Bebio Amaro - Electrical Audio

Electrical Audio:
Recording Techniques &

Bad Jokes
A compilation of articles, interviews and forum posts
Made by Bébio Amaro for his own personal learning & enjoyment
Includes some info on recording sessions for albums by Nirvana, Don

Caballero, Bear Claw, Joanna Newsom, Godspeed You! Black Emperor
(GY!BE), Mono & others
Version Number: α 1.0 [Final]

Date of current version: 10 September 2008
DISCLAIMER
This whole thing began when the time finally came for my band to make a
serious recording for commercial purposes. Sure, we’d self-recorded many times
in the past, but it was a pretty amateurish affair. This time, we wanted to get the
most out of the recording sessions.
Being a lurker on the Electrical Audio forums, I was seeing so much useful
information scattered all over the place, and thinking that it would be nice if all
that stuff was condensed into a book. Since no one else was going to do it for
me…
Things started getting out of hand, and it grew into this monster. It could never
be the ultimate encyclopedia on Electrical Audio or Steve Albini’s recording
methods, since new things get discovered everyday, but at 433 pages + 3 massive
equipment annexes (total page count: 506), I feel that all my objectives regarding
this work were accomplished. All the main things that I wanted to know about
recording are answered here. And in case someone wants to print it for personal
use, adding more information would just make the whole work unreadable and
messy.
I’m not a book writer, and this was compiled to suit my own personal taste.
Whenever I saw information that seemed relevant to me, I’d copy it to my PC.
Since reading recording info for hours and hours can drive anyone crazy, I started
inserting any funny jokes that I met along the way (hence the “Bad Jokes”
mentioned in the title). Therefore, there might be a lot of stuff here that might not
matter to you. Sorry about that, but I still hope it can be useful for you guys…
I have a life as well, and this project has taken me many sleepless nights. It’s at
the stage where I feel I can share it with others, and let it finally rest in peace.
Although I would have wished to do a second annex with Greg’s Journal, I doubt
I would ever have the time again to take this work any further. Someone else will
have to handle it (hint)…
I’ve added numerous bookmarks to this PDF, which, in the absence of a proper
index, or painstaking organizational skills, should make the task of consulting it
much easier. There are audio samples of snares recorded at EA studios, included
for your convenience. The annex A [equipment list] is available as a separate PDF.
A final note: Some people sell their grandmothers on E-Bay! I didn’t make any
money from this, and neither should you. Share this for free! This was compiled
from the contributions of many people, and I hope they can forgive me for using
their hard work in this way…
With nothing more to add, I hope you enjoy this release, and start recording!
Best Regards,
Bébio Amaro,
Lisbon, Portugal, 10th September 2008
Steve Albini
Sound Engineer Extraordinaire
Published in SOS September 2005
Steve Albini has become a legend in the world of alternative music by

championing traditional engineering skills, respecting the opinions of the
artists he records, and doing business ethically.
The big cliché about Steve Albini is that he has a

reputation that precedes him. Regularly described in the
press as 'controversial' and 'difficult', he has against-
the-grain opinions on studio technology and on the role
of the producer, and he's stigmatised as the Godfather of
Grunge, the champion of heavily distorted, in-your-face,
alternative rock. In person, however, he's easy-going and
forthcoming, and it turns out that many of the other
myths about him are just that: myths.
Photos: Paul
Take, for instance, the received wisdom that Albini mainly
Natkin
works with hard-hitting grunge bands, and imposes his
own uncompromising sound on records. This perception is perhaps
unsurprising, since Albini's most famous credits include Nirvana, PJ Harvey,
the Pixies, Bush and Jimmy Page & Robert Plant. Moreover, the Chicagoan
has been a guitarist in cult 1980s post-punk bands Big Black and Rapeman,
while today he's part of the grunge band Shellac.
"I've recorded 1500-2000 records, and I know they are all quite different,"
protests Albini. "I've recorded acoustic albums hundreds of times, with
acoustic guitars or strings, and so on. I can name hundreds of bands that
I've recorded that have a completely different aesthetic than grunge. And I
don't impose my taste on the bands I record. To me it's ridiculous to say
that my records have a sound. I can understand why someone who has only
heard three or four records I have worked on that are stylistically similar can
make such a statement, but I think it is wrong."
Indeed, a refusal to impose his own sound on other people's recordings is a

political issue for Steve Albini, as well as an aesthetic one. Here, the received
wisdom is right on the mark: he has striking viewpoints on the machinations
of the record industry in general and on the roles of the engineer and
producer in particular. Type the name 'Albini' and the words 'The Problem
With Music' into any search engine, for instance, and you'll hit on an article
written by Albini in which he mercilessly takes the relationship between
band and record company apart. In typically graphic manner, Albini offers
the image of "a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe 60
yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit." He asks us to picture the band
on one end and "a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a
fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's
printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is
making everybody's eyes water."
The Engineer With No Name
The American clearly takes no prisoners on the subject of the music

industry. But his opinions on what's happening in the recording studio are
equally radical and can be summarised as putting the artist's interests
before everything else. He's averse, for instance, to the idea of a record
producer, and thinks that taking royalties is "an insult to the band". Albini
insists on defining himself as an engineer and sees the essence of his work
as purely technical, rather than artistic. For this reason he will work with
anyone who calls, regardless of musical style or ability, and would rather
not see his name appear on record sleeves.
"I think that my name appearing on people's records is a little bit of a

distraction," he says. "I don't think it's important, and in some ways it
causes public relations problems for the band, who then have to defend me
or defend their choice of working with me. I understand that people want to
give credit, and that's fine. I'm not offended by it. But once I'm paid, I don't
really need anything more.
"The cases where I'm credited as a producer are the result of someone at
the record company writing that on the back of a record. I don't personally
try to exert any influence on my credit. Whatever the band and the record
company do with the packaging is their business. But from a position of
accuracy, I don't really do anything that a producer does. A producer is
someone who is completely responsible for a session, but in my case those
decisions are made by the band, so I don't qualify as a producer in that
sense. Ultimately what I'm trying to do is satisfy the band. Most of the time
what they want is for me to record their organic sound, so that's what I'm
trying to provide. If I'm asked to do something fantastic, then I will try to do
something fantastic, but I don't start from a position that everything needs
to be changed from what it was."
Albini's exhortations may sound almost naively

utopian to some, but the man appears to walk
his talk. The sessions for Nirvana's In Utero
provide the most famous illustration, because
Albini refused the offer of a royalty percentage,
at the time (1993) estimated to be worth about
$500,000, and instead proposed a flat fee of Some of the more
$100,000. These days Albini doesn't only turn unusual rackmounting
down any royalty fees, he's also prepared to gear at Electrical Audio:
forego his $450 daily fee (already peanuts in from top, custom-built
comparison with other 'name' producers and mid/sides matrix, Klark-
engineers) if a band say they can't afford it. So Technic DN34 'Analogue
how does he survive? Time Processor', Dbx
500 subharmonic
"Well, most of the time I do get paid," laughed
generator and Skibbe 5-
Albini, "but on occasion I do a record as a favour
9C compressor.
for a friend of mine, or a band runs out of money
halfway through the sessions and it's either leave the record unfinished, or
finish and not get paid. And I prefer to finish the record. Basically, anyone
who calls on the phone I'm willing to work with. If someone rings because
he wants to make a record, I say yes. I'm sure that some people call me
because relative to other people who have the kind of experience that I have,
I'm very inexpensive. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I'm happy to be a
bargain."
Don't Be Manipulative
Before readers call their travel agencies to inquire about the prices for a
round trip to Chicago, they might want to consider Albini's working methods.
He explains that he was very influenced by John Loder, "the engineer and
producer who ran Southern Studios and Southern Records in London, and
recorded a lot of the early punk rock singles that were really important to
me. They also appeared on the Small Wonder label and Crass Records, and
Rough Trade and so on. Those English labels had very distinctive-sounding
records, and they were done cheaply and quickly in a small studio, and that
really appeared to me. John Loder was the principal engineer on most of
these records.
"When I was in Big Black we did a session with him, and I thought he was a
terrific engineer. He showed me the potential for getting the most out of the
equipment without making the equipment the focus of attention. He knew
how to do things quickly and with great sensitivity to the band, and had a
complete working knowledge of his equipment. In any situation he could
snap his fingers and do the right thing, because he knew exactly how things
worked and what to do.
"Working in the computer paradigm is much slower, because no-one knows

their computer software well enough to be aware of every single thing it
does. In the analogue domain you know what you're supposed to do, you
plug something in, and it's done. Problems are solved instantly. In the digital
domain you have to try lots of options and see if any of them work, and
then you pray that your computer will follow your instructions and won't
crash and that you don't need to restart or reinstall something."
Albini says that he spends on average "four to 10 days recording an album,

including mixing. Two weeks would be an extraordinarily long time for me.
Most of the bands that I work with don't have any spare money, so they
have to work quickly to get the record finished."
The American also pays homage to engineer Iain Burgess, from whom he
learned to avoid 1970s approaches like excessive overdubbing and
processing, click-track recording, and trying to keep the sound as dead as
possible, and instead to focus on recording a band live in the studio, as
naturally as possible. All this led to Albini's current emphasis on the front
end of recording — microphones, mic placement, mic preamps (see box) —
and his love of analogue recording equipment.
"Anyone who has made records for more than a very short period,"
commented Albini, "will recognise that trying to manipulate a sound after it
has been recorded is never as effective as when it's recorded correctly in
the first place. Unfortunately almost all the recording software in digital
recording is designed to manipulate sound, rather than record it, and so
most digital sessions are primarily about manipulating sound, rather than
recording sound."
Steve Albini's Recording Tips
Acoustic Guitars
Favourite microphones: Schoeps 221b, Neumann 56/54 and FM2, Audio

Technica 4051, Lomo 1918, plus ribbon mics like the Coles STC 4038, various
Royers, RCA 44DX, 74JR and 77DX.
Favourite preamps: Massenburg 8400, Sytek MPX4.
"The Lomo is a Russian microphone made in the '60s and '70s. I use that a
lot on acoustic guitar. They weren't standard in the West but they were
quite common in the East and they have now made their way across. I'll use
a ribbon microphone if it's a real bright guitar and I want to try to thicken
the sound a little bit. Where I place the microphone depends on whether
someone is going to be singing and playing, or just playing. If they're singing
and playing I have to minimise the vocal spillage, so I put the microphones
quite close up. If there's no singing, then I can back the microphones off a
little bit, I would say about two to three feet, and in that case it usually
sounds better in a slightly live room. I don't necessarily point the
microphone straight at the sound hole. Sometimes you want to get it up in
the air a little bit, looking down at the guitar so you can get more of the
strumming and less projection of the hole. If the guitar is a little thin-
sounding, you want to have it more in front of the body. It varies.
Sometimes you have to move your head around a little and see where it
sounds best."
Electric Guitars
Favourite microphones: Coles 4038, Royer 44/77, Neumann U67, Lomo

