose of all those ugly pieces of 40's era technology for you guys.
You know waht else they invented inthe 40's? The atom bomb!
See! See!

[Gentleman Jim]

calaversasgrandes wrote:

I freaking hate "Studio Bling". In my stupid opinion mixers are studio bling. You can do a better job with a DAW and a control surface. Maybe a summing box if you really want to be a nerd. Neumans are blingin' spinning rims. They are recognizeable, expensive and not always up to the task. (I usually find them too colored, too nice).
Most monitors out there are bling, they have recognizeable faces but are really not your friend. Fucking Herman Miller Aeron blingitty bling bling chairs.
Heck most outboard is bling. I'm not gonna say a Neve pre or a Pultec are just status pieces, they are useful. But the price has really eclipsed their usefulness. I love old Neves, but I also know that a clone is gonna sound 90% as good and be 100% more reliable. Ditto for the 1176, LA2A, etc.

Hey, I'm 100% ITB, and I don't have any of what you listed, but IMHO, that post just comes off as sour grapes. Maybe you'll take it better coming from someone in your same position than a person who has $100,000 worth of reason to disagree with you.

[calaverasgrandes]

I am just being silly really. But yeah, I have paid for and worked in some 'spensive studios with a lot of "mandatory" gear that we never used.
I actually almost never touched all the expensive mics. I preferred the meat and potatoes dynamics like 421, 441, d12 (well now those are expensive and obscure).
I always kind of resented paying a ton of money for a place that we were never going to use 90% of the gear. Like back when every studio had to have every damn keyboard/sound module in addition to all the vintage shit. Or the crazy digital reverbs. I had one studio tell us that we didnt want to use that noisy piece of shit AKG reverb, just patch in the SPX9000 or whatever.
I do appreciate places that have real mic pres, patch bays with up to date labels (or a nice binder with all the patchpoints listed) and you know acoustics.
NS10's are garbage. Send them to me and I will make an art installation of them. Make sure you pack them well though, it wont be artistic if the cabinets get damaged.

[ott0bot]

I have to agree with most comments. Studio bling is pretty much just a way to bring people into the studio that think ''My record is going to sound pro because they've got a million dollar microphone!'' Most people don't understand that is has to do more with technique then how much your gear costs. And to make money these days you gotta record whoever can afford it...with some discretion of coarse. And if I had the cash you bet I would buy some expensive gear...but it woud be because it sounds good not to brag!

[Gentleman Jim]

ott0bot wrote:

Studio bling is pretty much just a way to bring people into the studio that think ''My record is going to sound pro because they've got a million dollar microphone!''

OK, that's an interesting thought. So instead of thinking that someone is lame for being insecure or shallow for buying a U-87 to show off, maybe think of it as a marketing expense. If people who aren't sound nerds are going to be swayed to book one studio over another because of a microphone, that microphone was a good investment. I just looked, and a new U-87 is $3250. They sell used on eBay for around $2000. So if that $1250 margin gets you a few well paying gigs, it was worth it even if you sell the mic in six months, wasn't it? And of course, in the mean time you get to use the mic.

I would point out that if one is running a studio that is for hire, the equipment purchases to make the studio "look pro" are more cost effective than almost any other marketing expenses. The equipment will have some resale value, whereas paint and advertising will not. This doesn't mean don't paint or advertise, but that marketing can have many facets.

Also consider studios who have felt the need to switch or add ProTools to their options. Did they make good recordings on Nuendo, Sonar, Logic, etc? Probably. But the public perception is that ProTools is "The Industry Standard;" even though the vast majority of recordings won't ever be remixed later, (thus rendering the compatibility issue moot), it becomes a case of adapt or suffer the consequences of not adapting. Same thing as buying the trophy mic to pull in clients who are otherwise on the fence.

[Brian]

If buying a U87 gets you clients you don't LOVE working with, it's not worth the expense for driving you nuts with ignorant shit all day.

If you're not about the money yet can tolerate that kind of Biz, of course, it is worth it.

If you're only about the money, by all means, bling it up, HARD!

I hate to say it, but, for a lot of stuff, I can see the value of an automated mix and automated efx in protools, BUT, I can not see the value of buying a bunch of junk you can't afford to bait in ignorant customers. If I don't need the automation, I don't use Protools, I NEVER use expensive stuff anymore, I would if I could afford it, if it was what I needed, but, I don't need most of it anymore. I grew up using Neuman's and Neve's, I like some of them, but, I don't believe in taking out huge loans on gear if your client list doesn't warrant it.

[calaverasgrandes]

Wow yeah, the whole PT thing is an excellent example of studio bling.
I have actually heard folks refer to any DAW as PT. Using pro tools generically like aspirin, xerox or koolaid.
PT pisses me off. While it does have some really nice things, it is generally a follower not a leader in terms of toolsets and features. The whole hardware thing pisses me off too. Having to buy PT hardware just so you have something to plug your real converters into. It amounts to an overpriced dongle! Their control surfaces are real nice though.
As far as expensive LDC's go, I had the misfortune of looking at the Hamptone tune mic power supplies. Then looking up tube condensers on the 'bay. I just might throw a G at getting a Neumann/Gefell and a Hamptone PS.
Not bad actually!

[Brian]

Here's what really sucks about the PT bling, I get a client that asks, "you got PT?"
I say yeah, the sesion goes, and it' mix time. I never get enough time to make it do what it should. The clients watch the clock, and I never get to get al the automation done, the they complain about the mix, nothing major, just little stuff that never would have been a problem I f I'd had more than TWO FRIKKIN HOURS to mix it ALL!
STUPID clients that are like moths to a PT flame.

[trodden]

If buying a U87 gets you clients you don't LOVE working with, it's not worth the expense for driving you nuts with ignorant shit all day.

totally. yes.

kiss the curb kiss it hard... make it dirty.