Success with cheapo (i.e. Mono) equipment?

[jonbenet jovi]

Hey y'all. Jonbenet Jovi here, my first post ever. I'm a recording enthusiast that doesn't have much $, and my experience as a musician recording in studios has been positive, but no way can I afford to keep up that kind of equipment-fueled spending.

So, was thinking, as much of the music I truly like was performed and recorded in the 30s and 40s, why not try to set up a studio that's based on older mono stuff, just a couple mics, keep it simple and cheap. Might I expect to get decent recordings with such a setup? Certainly some of the defining recordings of this century were acheived with nothing more than a portable reel-to-reel, one-mic setup i.e. Alan Lomax.

Am I crazy to think in such a regressive way? I'd love to hear if any of you have had any success with such an approach.

Again, not that I don't appreciate great equipment, modern and vintage alike. I just can't afford it.

[dwelle]

no, i'd say you're definitely not crazy at all. just be aware that keeping it simple may save you $ by not having to buy more gear, but will still require a shit load of work and tinkering to get a good sound. limitations can be very good, but it asks a lot of the engineer and musician to make everything rock. i personally think simplicity is bliss, but what do i know.

less mics and gear = the need for a very good sounding room also...

[jonbenet jovi]

no, i'd say you're definitely not crazy at all. just be aware that keeping it simple may save you $ by not having to buy more gear, but will still require a shit load of work and tinkering to get a good sound. limitations can be very good, but it asks a lot of the engineer and musician to make everything rock. i personally think simplicity is bliss, but what do i know.

less mics and gear = the need for a very good sounding room also...

Indeed. I do not pretend that a simple inexpensive setup will necessarily produce good results, and would expect some Pro Tools LE or Peak sweetening to help out. But for the source it just might work. I envision recording mostly acoustic music, and certainly don't think I'll get the shimmery guitar sounds you hear on the radio. But I don't actually like that sound so much anyway. I've always liked the sounds of rural recordings where the lack of quality instruments adds to the overall character. Having just done a big project in a "real" studio, it's true we did get some pristine sounds using Neumanns, AKG pairs, 2-inch 30ips tape etc. But the final results seem sterile, I dunno, hard to describe....

[dwelle]

it's a great idea. i say chase it around and see where it takes you....

[AGCurry]

Well, I love old music too. But I don't really love crappy recordings. Imagine, if you will, Jimmie Rogers or Robert Johnson recorded on good modern gear. They were awesome no matter what the gear, but how much more listenable those recordings would be.

That said, the pinnacle of monaural studio sound, IMO, came around 1953.
We're talking about some gear which is VERY expensive nowadays - RCA ribbon mics, early Neumanns, etc..

There's certainly no reason NOT to experiment with, er, crude gear. But with the incredible high fidelity that can be achieved cheaply nowadays, it seems a little sacrilegious to CHOOSE low fidelity for great music. I'd venture to say that Alan Lomax, were he around today, would be carrying a laptop with some USB breakout box in his trunk today...

[A.David.MacKinnon]

Get yourself a Uher Reporter model reel to reel (4400 I think). It's like a cheaper Nagra. Mine is mono, 4 speed, runs on bateries, has good meters, a built in speaker and sounds pretty nice. I paid $10 for it at a surplus store but I'm sure they can be found on Ebay. You'll have to make an addapter for the DIN mic input and headphone out and you'll need a phantom power supply if you want to use condensors.
Other than that you're off to the races. It's small enough to take anywhere (abut the size of a phone book).

[oxfist]

i was at a session about a year and a half ago where the engineer set up about ten mics for drums (coles ribbons, and bunch of other really expensive stuff), plus two room mics (neumann LD's - expensive as hell as well). but in the end, i really felt like the room mics sounded a lot better by themselves opposed to the ten mic set-up. simplicity rules, especially when your simple stuff is NICE. and, drums are always better in mono, no? i really prefer the mono mix of pet sounds over the stereo one. go for it!

[jonbenet jovi]

You guys are right on, and I'd take a bullet for any one of you at this point.

BTW, I'm not deliberately going after low-fi, just a different sound than what I'm used to hearing on the radio. A modern-day Lomax probably would tote a laptop, but he might decide in the end to go back with a portable Ampex. These days it seems there's all kinds of plug-ins and what-have-you, $130 each or more, just to get an approximation of a vintage mono sound. It certainly seems like a lot of the older equipment did a fine job and got some great recordings, so why not just get some, refurbish the pinch rollers etc. and give it a go?

Like the Uher suggestion - will scope out one. Was considering a Nagra for the good fidelity and high IPS possiblities but for just music I don't need all the sync controls.

What about microphones? Believe it or not I have a 70's era Calrad that actually picks up pretty well, omni style. I don't think I can afford condensers with their own tube-based power supplies etc, and not crazy about phantom power either. Yet my SM57 doesn't cut it for room recording.

[daveaux]

Check out Andrew Bird's Bowl of Fire album "Hot" (rykodisk).