1909, Josephson E22p, various other condenser microphones.
Favourite preamps: Ampex 351, John Hardy M2, Neve 3115, B002,
Massenburg 8400.
"Normally I'll have two microphones on each cabinet, a dark mic and a
bright mic, say a ribbon microphone and a condenser, or two different
condensers with different characters. The idea is that you can adjust the
balance until it sounds pretty much the way it does in the playing room. I
point them straight to the middle of the speaker cone, the same distance
away from the speakers, about 10 to 12 inches. If it's a loud amplifier you
don't want the microphone too close. If it's a clean, round sound, or a very
bright sound, then I might use a vocal microphone.
"For very distorted but very bright guitars I'll use a brighter mic preamp like
the Ampex, but for heavier sounds or sounds with a very important bass
content, I'll use the John Hardy, a Neve, or the Massenburg. I don't normally
process the guitar while recording. If it doesn't sound right, I'll fix it by
swapping or moving microphones, and then it goes straight to tape. I'll talk
to the guitar player and ask him whether he's happy with the way his guitar
sounds. If he's happy then I don't want to touch it. When I'm working on 16
tracks I'll submix the two guitar microphones before going to tape. With 24-
track, I try to leave them separate."
Vocals
Favourite microphones: Neumann U47, U48, AKG C12 or 451, Shure SM7,
Electro-Voice RE20, Beyer M88, Sennheiser 421, Josephson 700A.
"Vocals are quite complicated to record. When the guitar player is playing
the guitar, and someone's listening to him, they're hearing guitars, they're
not hearing him. But with a singer, they're hearing the guy. That can be
nerve-racking, and so it's important that singers are comfortable. I like the
classic vocal microphones, but there are some situations where you have,
for example, a crooner or someone with a very softly modulated voice, and
they sound the best with a ribbon microphone. Conversely when you have
someone who sings very quietly and you need a microphone with a lot of
detail to make that sound realistic, I like the Josephson 700. It is a fantastic
vocal microphone.
"Where I place the microphone depends on the singer. Normally I'll start
with whatever their normal intuitive distance is from the microphone and
then let them hear the results. If they think it sounds too boomy I'll have
them move back and if they think it sounds too thin then I'll have them
move forward. Vocals are the only instrument that you have to compress a
little bit, otherwise the dynamic range is too wide. I normally compress the
vocals about 4-6 dB or something like that — generally, at the quietest
passages the compressor is not doing anything, and at the loudest passages
it's doing 4-6 dB."
Bass
Favourite microphones: Beyer 380, EV RE20, Josephson C42, E22s, Audio-

Technica Pro 37R, AKG 451, Altec 165/175.
Favourite preamps: John Hardy 2, Neotek desk.
"It's the same basic idea as with electric guitars. I'll try to have a dark
[Beyer, EV], and a bright [the rest] microphone on the cabinet, the idea
being that if you balance the low-frequency and high-frequency
microphones, you can get a more accurate representation of what the
cabinet sounds like. I normally run the low-frequency microphone through
a soft compressor, at a ratio of 3:1 or 4:1, and it's not usually working more
than 3-4 dB. I don't normally compress the brighter of the two
microphones."
Drums
Favourite microphones:
Bass drum front: AKG D112, EV RE20, Beyer M380.
Bass drum back: small condenser or dynamic mic, often Shure SM98.
Snare top: Altec 175, Sony C37p.
Snare bottom (occasionally): Shure SM98, Altec 165/175.
Toms: Josephson E22.
Cymbals: Neumann SM2, AKG C24.
Overheads: Coles STC4038, Beyer 160, Royer 122.
Ambient: small-diaphragm condensers like Altec 150, Neumann 582.
"I have miked drums in quite a few different Electrical Audio's well-
ways. Sometimes I'll just have an overhead stocked mic locker.
microphone and a bass drum microphone.
Normally there are close mics on all the drums, as well as ambient
microphones, and a stereo microphone in front of the drum kit for cymbals.
It's hard to describe where I place them and it varies a lot. If the drummer
plays very lightly, then there's a lot of attack and not a lot of tone, and I
want the microphone to look at the contact point of the snare drum. If the
drummer is playing very hard and he's exciting the whole drum, I usually
have to back the microphone off a little bit so that it's not overloading. For
the ambient mics I'll walk around the room and see where it sounds good,
and I usually have them on the floor to take advantage of the boundary
effect, and to minimise early reflections.
"I'll occasionally compress the front bass-drum microphone while
recording, in the same way as the bass guitar, at a low ratio of a couple of
dBs. The snare drum tends to overwhelm the overhead microphones, so I'll
have a very fast-acting peak limiter on the overhead to keep the snare
drum from doing that. I don't normally compress the room but I'll
sometimes delay the ambient microphones by a few milliseconds and that
has the effect of getting rid of some of the slight phasing that you hear
when you have microphones at a distance and up close. If you move them a
little bit further away then they move out of what's called the Hass effect
area, and when you move them far enough away they start sounding like
acoustic reflections, which is what they are."
Electrical Engineering
Albini's recording preferences find their reflection in his Chicago studio,

Electrical Audio, a place where he also lives. ("It's a matter of making things
more simple on a day-to-day basis. I don't have to drive anywhere.")
Electrical Audio opened its doors in 1997, and its live recording areas are set
up to cater for every acoustic eventuality. There are two dead recording
rooms, two sizeable live rooms with high ceilings, and a huge third (1200
square foot) live room with oak floors and adobe walls.
"Adobe," explains Albini, "is unfired earth brick. It's very heavy but also very
soft, so very good for acoustic isolation, with a lot of high-frequency
diffusion. Most studios have made compromises in their acoustic
environments with recording spaces that are neither very live, nor very dead,
and I feel that they're inappropriate in every situation. We've tried to create
rooms that offer a range of big contrasts in their acoustics."
The studio also has two control rooms, each featuring desks from the
relatively smalle Chicago company Neotek — a 96-input Elite and a 36-
channel Series II. "I was very familiar with these desks," explains Albini,
"because a lot of studios in Chicago have them. We wanted a number of
custom changes made to our console, and some other console
manufacturers weren't too keen to do this. But Neotek was happy to make
all the changes to the Elite that we wanted."
Scrutinising Electrical Audio's equipment list further, aside from the Flying
Faders automation on the Elite, perhaps the most striking aspect is the
complete absence of computers and the very limited number of digital
boxes, even in the outboard gear department. Electrical Audio must now be
one of the few studios in the world today that's a computer-recording-free
environment. Instead, pride of place goes to a number of analogue tape
recorders, among them the Studer A820 16/24-track, an MCI JH16 eight-
track, and Studer A820 and Ampex ATR102 two-tracks, which are "all
refurbished, so effectively as new". Does Albini feel like he's holding the fort
for a way of recording that's increasingly seen as outmoded?
"There are probably quite a few studios like us," objected Albini, "that don't
have Pro Tools, but occasionally host digital sessions. When someone brings
a project into our studio that was started on Pro Tools, they'll bring in a
computer and carry on with it in here. And our studio is commercially
available, so outside engineers sometimes bring Pro Tools sessions in. But
for our normal day-to-day work it isn't necessary. I have always done
things with the analogue method, and I still think it's the best method. So I
have no reason to change. I've had a long time to accumulate equipment
and microphones and techniques, and I've never been in a situation where
I've had to say 'No, I can't do that, because we're working on tape.' If there
were problems that I could not solve on tape, I might be compelled to use
computers, but I've never encountered such a problem."
Albini also prefers analogue to digital for sonic reasons, although he reckons
that high-resolution digital formats sound "OK". He adds "I like the high-
resolution DSD/SACD consumer format, although SACD is now defunct as I
understand it. I also think that from a convenience point of view, for people
who want to play music in a boombox or in the car, or at work or something,
CDs are great. The iPod is the same. It doesn't sound great, but it's
wonderful for providing background music for people while they do other
things. But for critical listening, or for music that means a lot to me, these
formats aren't good enough. A well-made vinyl record still sounds infinitely
better than anything else."
Having expertly demoted the once-prestigious CD to the status of the

humble compact cassette, Albini carries on explaining that when working in
his studio, he prefers recording to two-inch 16-track, which "sounds better
than 24-track. There's less noise, less distortion, the bass response is flatter,
and the high end is clearer. I record without Dolby, because I don't like the
way noise reduction affects the sound. We do have Dolby HX Pro, which is a
dynamic bias adjustment, built into our Studer A820 machines. When you
modulate the bias dynamically, you can maintain headroom even with very
bright, sharp transients. It doesn't affect the amount of hiss, it just creates
more headroom. I've never found hiss a problem anyway."
As Live As You Can Get
Clearly, Electric Audio is an unusual recording environment rooted in an

unusual philosophy. So what, exactly, happens there after a band arrives?
"When the band arrives at the studio I have a conversation to find out how
they want to make their record, what sort of sounds they want, how fast
they want to work, who is in charge in the band, and then we get started. I'll
have everyone playing in the same room or spread them out over different
rooms, as required. The important thing is that there is a clear line of sight
for everyone. That's more important than whether they are physically in the
same room.
"I prefer to record as much of the band in one live take as possible. If you do
it any other way, the band is forced into an unnatural situation from the
very beginning of the process. They play together in the rehearsal room and
on stage, so it seems normal to me that they also play together when they
come into the studio. With 90 percent of the records I do, the singing is
recorded after the band, unless the singing is what leads the band. With
folk-type records the singing often has to be done at the same time,
otherwise it doesn't sound right."
Albini has gone on record as saying that
recording a band is purely a technical issue, in
the sense that he's doing little more than
documenting what's happening as faithfully as
possible. "I would very happy if my fingerprints
weren't visible," he said seven years ago. In this
sense his approach to engineering can be likened Electrical Audio is
to realistic photography, although, as Albini designed to offer a
concedes, even a photographer makes choices in variety of acoustic
how he depicts reality. "The idea that you can spaces for recording.
have an objective perspective in the studio is
insane. I think great music is not made to suit objective criteria. Great music
is made by people who are obsessed with something. I appreciate it when
someone says 'That sounds good, but I hate it. I want it to sound more like
this or like that.' I think it's an appropriate response for someone to say that
they want something to sound strange in a specific way. And my job as an
engineer is to make sure that the sound coming out of the speakers satisfies
the band.
"But even at his most extreme, Brian Eno didn't manipulate records as
much as any sophomore in college does these days the moment he gets a
Pro Tools rig. The manipulation capabilities of the digital editing programs
are now so elaborate that sonic manipulation has become a cliché. I don't
see the studio as a laboratory as more important than the band as a
performing unit. Anyone can do whatever he wants in the studio — I would
never say 'No, you're not allowed to do this.' But in the same way that not
every movie should look like Star Wars, I don't think every record should be
manipulated to the extent that they often are. I don't understand where the
impulse comes from to make a record that doesn't have any relationship to
the sound of the real band. That seems crazy to me."
But what, for instance, if in his opinion an arrangement of a song doesn't

work? Surely, many bands come to him because of his reputation and would
therefore want him to comment or improve on what they're doing? "It's
none of my business," replies Albini. "If the band has decided to do
something, it's their record. I think it's rude for an engineer or producer to
say 'You guys are wrong about your own music.' I think that's almost
unforgivable. It's like saying 'Here, let me show you how to f**k your wife.
You're doing it all wrong.' It just seems crazy.
"If a band asks me for my opinion, I'm happy to present them with options,
but I'm not going to make their records for them. I know that my tastes are
not the same as everyone else's. My tastes are actually f**ked up. I like
music that is in a lot of cases unpleasant. If I were to try to satisfy my own
tastes with every record that comes to me as an engineer, I'd make a lot of
freakish records that wouldn't flatter the band in any way, and no-one
would like them. So I could not possibly exert my own aesthetic on every
record that comes in here."
Desk Mods
The advantage of dealing with a small, local

desk manufacturer such as Neotek is that Steve
Albini has been able to ask for numerous
custom modifications to the Elite desk that's in
one of Electrical Audio's control rooms. "One of
the most important changes was to the stereo
master output. In the original design there was The Neotek Elite desk in
a wide-bandwith power amplifier that was used the larger control room
as the output drive amplifier. The idea was that at Electrical Audio has
you would put your stereo outputs in parallel to been extensively
this one output amplifier. We had separate modified.
output buffers installed for each stereo output,
so if there's a problem with the CD recorder or DAT machine or digital
converters, it won't f**k up your master recording. Isolating all the stereo
outputs made for a safer system as far as the stereo master is concerned.
"The stereo master also has a pre-fader insert that wasn't on the original
console. You can assign an auxiliary stereo buss from any of the channels,
and this allows you to have parallel outboard processing on some channels.
By using the return from that auxiliary stereo buss you can have, for
example, a side mixer or an outboard Pro Tools rig or any number of things
that you can add to the stereo buss, without having to go through channel
electronics.
"In the original console there were a series of mute groups that you could
assign using the solo and play buttons on the channels. Because we were
using the Flying Faders and the solo and play function wasn't necessary, we
had all of that removed just to avoid the possibility of muting parts of the
desk.
"The subgroup outputs of the desk can be stereo submasters that go
through a stereo mix or they can be submasters that go out of the desk as
output busses. We had those converted so that there was an insert on each
of those busses, again to allow for parallel processing. The subgroups now
all have direct outputs as well. We envisioned that it would be useful for
surround mixing if we were ever asked to do that. But surround mixing has
basically disappeared, so I don't think that will ever happen."
Leave Well Alone
Although Albini is willing to do something "fantastic" when required, it

doesn't come as a surprise that he's reluctant to apply many effects at any
stage of the recording, whether recording or mixing. He takes issue with
those engineers and producers who like to fix it in the mix, and even with
respected studio forces like producer Daniel Lanois, who has described the
mix as a performance. "I think that's a very egotistical statement," opines
Albini. "I don't subscribe to the idea that you make a record during the
mixing stage. That's putting too much emphasis on it.
"Ninety-nine percent of mixing is the balance. If you can hear what

everyone is doing, and it all sounds flattering, then you can't really make
any mistakes. In most cases there's a natural stereo balance that you try to
duplicate. Panning is part of that balance. I'm not a fan of dynamically
panning things, with things moving about. I tend to present things from the
perspective of the musician: if you're sitting at the drums, then the hi-hat is
at the left and the floor tom on the right, if you're a right-handed
drummer."
Given the omnipresence of compression on today's recordings, particularly

in grunge rock, it's perhaps surprising to find he doesn't actually like
compression very much. "I'm not a fan of the sound of compression and I
try to avoid it. I've used stereo buss compression on one of the hundreds of
records I've made, and that was an experiment and I learned what I needed
from that. There will occasionally be compression on individual instruments
in the mix, but not often. I don't normally try to get rid of wild dynamics. I
try to incorporate them. If it sounds good, it sounds good, if it doesn't, it
doesn't. When I can hear compression working I'm kind of irritated by it. It
bothers me because it seems like I'm hearing this machine rather than the
band."
Albini's tune is much the same with regard to other effects and processors.
"Occasionally I'll use some EQ during the mixing, because you can have
overlapping sounds that cause interference problems, and so you use EQ to
open up the sound a little bit. I may use a gentle passive shelf equaliser
rather than a resonant band-pass equaliser on the stereo buss, or on a
stereo submix, if I need to brighten up the drum overhead microphones, or
if I have a vocal that needs a little bit of brightening. I also sometimes put
the NTI EQ3 or GML 8200 across the stereo buss.
"With regards to reverbs, we have the best in the world.

We have a really nice, beautiful-sounding old plate reverb,
the Echoplate, and we have a spring reverb tower, the
AKG BX20, which in its day was the bee's knees for long
reverbs. It was a $5000-10,000 device when it was made,
in the late '60s and early '70s. It's about six feet tall and
has two spiral reverb springs and it sounds lovely. We also
have the Quantec XRS XL, which for my money is the best
digital reverb ever, and with the Klark Teknik DN780 and
the Lexicon PCM70, PCM80 and Prime Time, we have all
the necessary options for reverb.
"I nevertheless don't find myself using reverb very often, because I don't
think it's as necessary as most engineers and producers think it is. They use
it almost a reaction, an automatic reflex: when a singer starts singing, they
put reverb on it. It's a thing that's done pro forma a lot of the time. They put
it on because they feel they're supposed to. I've never had that response. I'll
wait until someone says 'That sounds weird,' and then I'll try reverb. And if
you do need reverb, it's great to have really nice ones available and not to
have to make do with lots of artificial crap."
Albini lays down the final mixes at Electrical Audio on half-inch analogue
tape, mostly using the Ampex ATR102. He's happy to make CD listening
copies for the band, but insists on analogue mixdown because he reckons
that the problems with the durability of digital storage media are as
unresolved as ever. But with all the recent upheavals in analogue tape
production, doesn't he worry about the longevity of the analogue medium?
"I don't think that digital tape will be manufactured for much longer,"
reckons Albini, "but analogue tape is manufactured again as we speak."
Indeed, after being shut down because of bankruptcy at the end of 2004,
Quantegy has recently been taken over by a company called Discount Tape
and is back in production. Albini also points to the British company Zonal,
which used to supply the BBC, and apparently plans to produce tape again,
to a Dutch company that has bought a former Philips cassette tape plant
and the rights to Agfa and Mtech tape, and to ATR Services in Pennsylvania.
The latter intends to begin manufacturing analogue tape later this year
under the name ATR Magnetics. But the latest word from Holland is that
with Quantegy back in the market, the PDM company has for now
suspended plans to enter the professional tape market.
Albini is unconcerned by all this uncertainty. "To be honest, I saw it coming,

and we built up a huge stockpile of analogue tape here." In more ways than
one, Albini remains ahead of the game.
Published in SOS September 2005

David Gedge, Dare Mason & Steve Albini: Recording Cinerama's Disco
Volante
Published in SOS February 2001
Wedding Present frontman David Gedge and engineer/producer Steve

Albini are both associated with brutally loud guitar-based alternative
music — so what would happen when they collaborated on an album
influenced more by Serge Gainsbourg than The Stooges? Tom Flint
investigates...
"When I explained my idea on the phone he said 'That sounds hideous!'"

laughs David Gedge, describing Steve Albini's initial reaction to the Cinerama
concept. It was perhaps not entirely surprising that the idea of arranging
and producing Gedge's indie rock/pop compositions in a style more typical
of John Barry and Ennio Morricone should provoke such a response from
Albini, given the latter's history as a producer and engineer. Having first
gained notoriety as leader of American hardcore-punk band Big Black, Albini
went on to produce Nirvana's In Utero, The Pixies' Surfer Rosa, and PJ
Harvey's Mansize. To most, therefore, he would not have seemed the most
obvious choice for such a project like Cinerama, but David Gedge has often
been unpredictable in his choices.
New Deal
For Disco Volante, Gedge decided to set up his own label, named Scopitones
(See the 'Keeping Your Independence' box on page 182). By doing so he took
on the responsibility of financing the album himself, so as with Va Va Voom,
the budget was a limiting factor.
As if to acknowledge the John Barry influence and to firmly set out his
intentions for Disco Volante, Gedge named the album after the hydrofoil
owned by Largo in the 1965 James Bond film Thunderball. Once again Sally
Murrell was available for backing vocals, but also joining the band was
Wedding Present guitarist Simon Cleave who supplied what were to become
the Disco Volante 'surf guitar' parts. Aiming to introduce a little more of the
Wedding Present feel into the project, Gedge decided to re-establish his
collaboration with Steve Albini, who had produced The Wedding Present's
1991 album Seamonsters. "I chose Steve for quite a few reasons," explains
Gedge. "I think he's one of the best engineers in the world and I've really
liked the sound of everything he's done. His technique isn't anything
mystifying. He's got a massive collection of mics, so for his drum sound all
he does is get a great drum kit, then mike it up in an acoustically perfect
room with great mics. If you think about it, it's so obvious to do that and it
works. I thought it might work with Cinerama as well, but a few people in
the band were saying it couldn't possibly, which made me more
determined.
"I gave him a list of 'influences' which would've included The Wedding
Present, Ennio Morricone, John Barry, Burt Bacharach and surf music,
amongst others, but it was probably when I mentioned Serge Gainsbourg
that he went 'Aaaaargh!'. He always uses the adjective 'French' in a
disparaging way, so after that I played it down a bit and was a bit more
sparing with the information! From that point on, whenever he didn't like
something we'd done in the studio he'd say 'That sounds sooo French!'
"I didn't give him an advance cassette, and in the past he didn't work from
tapes. When we play the songs it's the first time he hears them. I was
thinking that if it didn't work I'd have to do it again with a more sympathetic
producer, but when he got into it he wanted to do the whole project, which
was a relief!"
Albini explains his initial thoughts on the proposed album. "In the abstract, it
sounded like an exploration of territory that quite a few people were
covering at the time — light orchestrations, soundtrack influences. But I had
innate faith that David would be smart and tasteful enough to avoid the
formulaic triviality of many of the laid-back orchestrated pop projects, and
Cinerama is better than you would expect if the music had been described
to you."
Electrical Effects
All of the initial band recording was done at Electrical Audio in Chicago, a
facility designed by Albini and constructed to his own specification. One of
the most significant design features of the studio is its deliberate 'all
analogue' setup, based around a Studer 820 24-track, Neotek Series II
console, Ampex ATR102 half-inch mixdown deck and B&W 805 Matrix
monitors. The exclusively analogue setup at Electrical Audio determined
which elements of the Cinerama album could and couldn't be recorded
there, as Dare Mason explains. "David wasn't sure how he wanted to do the
second album but he did want Albini to do the really crucial things, like the
guitar and the drums. Again it was down to budget constraints. If he'd done
it all on analogue it would have taken weeks, we wouldn't have been able to
fly in any vocals, or do all the cutting, pasting, dragging and dropping that
you can in digital audio, so they would have had to play and sing everything
on the album, which would have taken far too long and cost far too much.
The plan was to bring the project back here and have lots of time to do
things like vocals and strings. We knew the string, horn and trumpet players
we wanted to use so it made a lot of sense for the overdubs."
Given the music's heavy John Barry influence and the vintage analogue
surroundings, it would only have taken the addition of a few men wearing
white coats and clutching clipboards to complete the image of the SPECTRE
headquarters from a 1960s Bond film. And, as Gedge explains, that image
was surprisingly close to the truth: "All the people who work there wear
overalls. It's like the technical department of BBC Radiophonic Workshop or
something. Albini said they just felt that they were at work and in a different
frame of mind when they put their overalls on, so they kept wearing them."
Albini reveals more of the reasons behind the curious protocol. "It isn't a
dress code, any more than when fly-fishermen all wear wading boots. One
day I came to work and one of the guys had gotten a bunch of these overalls
made. He handed me a set and said, 'Here's your jumpsuit.' I've worn them
in the studio ever since, and so do most of the other guys here. They are an
ideal work outfit — big pockets for carrying things around, heavy protection
from bumping into things and for carrying things, and they keep my clothes
from getting dirty and torn up. Most of making a record is like working in a
warehouse (without the forklifts) — carrying things from one place to
another, lifting things, crawling around under things, tidying up, and so on.
The jumpsuits are great for that."
The Recording Process
Although no strings or brass were to be recorded in Chicago, they were

integral to the Cinerama sound, so Gedge took his Akai S3000 sampler
loaded with the relevant samples and a laptop running Cakewalk to trigger
them. "When we rehearsed, we played to a click track and I had the sampler
going through a PA into the rest of the room," explains Gedge. "It was a bit
weird, because the band had to play knowing that would be added later, but
it was well rehearsed. That's the other thing about Albini, you have to be
well rehearsed because he
loses patience quickly."
Steve Albini's Recording Maxims
Once again Albini is emphatic
about his preference for Disco Volante is just one of countless
well-rehearsed bands and his projects that Steve Albini has
approach to recording. "It engineered at Electrical Audio — but his
stands to reason that if a philosophy has remained consistent
band is ready to play its across all of them, as he explains. "I don't
music before arriving in the know how many specific techniques are
studio, the end result will be common to the work I've done with other
more confident, and that bands, but the underlying conceptual
decisions about it can be rules would be the same:
made more efficiently than
• Be prepared for anything the band
otherwise. If you've never
wants to do.
heard a song played all the
• Fix it now, not later.
way through before, how will
• If it doesn't sound good to the band, it
you know if it's played to its
doesn't sound good.
full potential? It always helps
• The band is the boss. I consider myself
to have a memory of the
to be an engineer. The producer is
song being played as a
responsible for artistic decisions on the
reference.
record, and I am not. An engineer is
"I try to audition things as responsible for the technical execution of
they are set up, starting with the recording, as I am.
the drums and moving from • Don't take shortcuts if they will be
one instrument to the next, noticeable."
readjusting whenever
something sounds bad. It isn't my style to use a standard setup and make
adjustments after the recording is done. Certain songs require a different
technique on one instrument or another depending on volume, tone and
mood. It is part of the job to be sensitive to such things and make
adjustments on the fly as necessary.
"I don't remember which mics and preamps I used precisely, but there
would have been close mics on the drums, overhead mics and distant
ambient mics. I was trying to be prepared for any eventuality in the final mix.
There is occasionally some spillage, but I try to ensure that it is never a
problem. I wasn't there when it was mixed, so I don't know if there were any
later complaints. I seldom use any compression, limiting or EQ, except in
specific trouble cases. I probably brightened the snare mic, and I think I
limited one of the overhead mics as a special effect. That's probably about it.
I don't recall which mics I used on the rest of the session. it could have been
any of a dozen mics for each, depending on how it sounded on the day. I
have over 200 microphones, and each of them has special characteristics
that make them useful or not in different circumstances. Knowing them is
part of the job. I don't recall using any effects, but I may be mistaken. The
studio has a huge collection of equipment, so anything that was required
was available, but I don't recall what was used in each instance."
Over The Top
By the end of the Chicago session, the drums, bass, some of the electric
guitars and some vocals had been recorded. Albini then sent the 24-track
two-inch master to Dare Mason for the addition of the overdubs. But before
any work could commence, the audio had to be transferred into Cubase.
"It was a bit of a nightmare!" admits Dare. "Dave is nothing if not