Recorded in Mono (thru Calrec to Suder A80) often with only one mic on many of the tunes, an RCA 44 ribbon. they had to 'choreograph' the live group takes the way they used to in the 20's, get everybody arranged in the room according to volume.

sounds KILLER. you never notice the 'mono-ness.'

[brian beattie]

Is portable essential? If I were you, for maximum analog wallop at a reasonable cost, I'd try an ampex ag 350 or 440. A solid state 15 ips 1/4" machine. You could get one for 200-400 bucks, spend another 200-400 getting it recapped and cleaned up, and you'd have top quality, fat analog. (these are great machines, but they are line level, and do not include mic preamps.) Of course, if you really want to emulate the sound of OLD recordings, a tube recorder would work better, but it's a bit more of a maintenance issue. The ampex 600 series was a lomax workhorse (7.5 ips).... but it was uhh, john(??) lomax, alan's son. (alan cut directly to disc much of the time.) The 600 series includes the 600, 601 and 602. I believe the 602 is the one with the fancier mic input transformers, so it would be possible to bring that baby with one good mic and get what you want. A ribbon mic is most likely what you'd hear on a good quality 30's or 40's era recording. Even in the 50's ribbons wre more common than the next step up, german tube condensors.
My favorite cheapest ribbon mics are the old oktava's. (esp. ml-16's) At 350-550, they tower over any beyer for that massive ribbon sound, although they're a bit more delicate. A figure 8 patterned ribbon would give you more mic placement options for more varieties of group sounds. For under a grand you COULD buy an ampex 602, get it recapped and retubed, and get a world class ribbon mic, and you'd have a mega interesting set up that would be essentially the same stuff used in those old recordings. There's no reason that a well placed good quality ribbon going into a 602 with a great musician (or group of musicians) wouldn't produce a world class quality recording.
the uher would be a bunch cheaper, and it would be even more portable, but I'm not familiar with the onboard mic pre's. I do think a ribbon mic would be a good starting point.
sounds like a blast! keep us posted...
brian

[schnozzle]

Jonbenet:

I, too, am a big fan of mono old-style field recordings, and I dabbled around with a Nagra on some stuff back when I was at film school and could borrow the thing for free (I couldn't afford one now).

Ribbon microphones are indeed fantastic, and you should get one if you can. However, I've heard a lot of great 1950's and 1960's field recordings that were actually done with relatively inexpensive omni-directional dynamic microphones--I think things like the Electrovoice RE-55, which I see for sale used occasionally in the $200 range. I think an RE-50 might work in this application, too. Not as hi-fi as a condenser or ribbon, but I think it might work just fine for the kinds of recordings you describe.

[schnozzle]

Another thought--

When I was back in college I recorded my punk jugband (the concept was The Cramps meets the New Lost City Ramblers) using a little dictaphone-style cassette recorder with a built-in microphone. Just like old-style, we grouped ourselves around the deck and moved in if we needed to be louder.

Despite the copious tape hiss and the fact that we were all playing really piercing treble-register instruments (banjo, harmonica, ironing board), so there's no bass at all, I think it's still pretty listenable. It comes across as a fun, spontaneous old-time field recording because of the technique used, not the equipment.

Speaking of cassette decks, if reel-to-reel is not absolutely necessary, you might consider a cassette deck with Dolby S. I heard a tape made with one and I was pretty impressed.

Schnozzle

[jonbenet jovi]

Is portable essential? If I were you, for maximum analog wallop at a reasonable cost, I'd try an ampex ag 350 or 440. A solid state 15 ips 1/4" machine. You could get one for 200-400 bucks, spend another 200-400 getting it recapped and cleaned up, and you'd have top quality, fat analog.

Portable would be very nice if I could just go pick up and record anywhere, although 15 IPS would be kickin', so to speak. I think I'd rather go with the portable though, gives you more options. Don't know if the portables can be modified to go 15, seems like most except the Nagras top out at 7 and 1/2.

Ribbon mics, aren't they like fragile as heck? I would hate to spend hundreds on one and have it fail due to jostling....

[Gebo]

Has anyone ever seen the hackensaw boys? They played some fest thing wtih like, De La Soul and THe Flaming Lips. They played between bands, they just put a mic (i think it was a neuman, maybe a u87 or 67) in the middle of the stage and they all stood around it, and who ever was singing or soloing would step closer to the mic. It was rad, and they sounded way better than a lot of the bands who played... I think thier on tour right now, check them out if your into bluegrass and stuff along those lines.

[jimbo]

i saw a band similar to that (or maybe it was them) on "sessions on W 54th" on PBS. they were a bluegrass band, playing around one mic - basically shuffling around each other coinsiding with the solos/duos. i was one of the best mixed songs i've heard all year.

i give you props for going for this, work it hard - may take a while to get it right. i've been experimenting off and on with similar type experiments with varying results - most important part of ANY of this is the musician. the reason all those old records sound like the shit is because the guys (and gals) playing it ARE the shit. that quality is hard to come by, but it's there. have fun man.

-jimbo