methodical and organised, but it wasn't as simple as he though it would be.
The sequenced sounds and click had been dumped onto a couple of
analogue tracks. The main problem was that the click was not generated by
SMPTE so it wasn't tied to any kind of timecode. I received a 24-track tape
with a shaker for a click which was just 'shhh shhh shhh', and it had
crosstalk all over it from the guide tracks. On top of that, the tape had been
edited by Albini between various takes.
"I found a way around it with the help of another engineer called Chris
Madden. Firstly we transferred it from 24-track onto RADAR so we knew it
was going to be stable with no wow and flutter problems. We managed to
sync RADAR and Cubase via the word clock and MIDI sync at the same time
via a very complicated process that I can't even remember now! It was like
being a bomb disposal expert for two days."
There were 10 tracks of drums to choose from. He'd put mics on the front
and back of the bass drum, and there were four or five ambient mics. Two
of those were overheads with loads of room sound on and I think he'd tried
to compensate by moving the other overhead mics quite close to the
cymbals. Albini had had to record 13 tracks in four days, and 'Wow' had to
be completely finished apart from strings and horns because Dave wanted
to release a single before the album came out, so they did work the poor
guy's butt off. I had the luxury of working in a very relaxed fashion here.
"Absolutely no reverb was added to the drums. I know it's hard to believe,
but it's all just the live room. Albini must have recorded it in a massive room
with the mics quite distant. If anything that was a problem, because even
the close mics sounded like they were recorded in a big room. It's all about
your taste and subjectivity, and if it had been up to me the drums wouldn't
have been so ambient because I like things to sound like they're recorded in
the same space, but David has a different vision, which is great because it
sounds more unique than it would if I'd mixed it to my taste. David would be
saying 'Can't we make the drums sound a bit more ambient?', while I was
saying 'For f••k's sake man, it sounds like Led Zeppelin already!'
"Once I've got organised on the first mix in terms of channels on the desk
and where things are coming up, it pretty much flows through. I get the
band sounding pretty good then put the vocal in and work on that. Then I
start putting all the bits of icing around. Once I have everything in at a
balance that I like, Dave will come in and ask for a little bit more ambience
on the drums, and say 'Aren't the vocals a bit loud?' That's usually what it
boils down to and that's usually a bit of a fight between me and him. I think
I've persuaded him that the vocals do need to be a bit louder than he thinks.
He's so used to them being buried under the guitars in The Wedding Present.
The lyrics are at least 50 percent of what Cinerama is about, so I really like
people to be able to hear the words, but Dave gets his own way with the
drums and the ambience!"
Pure Analogue
Steve Albini explains why digital equipment has no place in his studio:
"Analogue sounds better than digital to my ears, more true to the sound
of the instruments and voices. There are no real advantages to
abandoning either the proven equipment or techniques, and analogue
masters are permanent — lasting 100 years or so at last estimate —
while digital masters are not. There's an arcane technical discussion
involved here, but the gist of it is that digital recording systems keep
being discontinued, or are no longer functionally adequate, and the
masters are either hard-disk files with no physical being, or physical
tape/disc copies, which deteriorate of their own accord in a relatively
short time period, and I consider the minimum requirement of my job to
be making a permanent recording.
"Digital systems invite an entire slew of problems, akin to computer

glitches in all other walks of life, into the studio, and I don't want to
inflict them on the band or their audience. Analogue systems are more
reliable, faster and easier to use. They're more robust with respect to
abuse, easier to maintain and repair, better suited to
creative/experimental recording techniques and less fatiguing on the
operators and listeners. Lastly, analogue equipment holds its value far
better, which is a consideration when investing in equipment for the
long term."
Into The World
Once the mixes were complete, the album was mastered at Hilton Grove by
Guy Davis and released in the summer of 2000. A special heavy vinyl edition
was sent by Gedge to Albini (knowing his preference for that format), and
was the first opportunity for the engineer to hear the finished result. While
describing the album as 'a fine record' Albini had reservations about the
process. "I always prefer to be involved from start to finish because I have
high standards, and I like to see them maintained. It breeds inconsistencies
and compromised results when a project is taken from one engineer and
environment and thrust into another. This is as true for Cinerama as
anything else."
While happy with the results of this hybrid project, Gedge also sees a full
project with Steve Albini as a possibility. "I'd like to do a whole project with
Albini from beginning to end with all the orchestration because he's quite
into that. He's known as this grunge producer, but his big idol is George
Martin and he loves Abbey Road studios. I think he gave Disco Volante a
certain edge it wouldn't have had otherwise — and the drums sound great! I
do want to do some more Wedding Present stuff again in the future but I'm
not sure if I'll try to bring in more instruments or just enjoy the limitation
again. Only time will tell."
Visit the Cinerama website at: www.cinerama.co.uk
Published in SOS February 2001

Electrical Audio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Electrical Audio is a recording studio complex located in Chicago, Illinois,

which was founded by Steve Albini in 1997. A large number of independent
music projects have been recorded at this studio. This studio is particularly
unique, since it was one of the few recording studios that was fully-analog,
including mixing consoles, tape recorders and many outboard sound effects
(the rooms are also designed to offer natural reverberation).
In a post on the studio's message board, the studio's technician Greg

Norman revealed that the studio had acquired a Pro Tools rig, citing that it
had become "as important to have as a piano". He also went on to say that
Albini "won't be recording with it. So don't ask him about it.”
Studio A is the larger of the two studios and has three
separate performance rooms, has its own lounge, espresso
bar, sink and toilets, and has an entrance door providing
privacy and self-sufficiency. Control room and lounge
have Ethernet connection to our high-speed internet line.
Center Field: 1200 square feet live room with oak floors,
adobe walls and an asymmetrical ceiling
Alcatraz: exceptionally dry isolation room with extensive
trapping, damping and isolation down to very low
frequencies
Kentucky: smaller, bright live room with excellent low
frequency linearity
Studio B is the smaller and less expensive of our studios.

By most standards it is still quite large, with an 800 square
foot live room (with 30 foot ceiling) and a 300 square foot
isolation room. The control room is also 300 square feet.
There is a small, uncomfortable booth as well. All of the
musical instruments, amplifiers and cabinets are available
to either studio, with the exception of the pianos, which
should stay where they are. There’s a 1901 Nelson and
Wiggin Piano, which has been rebuilt and restrung.
NOTE: the dimensions mentioned in the next page are ROUGH ESTIMATES,
made by comparing approximate room area [in square feet] vs. room
proportion, based on analysis of the “Studio Layout” image shown above.
STUDIO A – ALCATRAZ [Details]
Some recording tasks require close recording with no room ambience;

"dead" or "dry" recording, in the colorful language of the trade. Alcatraz is as
dead a space as we could make.
Deadening high-frequency sound is fairly easily done; as the wavelengths

are short, absorbent materials can be applied to surfaces to a depth that
determines the cut-off frequency. To deaden lower frequencies, this
approach is impractical, as the absorbent material would need to be ever
thicker to absorb the acoustic energy at long wavelengths. A low E on a bass
guitar, for example, at 42Hz would not be affected by absorbent trapping
unless it was a significant fraction of the 24-foot wavelength in depth.
To control low frequencies in Alcatraz, we have used a membrane absorber

and a perimeter vent to couple the performance space with a dead air
volume in the basement -- effectively increasing the air volume to almost
double for low frequencies. Both of these measures have given Alcatraz
excellent low-frequency performance, which is evident when recording
drums, bass and heavy guitar.
A dry environment can also accentuate subtleties in the sound of wood-

bodied acoustic instruments and increases the intelligibility of voice
recording, for "...in a world..."-style movie-trailer narration.
A nice feature of a highly-absorbent dead room like Alcatraz is that little or

no baffling is required to achieve a high degree of separation and isolation
for amplifiers and instruments sharing the room.
Alcatraz Membrane Absorber [Construction Details]
The membrane absorbers in Control Room A and Alcatraz are large surface-
area panels that completely encircle the room. They are different from
traditional "bass traps" in that they work by reducing the power of the
sound waves rather than the velocity of the pressure front.
Sound energy strikes membrane, membrane flexes, dissipating energy as

heat.
The membrane panels are lap-jointed on flat walls, and coupled with
resilient straps at the corners, making the entire surface area of the
absorbers effective, rather than the individual panels.
The membranes are made of oriented-strand board (OXB), and are

suspended from the structural ceiling members. The membrane panels are
hidden from view by the interior fabric panels.
Alcatraz Room Pictures
STUDIO A – KENTUCKY [Photos]
Kentucky [Construction Details]
STUDIO A – CENTERFIELD [Photos]
Centerfield [Diffuser Photo]
STUDIO A – CONTROL ROOM [Details]
The control room has a flat response down to very low frequencies and is
exceptionally even in sound quality, regardless of listener position.
The control room is designed to accommodate larger groups of people, with

several specific features in this regard:
• Separate nearfield monitors for rear sofa

• Exceptional ventilation to clear smoke and funk
• Huge furniture sturdy enough for gymnastics or the obese
• Clear central area for walking around
All studio areas are connected with mic, instrument and loudspeaker tie
lines allowing musicians, amplifiers and cabinets to be located independent
of each other anywhere in the studio.
Studio A normally has 2 multitracks and 2 mixdown machines, but can

accommodate an absurd number of tracks for recording and playback, if
that's your bag.
In addition to the fixed equipment, Studio A can accommodate up to 48

lines of additional outboard through tie panels which connect to the patch
bay.
If desired, a digital multitrack or DAW system can be integrated into the

studio in place of one or more of the multitrack machines using ELCO
connectors.
The console can accommodate 132 inputs if you want to drive yourself crazy.
Tie lines and a remote mic panel allow studio A to use Studio B's live room
while maintaining full Studio A facilities.
Headphone mixers provide independent unique mixes for each musician

without any attention from the engineer.
The control room is designed to have minimal reflected energy, to provide

uncolored sound from the loudspeakers. This type of listening environment
is commonly called "once past the ears", in acoustic geek circles, since the
sound leaving the speakers goes once past the ears, then disappears. This
provides accurate and even sound, which is great for studio monitoring, but
not necessarily appropriate for dancing or making out. For these purposes
we recommend the lounge or client offices.
The equipment racks are pressurized with cold air, and there is a dedicated
AC unit for cooling and airflow across the equipment. This improves
reliability of the equipment and forces dust, smoke and funk away from the
equipment. Exhaust and AC returns are located in the center and rear of the
control room, which increases the efficiency of smoke and fart removal.
The control room of Studio A houses a customized 48 channel Neotek Elite

console with Neve Flying Faders automation.
There are 2 in-house sets of monitors. In the soffits we have 3 way

Westlakes, and for nearfields we have a pair of B&W Matrix 805's.
Control Room A [Photos]

STUDIO B – DEAD ROOM [Photos]
STUDIO B – LIVE ROOM [Photos]
STUDIO B – CONTROL ROOM [Details]
Studio B's control room has room for one multitrack and several mixdown
machines, and sports a 36-input Neotek Series II. The console has been
extensively modified for flexibility, but the audio circuits have been left as
they were made.
Most of the interconnection flexibility described in Studio A applies to Studio

B, with the exception that it is a bit more cumbersome to have a large
outboard workstation or second multitrack added to the existing multitrack.
It is certainly possible to wire another multitrack or multichannel system in
place of the multitrack, but the desk and tie lines are not made to
accommodate a large number of channels.
Control Room B [Photos]
Bear Claw Recording Sessions Photos
Piccoman2
Hi Everyone,
Bear Claw just completed our new album which is entitled "Slow Speed:
Deep Owls" and will be out on Sick Room Records this coming September
(2007). The record is 11 tracks and is 48:15 minutes long. We tracked and
mixed the record at Electrical Audio in Studio A with Steve Albini between
4/19/07 - 4/22/07. We had the record mastered at Chicago Mastering
Service by Bob Weston on 5/1/07 - 5/2/07. It turned out absolutely
fantastic. We could not be more happy with the result. Special thanks to
Steve and Bob for all their hard work as well as everyone else at EA and CMS
that assisted with the project.
Below are two links. One is a link to a page on our site with 3 MP3's from the
album ripped at 160kB for download. The second link is to a page I quickly
put together to post the session pictures I took during the track/mixing and
mastering. Any feedback would be most appreciated.
MP3's of 3 select tracks (finished audio):

http://bearclawrock.com/media.html
Session Pictures:
http://bearclawrock.com/recording.html
If you have the time and resources my advice would be go to Electrical

Audio and Chicago Mastering Service to do your record. You will not be
dissappointed.
Thanks,
Scott
Bear Claw
Jordanosaur
Those pictures are awesome -
Thanks for posting - I'm checking out the songs as I write this. Sounds
pretty great. If I only had a C-24 to mic my bass drum with....
Piccoman2
C-24? The bass drum has an AKG D112 on the front head and a Sennheiser
421 on the batter side. Not sure where you got the C-24 unless you were not
referring to the session pictures.
Jordanosaur
Isn't that a C-24 put back a few feet from the front of the set? I think it's the
two capsule version of the C-12 - Maybe it was meant as more of a full kit
mic.
Piccoman2
Ah... yes the C-24 is being used as you've described (3 or so feet from the
front of the kit). I was just thinking right on the bass drum.
Skatingbasser
Doesn't Steve usually use that mic as an M-S overhead for in front of the kit?
that damned fly

what's with two ampegs on top of one 8x10?
Piccoman2
That's two Ampeg's on top of one 2x15 and that's a Bear Claw "secret"
sunset_gun
Rich went over it with me at one point some years ago. If I remember
correctly, one is cranked for the overdrive tone (the old tubed head) and
one is for cleans. They may also be mixed at some point, but that's the gist
of it.
Nirvana In Utero – Leaked 24-Track Multitrack Sessions: Electrical Audio
Forum Questions
Argyreia Nervosa
Yes this is great fun, there's a slew of multitracks coming out these days.
The Sgt. Pepper ones are quite revealing and Bohemian Rhapsody is insane.
I think Electrical needs a rogue intern, bring on the Slint lol.
Anyway this is what my track list says, I'm not sure how accurate it is.
Quote:
Moist Vagina
01 - nearly total silence (time code track?)

02 - kickdrum
03 - snare drum
04 - toms left
05 - toms right
06 - overhead mic left
07 - overhead mic right
08 - close room mic left
09 - close room mic right
10 - far room mic left
11 - far room mic right
12 - vocals high harmonies
13 - bass amp
14 - bass DI 1
15 - bass DI 2
16 - guitar 1 A
17 - guitar 1 B
18 - guitar 1 C
19 - guitar 1 D
20 - guitar 2 A
21 - guitar 2 B
22 - vocals
23 - vocals w/ effect
24 - bass and drums recording w/ scratch vocals
Sappy

02 - kickdrum
03 - snare drum
04 - toms left
05 - toms right
12 - nearly total silence (probably reserved for never added harmony
vocals)
13 - bass DI 1
14 - bass DI 2
15 - bass amp
16 - guitar 1 A (with totally messed up guitar solo!)
17 - guitar 1 B (the solo part is left off, but includes tapping on the
mic)
18 - guitar 2 A
19 - guitar 2 B
20 - guitar 2 C
21 - vocals 1 A
22 - vocals 1 B
23 - vocals 1 C (w/ effect)
24 - bass and drums recording w/ scratch vocals
Very Ape

02 - kickdrum
03 - snare drum
04 - toms left
05 - toms right
vocals)
13 - bass DI 1
14 - bass DI 2
15 - bass amp
16 - guitar 1
17 - guitar 2
18 - guitar 3 A
19 - guitar 3 B
20 - guitar 3 C
21 - vocals 1 A
22 - vocals 1 B
23 - vocals 1 C (w/ effect)
24 - guitar 2, bass and drums recording w/ scratch vocals
Pennyroyal Tea

02 - kickdrum
03 - snare drum
04 - toms left
05 - toms right
vocals)
13 - bass DI 1
14 - bass DI 2
15 - bass amp
16 - guitar 1 A
17 - guitar 1 B
18 - guitar 2 A
19 - guitar 2 B
20 - guitar 2 C
21 - empty vocal track
24 - guitar, bass and drums recording w/ scratch vocals
Steve
For what it's worth, there was no DI Bass recorded during the Pachyderm
sessions. There may have been overdubbed bass added to some songs later,
but I don't know which ones.
I am enjoying the irony of a record leaking like this, to great interest, when
the original record company position was that it was an un-listenable
record and nobody would like it.
I haven't heard these leaked files, so I don't know if they're legit, but there's
no reason to think they aren't.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electrical dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
Argyreia Nervosa
Yeah, its definitely not a DI. I'm pretty sure its just the different mics on the
cabinet. Its the same with the guitar, multiple mics per take. By varying the
levels of the different mics and using the phase invert there's an endless
combination of possible guitar tones, without touching EQ. Who would've
thought? Why use artificial reverb? Just stick a room mic 20 feet back etc.
There's a lot that can be learned from these.
I'm wondering about the drums. Which tracks require M/S decoding?
There's overhead, close room and far room pairs...
Can anyone think of the common denominator is between all of these
different multitracks? Different artists, labels, studio's, producers, genres,
Now there's some NIN, I heard it through the grapevine and Def Leopard.
Yes 48 tracks background vocals!
Steve
At some point, someone decided to make digital work copies of the masters,
either for remixing for release or for use in soundtracks or whatever. As
soon as the reels were sent off to the cheapest studio the intern could find
in the yellow pages, the later leaking of these files became certain.
Session Documentation Pics (Unknown Band)
rob v.
these were not ment for documentation purposes but you guys keep asking
so take it or leave it.
If you care to see some funny video footage of me erasing a few scratch
tracks with the tape speed set at 30ips as opposed to the 15ips at which it
was recorded go here...
http://www.1908.com/video/DSCF0826.AVI
or
http://www.1908.com/video/DSCF0827.AVI
go here dukes...
http://homepage.mac.com/rvester
_________________
rob
Recording Sessions Photos (Unknown Band #2)
Random Toxy
If you go to russianrecording.com, there are photos of when my old band
Lucky Pineapple got to spend a weekend at Electrical. There is a lucky
pineapple link in the 'clients' section. There are about 40 photos and a song
we recorded there. That was in 2005 and I still cannot believe it happened.
It was a dream come true.
Jeremy
I was just looking at the pics on the russian recording site - I notices what
looked like an M/S with a 121 as a side mic and an earthworks as the mid
mic on the floor. I'm totally trying that this week.
Eliya
Isn't it a 121 and an Altec Coke bottle?
Jeremy
by gollie, I think you're right.
OOtim
jgeiger
here's a video documenting our session from september of 2006. you can
really see behind the scenes of Pip hard at work...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNkmjJ67sD0
EXP Recording Sessions Photos
Greg
Here is a website of a band I just finished with some photos.
1
Call Me Lightning Recording Sessions Info
Jnelson
Does any one have information or pictures dealing with Call me lightnings
recent recording session at Electrical audio? I would like to see how they
miced things up and such
nick92675
greg recorded it, and i was there for a bunch of the basic tracking and most
of the mixing. vocals were done at shane's house on the computer. maybe
some gtr ODs too. they did some stuff at greg's too, but i dunno if any of
that ended up staying for the record. mixed at electrical.
it was in studio a. drums were first tried in the dead room but ultimately
moved to kentucky. [this became a recurring joke for something that
seemed like a good idea in theory, but in fact sucked in practice] nathan
was in center field, bill in alcatraz. a lot of time was spent on bill's bass
trying different heads and cabs until ultimately settling back on his own.
sorta typical norman-ish drum setup - i forget specific mics, but def the
josephsons on top/bottom toms. some overheads.... some room mics.... a
compressed mono mic.... kick was def 2 mics - in and out... (i'd wager 421
on kick in and 380 on outside).... a snare mic.... (speculating again, maybe
the altec 175?) nathan was also sorta typical greg gtr setup, 2 close mics and
a room mic.
the toms were from the kit shane's selling (see my post in tech room), kick
was EA's orange ludwig... snare shane's yamaha sparkly thing. 2 sweet rides
as crashes.... maybe a paragon ride? and shane had some old 70s hats that
he used.
Ativin Recording Sessions Info
Mnotaro
It just so happened that two fellas I knew from Bloomington, Indiana were
recording with Greg Norman in studio B. Their group, Ativin, was a three
piece. Greg started by calibrating the Studer 820 MCH. He needed 355
nWb/m^2 for a certain fluxivity used at another studio. The Studer
calibrates itself with the guidance of jinshu, or the human touch. I asked
about the sync of a half-track Studer 820 and when it would be used. On
television piss fizzle. I was a studiofly.
The group was recording new parts to some tracks recorded at another
studio. At breaks in the session, I would go and look at the microphones set
up in the dead and live rooms. Ativin brought in a Red Bear amplifier head to
complement a Marshall cabinet. I know nothing of Red Bear, except that
McCarthy would have gladly blacklisted them. EA also has many pieces of
electrical gear and instruments. They don’t have a vibraphone, but they do
have a Mellotron.
The amps were in the plush dead room. The drummer’s kit was in the live
room. A real sexy atmosphere unfolds when one heads down the stairs at
night. A great rug really brought the checkered tile floors and ceiling
addition in the live room together. An even mixture of frequency balance
and delayed interactions created a distinct flavor. The ceiling is acoustically
treated with a full body massage. The dead room just ‘sweats’; it gets all
warm and receptive.
I noticed a doubled Coles 4038 and CMV528 mic scheme in place, on the
drums. The 4038s faced the kit, almost perpendicular to the floor, four feet
above the ground and the 528s rested on the ground pointing in the same
direction. They were creating a triangle of sorts with the kick drum.
Josephson 606s were top and bottom mics for the tom-toms. I noted that
evening: Stainless steel as overheads. Greg would mix the music in his
house.
The 26th of June:
I spent time in the studio B dead room. It doubles as an equipment room.

Oranges, Sovteks, a Hiwatt, some Traynors, and others reside there.
Electro-harmonix pedals up the culo. Many pedals, and a cigarette pack
amplifier later, the inventory list I was making became half-assed. If my
hands were empty of knowledge, a pen would offer no rewards. I simply
picked up several amplifier heads and placed them in an order on the
shelves.
’Decibel-u’ was on my mind this day. Why would 0.775 Volts be so

important? I guess it was important enough to become a standard reference
for comparing measurements of electronic equipment. Truly a meditation:
the decibel, a unit of measure for the intensity of a sound pressure wave.
The ‘u’ simply lets one know that 0 dB is a reference voltage of 0.775 volts.
Transduced information from acoustic vibrations.
Neurosis Recording Sessions Info
Mnotaro
Neurosis was there in August. An amp cabinet of theirs showed up a few
weeks prior. I was pumped for this. I didn’t normally work on Fridays at the
studio, but I went in on this one to document the first day of their session. I
left for the Dan Ryan, the same time as usual, only to wind up at my
destination 4 hours later. Nature and the human were in full oppositional-
force this day. I listened to A Sun that Never Sets, an album by Neurosis,
about 4 times on my trip to Illinois. The rain fell like fallout eventually and I
ceased fire when I finally reached the tiny e.
Albini worked an upward compression with an RNC to even out Von Till’s
various guitar patches. He amplified the clean, softer signal to match an
overdriven level. The ‘loud’ signal was not compressed. The softer one was.
A slow release rid of any swooping. A Sony C38, Josephson 609 (gold), and
RCA 74DX were used on two guitar cabinets. A Massenburg preamp was
implemented in part of the chain.
The monster bass cabinet was miked with a Shure 45 and Beyer M380.
While one captured the beef and the other chewed the bones, an UREI LA12
kept that bitch caged in.
Noah’s keys were DI, but he did have some small amps around him.
I listened to the first takes and saw the song raised in its infancy. No vocals
were done, but I did hear Von Till key the group with, ‘Don’t let them steal
your’. It was a pure moment, unbelievable. I made a fluffy coffee drink for
everyone in the group. I had a problem frothing with the metal pitcher so it
took me some time.
Jason Roeder Drum kit:
Altec 150s for the room; top snare, lipstick; bottom snare, SM98; hi tom, lo
tom, top and bottom, C609; kick front, D112; kick beater, SM98; crash left of
drummer, Royer 112; crash right of drummer, Royer 112; ride, C606A; china
crash, Josephson C42.
The room pair was sent through an Eventide Harmonizer set at 20ms. The
top snare was sent to the key input of the bottom snare (dbx 172). The
bottom snare was sent to a dbx 172 triggered by the top snare, while it
triggered the beater mike to duck when the bottom snare mike reached a
certain maximum. The two snares were mixed to one track. Beater kick was
sent to a dbx 172. The front kick was sent to an 1176, foreignated. The
crashes went through an 1178, foreignated, GML EQs?, maybe the GML
preamps also. The spoke bell was sent through some limiter, the same as
the china crash.
The specifics of the rest are similar to how many Vietnam vets it takes to
screw in a light bulb.
Purplene Recording Sessions Info
Mnotaro
Fosters, Australian for beer is not sold in Australia:
They came from the land down under. The recording they were making was
being funded by grants their government gave them. That is almost more
sour than fresh, white t-shirts. These guys came at the end of my transit. I
saw the session from mike set-up to mixed product. This was Purplene.
Kick front, SM98; kick beater, D112; snare top, Sony C37; snare bottom,
SM98; hi tom, lo tom, top and bottom, Josephson 609; crashes Royer 112;
room, Altec 150; unknown on ride. The snare was mixed to one track with
the same trigger/key expansion scheme. An NT1 was used to brighten up the
darkness of the C37. The kick was also mixed to one track with the batter
side keyed to duck the expander with the snare hit. This may remove that
overall kit bleed from the nastiest of spots. The front kick was limited with
an 1176, foreignated. The toms were all summed together to one track. The
three cymbals were mixed into two tracks.
The guitar bass electric was miked with a Beyer M380 and condenser. The
380 went through the Omnipresser. A -5dB threshold, 10ms attack, 100ms
release. An LA-4 was used due to the boosts that will occur at some
frequencies when the two signals are mixed. A gentle compression will even
these out leaving a dynamically stable signal.
This is the last thing in the chain. Threshold +2dB, gain was set as unity.
The guitars were recorded in heaven. God only knows.
The vocals were done right here on Earth. A Neuman U-49 and Lomo Art
Deco were set up side by side. These were not absolute in terms of which
was used and when. The U-49 was sent through a Neve 3115. A KSM44 was
placed vertical to the floor, capsule closest to the ground, upside down. This
was an ambience mic triggered by the composite signal of the vocal mics.
Expansion occured at -3dB. A louder sound contains more room, while the
softer sound remains very intimate.
Detachment Kit Recording Sessions Info
Mnotaro
Detachment Kit:
Business as usual. Detachment Kit came to record with Greg in studio A. This
is when I noticed a book that had been doodled in by several people. I think
it was a visitors journal moderated by Greg.
Kick beater was miked with an SM57 and SM98. EA preamps were used and
so were George Massenburg EQs. This was sent to the Dynamite and ducked
as usual. The kick front was a D112 sent to an EA preamp and then to an LA-
12 set at 2:1, +5 threshold, fast attack and a mid release. The snare was
picked up by a transducer and sent to Massenburg EQs from an EA preamp. I
only noticed the top mics for the tom-toms to have any EQ. The floor tom
had -9dB of gain where as the rack tom had +6dB. Room mics left and right
were sent through John Hardy and a fast attacked, long released, 4:1
compressed 1178.
I only noted a Beyer M-88 sent to an Ampex mod (436 to a 436c) for the
guitar. This was in Alcatraz with an Earthworks, capsule covered with plastic
protector, for an ambience mic. The signal was very distorted. It rounded
out the guitar sound like a dash of cayenne pepper to some hash browns.
Electrelane Recording Sessions Info
danmaksym
Steve and the rest of the guys at Electrical (as well as the band) were kind
enough to allow me to observe the recording of "On Parade" for "The Power
Out." I saw that the Leslie was mic'd with a AT 4033 placed about 8 inches
from the openings at the bottom of the cabinet. This was probably the setup
for "I'm on Fire" as well. Any other questions regarding the recording of that
particular song I can answer in detail if so desired.
I also have copious pictures of the recording session and would be willing to
post them if anyone is interested.
June of 44 Guitar Sound Info
Kyuss
Right-oh - well, basically I really want to know what equipment was used to
get the guitar sound on 'Tropics and Meridian' by June of 44
I really like it, and want to at least get an approximation of it. If anyone has
specifics on what was used then that would be great.
Bob Weston
Probably a couple of ribbon mics on each amp.
Kyuss
do you remember wich amp they used?
Bob Weston
According to Sean:
"if i remember it straight, i think i had that sovtek (mig 50) that you or steve
ordered for me...and ran it through that ampeg 4x12...i don't think mueller
had the music man yet...he was playing a fender bassman through a fender
cab...2x12 or 4x12...something like that"
Don Caballero Recording Sessions Photos
Russ
Here are some pictures I took of the microphone setup for Don Cabellero's
American Don sessions. Keep in mind that the setup could have changed at
any point after I took these photos.
This first one shows the drum kit from the front. The drums are in the
Kentucky room of Studio A. You can see an AKG C-24 out in front of the kit
as the stereo overhead mic, a D112 for the kick, Josephson 606/609's on
the toms, looks like a Beyer 160 as a mono overhead.
This next one of the drums clearly shows the positioning of the C-
24 (used as M-S pair) and you can also see the Altec 150's as room
mics, and the Altec 175 on the snare.
This shows a close up from behind the kit. There might be
something strange going on underneath the hi-hats, but I can't
quite tell.
Here you can see another Altec 175 on the auxillary snare.
Moving on to the bass guitar cabinet which was in Center Field
along with the guitar cabinets. That's an EV RE-20 on the left and
an Audio Technica 4033 on the right.
This one just shows the room mic for the bass cabinet - an AKG C-
414.
Two final shots of the guitar cabinet setup. From left to right it
goes RCA BK-5A (room), VTL CR-3A, AKG C-28 w/ CK-4 (bi-
directional) capsule, Coles/STC 4038.
And here's a close up of the three close mics.
In the fifth picture we see a Gallien-Krueger 800RB head and a vintage

Ampeg SVT Classic head sitting on top of an Ampeg SVT-810E cabinet. I was
wondering whether the two heads were used separately or "in tandem", i.e.
with the G-K's preamp output going into the Ampeg's power amp input (or
vice versa). Assuming, of course, that the G-K has a pre out jack and the
Ampeg a power in jack (or vice versa).
Seaside Lounge
How do you use a single stereo mic (the C24) as an MS pair? Is the Beyer 160
the middle signal?
hollis
[/So one capsule is in figure 8 and the other is in cardioid? ]
well, you can move each capsules pattern between cardiod and omni on the
power suppy. I seem to remember that there is a half-step between
cardioid/figure 8 and figure 8/omni. Its been a while since I've used one so I
could be wrong but I do remember loving it and using it alot on drums. I
assisted Brian Paulson many moons ago and he dug it, in front of the kit
similar to the session above.
[/that placing a mic directly in front of a guitar cab speaker cone was a bad
idea]
I've found that the sound right in front of the speaker is somewhat brighter
than towards the edge. I assume thats because of the additional excursion
of the driver at that point and possibly more uniformaly formed soundwaves.
That is, there would be a more focused signal in the middle of the speaker.
The best way of getting a decent guitar sound is to place the mic where it
sounds best.
Now that I've typed that I feel that it's a stupid answer to a normal question.
But seriously, have a friend or a remote controlled robot move the
microphone infront of the best sounding speaker up and down, back and
forth. If your friend is wearing headphones, you can dictate him from the
control room what to do - just like a robot. Let him/her/it leave the
microphone where it sounds best. Easy.
I've read in a book about recording to place the SM 57 in a 37 degree angle to
the spot where the cone meets the centre of the speaker.
That's what I call a stupid advice.
Leftover Crack Recording Sessions Info (no pictures available)
Andrew Weatherhead
This second post in the Session Documentation series will detail a day I
watched Steve and Leftover Crack record guitar overdubs and begin mixing.
As the majority of the day was mixing, my post will not be as long or as
interesting as the first in the series; however, I will do my best. Oh, by the
way, I do have the bands permission to use their name, as they have
nothing to hide.
As the day started with guitar overdubs, that's what I will talk about first.
Leftover Crack has two guitar players: Brad and Sturgeon (who also sings).
Brad was using a combination of Sovtek and Rivera amplifiers with a
Marshall 4x12 speaker cabinet. Here is a picture:
As you can see, the cabinet was miced using two mics. The microphone on
axis with the top left speaker of the cabinet is a Lomo 19a-9
(http://www.electrical.com/item.php?page=147&pic=pictures/147.jpg), the
mic on the bottom right speaker is an RCA 74-JR
(http://www.electrical.com/item.php?page=145&pic=pictures/145.jpg).
Here is a better look at the microphones and their distance away from the
cabinet:
The other guitar player/singer, Sturgeon, used a Roland JC-120 Jazz Chorus
Amp. Here is a picture:
On the left speaker is a Sony C37p microphone
(http://www.electrical.com/item.php?page=286&pic=pictures/286-0.jpg)
and on the right speaker is a Coles 4038 mic
(http://www.electrical.com/item.php?page=7&pic=pictures/7.jpg).
Again here is the microphones in relation to the amp:

Here is a picture of the vocal mics in the Alcatraz room of Studio A:
The mics you see here are the Sony C48p

(http://www.electrical.com/item.php?page=285&pic=pictures/285-0.jpg)
on the left and the EV PL-20
(http://www.electrical.com/item.php?page=89&pic=pictures/89.jpg) on
the right. These mics were not used simultaneously: the Sony C48p was
used as an overdub mic for backing vocals and the PL-20 was used to
record lead vocals. The approach taken to record the lead vocals was fairly
interesting. The PL-20 was routed into an old Fender Twin reverb amp,
which was miced with a plastic cup around the microphone. I can not recall
the model of the microphone, I am sorry, but I found the plastic cup
technique fascinating. As you may guess, the Fender Twin amp gave the
vocals a little bit of warmth and crunch due to the distortion of the amp.
However, when I inquired about the plastic cup, Steve told me that it added
even more harshness/distortion to the vocals because it pronounced the
midrange frequencies. Sturgeon, the guitar player/singer added with a bit of
sarcasm, "It makes it sound like you're singing into a plastic cup." And by
gone it, he was right, during the mixing you could really hear the
combination of the Fender Twin and the plastic cup adding extra growl and
harshness to the vocals.
Here are two pictures of the vocal amp and mic set up:
Here is an overview of Centerfield, where all of the amps where located:
Upon completion of the overdubs, Steve and Sturgeon began mixing. This
was much less exciting than overdubs and I have no pictures; however, I
learned a lot just from watching. Actually, I have one picture, here it is:
I guess that concludes Session Documentation #2. Please tell me what you
think: What was helpful, what was good, what was bad, what was unclear.
Oh, one more thing. I saw this on the drive home and it ended up being
picture number 666 on my camera, very strange:
-Andrew
Jlarcombe
I'm thinking of buying a second-hand Sony C-48. I've heard a lot of good
things about them and I need a variable-pattern mic that I can also use for
vocals with good results. Anyone have anything to add to the description on
the equipment page that Intern_8033 linked to in his post?
Cgarges
I've found them to be dull-sounding on both guitars and lead vocals. Dull in
a mostly non-exciting or not-very-accurate sense, not just rolled-off top
end. They make for a nice character on background vocals, though. This has
been my experience, but they obviously work well for some people who
know what they're doing.
Tmidgett
hey
i used a C48 (one of electrical's) to record all the vocals on a recent acoustic
EP
three people sang, and we all have very different voices
one guy's deep and rumbly, one guy has a real pronounced midrange, i have
kind of a higher, scratchy voice
i was surprised to find that the sony worked pretty well on each of us
plus you can power it w/a 9V battery
Andrew Weatherhead
cgarges wrote:
Quote:
Do you plan on posting any details about the mix?
Talking about the mixing is extremely difficult because I don't have anything
to reference, but I will try and explain a little of what went on:
The majority of the mixing that went on on this day was dedicated to one
song, I am not going to name the song because the record has not been
released yet and I may be giving details away which would upset the band or
their record label. For reference purposes, I will call the song "Song #1,"
however it is not a Fugazi cover. Well "Song #1" features a breakdown
featuring a melody played by baritone violin, acoustic guitar, and electric
guitar using an e-bow. This was a topic of much debate as Sturgeon, who
was directing the mixing, had a clear idea of how he wanted it to sound, but
it wasn't exactly translating to the mixing board. First of all, Steve and
Sturgeon worked on the eq and effects settings for each instrument
(baritone violin, acoustic guitar, and electric guitar using an e-bow). The
baritone violin was run through the Lexicon Primetime Digital Delay
(http://www.electrical.com/item.php?page=255&pic=pictures/255-0.jpg).
After setting effects and eq, they mixed the levels to get an ideal balance of
the instruments. Sturgeon still wasn't getting the sound that was in his head,
so he vocalized his ideas to Steve and they continued to work on it. After
changing some of the effects and eq settings and rebalancing the levels,
Sturgeon was happy. Then, Steve was worried about the overall mix not
being "bright" enough, in his opinion it was too midragney. To fix this, Steve
added a touch of overall eq with the GML 8200
At this point, Steve made a burn of the cd so Sturgeon could go play it for
the other guys in the band who were up in the lounge. Everyone seemed to
be happy, so, after a few minor changes to the mix, Steve was ready to
make a master using the ATR 102
While they were doing this, I, unfortunately, had to leave because my band
was playing a party that night, but I gained a great deal of knowledge and
experience from the day I spent mixing with Leftover Crack.
MTAR
djanes1 wrote:
I enjoyed seeing how far away the mics were from the amp. I dont
know anything about recording techniques, so now i will stop mic
ing my amp 1 inch away and start micing it 3-4" away like it is done
at EA.
Yes, different mic positions will yield different results. I too have found that
pulling a mic away from an amp can, in the right situations, yield a better
tone, especially with a nice room with lgood isolation from other sources.
But this depends on the amp, the mic, the polar pattern of the mic, the mic
pre, the guitar, the player, the room, other sources in the same room, and
what I ate for lunch.You really dson't have to "stop micing (your) amp 1 inch
away and start micing it 3-4" away like it is done at EA". A mic 1" away can
sound good in some situations. Or maybe it sounds best with only one mic
10' away. Trial and error is the best way to learn good mic technique.
B
It looks like a beyer m201 in the red cup. Ha ha ha.
My initial thoughts where that it was a m201n/c. If you look at the second
picture, a little before the mic enters the cup you see a white line. It may
just be a reflection of where the tape meets the body of the mic. On the
m201n/c that's about where the writing of model number is. That's what
made me think it was one. But looking at the first picture I don't really see
that line. On the newer m201tg models the writing is at the base of the
microphone. If mike says it's an sm57.... I can see his point looking at them
again. Oh well, I tried. The m201 is a awesome mic. I do like looking at the
pictures of recording setups. You should definately post more.
Yokophono
Something else I noticed about the picture concerning the unique mic
recording technique that was more than likely a key part of the
'overdriven/distorted' vocal sound. It appears the PL-20 was routed to a DI
box (the red box) to convert from balanced XLR to unbalanced line for the
amp input. From the DI there is a cord going to a white stomp box which is
then plugged into the input on the Twin. It looks like the white stomp box is
a Crowther Hot Cake overdrive pedal. Am I correct?
I'm kind of interested in hearing the end result as I own one of these as one
of my main overdrive/distortion stomp boxes. I generally hate most
distortion stomp boxes as they often sound like stomp boxes, i.e. overdrive
from a little metal canister. It's very transparent and very natural sounding.
It sits very nicely in front of a tube amp and accentuates the amp's natural
tone quite nicely.
However, I've noted in trying to use it in other applications such as a

distortion/overdrive pedal for my roommate's keyboards the result is less
than stellar. So if the end result on the lead vocals sounds good it's another
nifty use for the damn thing.
Andrew Weatherhead
iandisurvive6 wrote:
alrite on the 4x12 why do you use 2 mics on the top left and bottem
rite?
No particular reason, atleast I can't recall any. But using two different mics
to record the same sound source will produce two different sounding
results which can be combined/blended/mixed during mixing. Hopefully the
result will sound good, but if it doesn't, you're probably not cut out to be an
engineer.
MTAR
Often times cabs will have two different speakers installed, so you may
want to mic the 2 different speakers, or make sure you only mic one type of
speaker and not the other.
Also, if you listen to each speaker in any multiple speaker cab, you will
notice that each speaker sounds quite different. Im not sure if this is due to
a natural inconsistency in the impedance of individual speakers (maybe
from aging...) or if it is from the acoustics happening in the cab or a mixture
of both. At any rate, there is quite a noticeable difference . I learned this at
my internship at EA. I was amazed when I tried this on my own. Be careful
though! Putting you ear up to a blaring speaker can do some serious
damage.
Velocity Recording Sessions Info (No pictures available)
Intern_8033
This post will document half a day I spent watching Russ, a staff engineer
here at Electrical, record a band. I'd appreciate feedback as to what is useful
information and what you would like to be more detailed.
In order to protect the privacy of the band, we will call them "Velocity,"
because that is an awesome band name. I don't think the band really needs
their privacy protected, but if I use too many pronouns I'll get depressed and
won't finish the article.
It was a brisk and bright summer day. Velocity arrived at 11:30, excited to
start work recording the music they had worked so hard on. The sun burst
through the ajar loading dock door, giving studio B an aura appropriate for
the beauty that had graced its walls. I watched the silhouettes of the eager
band members as they unpacked their equipment. I sighed, thinking of the
marvelous things that this day would bring. Some might say, "another day,
another band," but I was still young and inexperienced, and every band
provided new challenges, and in its turn, exhilaration. I'm not actually going
to write like that, I just thought it would be neat to pretend like I was going
to. Every story in the literary magazine from my junior high starts like that. I
wrote one called "The River Ran Red" about a friend of mine who was
walking through a storm sewer and hit his head on a pipe.
Here is a picture of Velocity loading their gear. It was early in the session, so
I was perhaps overzealous with the picture taking.
As you can see, that silhouette stuff was all bullshit.

Russ got in early and aligned the tape machine before the band arrived. The
fancy looking text below is how I will signify that it is the engineer’s own
words.
Quote:
Yeah, dog, bands love it when you align the tape machine on their
clock. NOT! LOL!!
Russ aligning the tape machine
The band made a decision to record the drums in the live room and two
electric guitars and a bass guitar in the dead room. Like most bands, they
would play live and record all instruments to tape simultaneously.
Setting Up Microphones
Drums
The drummer brought his own kit, which can be seen in the picture below.
He didn’t use any muffling in the kick drum. Once the drums were setup,
Russ made sure they were in tune and the heads were in good shape. He
then decided on microphones, which are listed below.
1. Kick drum (front): AKG D112
2. Kick drum (batter): Shure SM98
3. Snare (top): Altec 175
4-7. Rack toms (top and bottom): Josephson 609
8, 9. Floor tom: AKG 414
10, 11. Overheads: Coles 4038
12, 13. Ambience: Stapes
A few pictures.
The drums from the front
Here is a picture of the mic on the batter side of the kick. I can never
remember if it is called batter side or beater side. I could just asked
someone what it is called for the sake of accuracy in this article, but I
wanted to leave it up in the air just to prove my point that there is more
than one way to do something.
The most interesting thing about the positioning of the microphones is

probably that the ambient mics are taped to the floor. Steve wrote about
why this is done in another post.
Bass Guitar
Russ used two microphones for the bass guitar, a Beyer 380 and an Audio
Technica 4051.
Quote:
the Beyer sounds good on bass, is dynamic and has a slow
transience, and I used the condenser 4051 to get the transience.
Also, I made sure the capsules were the same distance from the
speakers to minimize phase problems. Boom.
Electric Guitar 1
Russ used the Coles 4038, because it generally sounds good on guitar and
he has been trying to use it a lot lately to get an idea of how it sounds on
different things. He also used a Sony C48 because he had seen it used on
guitar before but never used it and wanted to see how it worked.
Electric Guitar 2
For this one, Russ used another Coles 4038 and a Sony C37, also because he
had never used one and wanted to see how it worked.
Sennheiser 421s were used for talkback and to record scratch vocals. An
RCA BK-1 mic was used for ambience in the dead room.
Russ let me help plug in some of the microphones, and it was AWESOME. I
had someone in Velocity take a picture of me plugging one in and I mailed it
to my mom. She won't let my dad see it because they are divorced and hate
each other. She won’t send it back because she thinks I’ll show my dad, so I
don’t have a copy to post in here, sorry.
Setting Levels
Russ started by setting the kick mics which went fine. To do this, he tells the
drummer to play and adjusts the preamp gain while watching the volt peak
meter on the Studer 820 tape machine. Russ sent the two kick channels to
discrete channels on the tape machine so he would have the ability to
adjust the attack later.
When he got to the snare, he wasn’t getting any signal from the mic. First he
tried using a different preamp, but that didn’t solve the problem. Next he
tried switching the power supply. Now we were getting signal, but there was
an occasional inexplicable “pop”, so Russ decided to switch the mic out for
another Altec 175.
One of the problems with using a batter side mic on the kick is that it picks
up a lot of snare. In order to fix this, Russ set up a Valley Dynamite as a
ducker on the batter mic that is keyed by the snare. In other words,
whenever the snare is played, the batter mic gets quieter proportionally to
how hard the snare is played.
The toms went without any trouble. Top and bottom mics were sent to the
same channel of the tape machine.
Sytek MPX-4A preamps were used for the overheads and room mics. He did
this to keep things clean and clear. Russ used an Eventide Harmonizer to
delay the overhead mics twenty miliseconds.
Russ also checked phase.
This is it for the drums. We recorded a short bit of the drums and brought
the drummer up to listen. He liked them.
Next was bass guitar, through a Neve 3115 preamp. Russ did this because it
has good bass extension, good low end, and he likes the way it sounds. The
microphones went to discrete mics on tape.
Guitar 1 used more Sytek preamps. This was primarily because of the ribbon
mic being used, and the Sytek’s tend to behave well when used with a
ribbon mic. The ribbon mic was overloading so we moved both microphones
back about an inch. Both were moved to keep them aligned and in phase
with each other.
Guitar 2 went through the Sytek pres.
Russ ran the guitar room mic (RCA BK-1) through an ampex 351 mic pre amp.
Used a total of 17 tracks,

Kick 1, kick 2, snare, tom 1, tom 2, floor tom, OH l, OH r, Room l, room r, bass
1, 2, guitar 4 and guitar room.
Now the band started tracking, which was pretty uneventful. They are
coming in another time to do mixing, which is convenient because I’ve
totally exhausted my interest in writing things.
This was meant to be a kind of prototype of how this kind of thing can be
done, so please let me know what would be helpful to include. And let me
know if linking to the equipment is useful because it's a total pain in the ass.
Thanks,
Intern 8033
Greasygoose
Nice work, Intern. I have to say, though, if that particular drummer walked
into one of my sessions, I think I would be inclined to pull out the shittiest
mics I could find. He's what musicians refer to as a "clubber." Didn't he
write that song "Walk Loudly and Carry a Big Dick"??
Seriously, though, I have a question about mic placement. From the pictures,
it appears that the tom mics are more or less parallel to the head of the
drum (i.e. they're pointing straight down at the head, a few inches in from
the shell). The snare mic looks to be in a similar position, but aimed more
toward the center of the drum. Why do you suppose Russ did this? Do you
think it's because a snare drum emits less tone than a tom tom, or is it to
prevent Rummy from whacking the snare mic (he smells fear and snuffs it
out)? Maybe both?
Russ
benadrian wrote:
Why are the overheads that distance from the top of the kit? Why
are the overheads delayed 20ms? Is that to bring them into time-
coherence with the ambient mics, or was that not an issue?
Yeah, that's a mistake on Intern_8033's part. It was the ambient mics that
were delayed 20ms, not the overheads. That's something Steve taught me.
There's a great reason why that he can explain better than I can, and it
takes a pretty little picture to do so. So, I won't do it.
russ
Intern_8033
cgarges wrote:
Also, because I had a post a while back about the kick batter mic
issue, I have a particular interest in Russ' technique. Just out of
curiousity, was he ducking the kick mic on the way to tape or just
monitoring that way?
He was recording it to tape that way.
As for the rest, thanks for your feedback. I'm glad you liked it -- my
girlfriend said that the part about my parents was "alienating" and would
make the reader "uncomfortable" and "they won't read anything after that."
I thought she was right and got upset and hit her. Now I know she is
ignorant and I can ignore at these accusations and not hit her anymore for
that reason.
If I didn't answer your question it is because I don't know the answer, but
that gives me an idea of what to focus on in the next session. I'll be sure to
ask the engineer about mic placement.
The session isn't up anymore, its actually like a month old, I just kept
putting off adding the cyber links.
Gaetano
i notice there's a mic under the floor tom.is that one of the josephsons?
also,were the mics under the toms phase-reversed?
you did a really good job documenting this,thank you.

Googacky
this is exactly the sort of stuff that those of us who aren't interns love to see.
it's like being a vicarious intern. thanks for taking the time to enlighten us. i
do have some questions. how is the ambient mic in the dead room set up?
both guitars and bass were tracked in the same room, correct? does the
ambient mic pick up all three of these elements or is it intended mainly for
the guitars? also, what is the panning situation for such a mic? wouldn't it
smear stereo placement on the guitars? i've never tried a catch-all ambient
mic like this, so i'm interested in how it's used and what it's like.
thanks.
Russ
The ambient mic in the dead room (where the bass cabinet and guitar
cabinets were) was placed across the room from and roughly in between
the two guitar cabinets. Here's some ascii art to clarify.
BC = BassCabinet, GC1 = GuitarCabinet1, GC2 = GuitarCabinet2, M =

Microphone
Code:
BC GC1 GC2
The way that I typically use an ambient mic, you're not going to be getting
many spacial cues from it when it's used with the close mics. Unless you are
going for a certain effect or if only one guitar is playing at a time, I'd
generally have this panned somewhere in the middle. You can figure it out
pretty easily if, for example, let's say that you have GC1 mostly panned to
the left, GC2 panned mostly to the right and you have a good balance
between the two, you solo up those with the ambient mic, move the pan of
the ambient mic around the center point until you feel like you have a good
balance, bring in the bass to see if it gets weird, and, if it doesn't, then
you're done.
An ambient mic like this for your guitars can really add some realism to the
sound of electric guitar amps, that's why you'll see it used quite often. It
probably comes from realising that the sound of the guitar amps was better
whenever some bleed from the talkback/scratch vocal mic was in the
monitoring mix.
russ
Cgarges
Gaetano,
I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong, guys) that it's another 414 under the
floor tom.
Russ,
Thanks much for the info on the ambient mic. I'm waiting in anticipation of
Intern's article on the mix sessions. I'm quite curious about pan positions,
especially in regard to stereo recording of amplifiers. By the way, what did
you learn regarding the use of the Sony mics? I have my own opinions of
them , but I'm curious as to what you found. Thanks again.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
PS-Spell check caught "I'm" and "mic," and "mics." Does the spell check
have something against contractions and abbreviated studio terms?
Seb
Hi,
I have tried to put a third mic about 4 or 5 feet from the guitare cabinat and
it alway's seems to be out of phase, I have tried to invert the phase, I've
tried with condenser's, dynamic's... nothing will do it.
Is this just the room sound that gives me that impression or did I do
something wrong?
Bubbleboy
Hi seb
You're not wrong and it's next to impossible to get the ambient completely
in phase but that (to me at least)is part of the point. People tend to forget
that phase isn't always you're enemy and can actually be used creatively.
For instance, if you're double tracking a rhythm part try panning close mics
hard left and right and the ambients to the opposite 3 and 9 oclocks to their
close mic counterparts. As you bring the ambients up you'll hear the comb
filtering effect wash the guitars in to the track a bit more in a way that I at
least really like.
Glad to see steve does the 20ms ambient mike trick too. Been doing that for
a while to clear up phase relationship and give the impression of a larger
room. Also good to see the two close mics on bass pointing at the same
place, another favourite of mine. The ducking on the batter side of the bass
drum was a great idea that never occured to me. Are they're any other
applications for ducking mics from others on a kit you've found work well?
Anyway, already taken far too much of your time up but thanks loads for
the insights anyway intern.
BDF Deluxe Collection Recording Sessions
The Acoustic Space
BFD Deluxe Collection was recorded at Steve Albini’s Electrical Audio studio
complex in Chicago. The Studio A drum room used for the recordings is
much smaller than the Eldorado Studios drum room featured in BFD and
BFD XFL. This gives the Deluxe Collection a tighter and more focused sound
than previous BFD material, something which is especially noticeable on the
Room channel.
The PZM channel in the Deluxe Collection is referred to as ‘ambience’ in this

manual, as Altec 150 mics were used instead of PZMs. However, the Altecs
still record the same type of ambience for which PZM mics are normally
used. They were placed on the fl oor, so the ambience captured is more
biased towards the drums, compared to the Room and Overhead mics
which tend to be more sensitive to cymbals. It is a less focused sound than
the other mic buses in BFD, useful for subtle reinforcement of size and
distance.
Mics, Placement and Channel Processing
The microphones and preamps used in the Deluxe Collection session also
differ from those used to record previous BFD content. Mic placement and
processing of certain channels was conducted by Steve Albini, and all mics
were routed through the preamps on Electrical Audio’s custom Neotek
console. The channels were set up as follows:
Kick In: Shure SM98 For the Kick In channel, the mic was positioned on the
beater side of the head.
Kick Out: AKG D112 A Urei 1176 peak limiter was placed in the signal path.
Medium attack/release settings were used, while the ratio was set to 8:1.
Snare Bottom: Shure SM98 This mic’s phase was flipped in relation to the
Snare Top mic.
6 Snare Top: Sony C37P An NTI EQ3 was inserted in the signal path, with 1dB
of gain at 40Hz and 1dB of gain at 2.5kHz.
Hihat: Josephson C42 Hihats were mic’ed with more distance than on the
original BFD and BFD XFL sessions. This resulted in less low-end in the
recordings compared to previous BFD material.
Toms: Josephson e22S Each tom was mic’ed on the top and bottom, with
the channels summed on the console. The Josephson e22S side-address
cardioid condenser mic was developed in cooperation with Steve Albini.
Cymbals: Josephson C609 Similarly to the hihats, cymbals were mic’ed

further away than on the original BFD and BFD XFL recordings. The resulting
sound has less low frequencies than you may be accustomed to when using
BFD.
Overhead: Royer R122 The overhead signals were passed through a Urei 1178
dual-channel peak limiter, with medium attack/release and 12:1 ratio
settings, and a custom Urei EQ with 6dB rolloff at 10kHz.
Room: AKG C24 These were set up in a Mid/Side confi guration. The signals
were processed by a custom Electrical Audio M/S Decoder Matrix.
Ambience (PZM channel): Altec 150 ‘coke bottles’ fitted with 21D capsules
These rare mics were placed on the floor, each about 2 ft. from the kick
drum, pointing away from the kit.
EQ / Effects on Recordings: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Clyde2.0
Steve, I heard somewhere down the line that you don't use and EQ or
effects on your recordings... this seems almost impossible. I also live by the
proper mic placement and experimentation theory, but can you really get
those sounds without any signal processors? I've tried different techniques
for room sounds and have discovered some great stuff inspired by your
recordings as well as others. But never have I been satisfied without eqing
and compressing at least slightly.
I also just read in another thread about the Nivana album 'In Utero' you said
you may have recorded the Room mics to tape with some delay? What
exactly is the process you use for this?
One more thing. On a recording like PJ Harvey's Rid of Me. What was your
approach with the room mics? Love the wide sound...
Thanks for you time,
Tmidgett
hey
in my experience, steve will use outboard gear, eq, etc. quite readily. that's
why they have so much of it at electrical.
but the weapon of choice for changing the sound is always the
instrument/amplifier first, microphones second, and outboard jazz incl. eq a
distant third
and the goal is normally to get the sound of the thing in a room to tape
most tracks may have some eq/limiting/expansion/compression/delay to

tape, but it's highly unlikely that they will have very much of any of it
it's detail work
the electrical staff engineers have their own ways of doing things, but i think
they share this general aesthetic
tm
Clyde2.0
See I understand all of the basic concepts... Getting the sound do tape,
proper mic placement, outboard gear for this and that. I may not be a
seasoned vet., but I can hold my own and I know the basic shticks.. I've
experimented a fair amount and come up with lots of great techniques for
different situations.
Quote:
if you want it to sound like steve albini recorded it, why don't you
get steve albini to record it? if you want to record stuff, why don't
you just use / do whatever you think sounds good
Well, If he was hired I'd be out of a job. I may be working on some solo music
from time to time, but that's a slow process for me right now. And second, I
like to learn new ways of doing things. Of course I'm interested in the way
he looks at recording, I'm also interested in the way other great recordings
were made. Im not sure that the specific sound I'm speaking of would be
useful in every situation, but I'd like to know how to achieve it.
I think the only things I EQed to tape were the toms. Everything else
sounded nice, and perfectly useable and by no means am I going to scrap it.
But it wasn't 'the sound' I was trying to get.
Bob Weston
I don't want to speak for Steve. But I'm pretty sure that on the Nirvana and
PJ Harvey stuff, there would have been no eq or compression on the room
mics. Probably some ddl to tape.
Then when mixing there may be eq on the room mics. But still no
compression.
I have a feeling that Steve probably never compresses an electric guitar
track. Maybe occassionally bass drum or snare drum or overheads for a
special effect.
The bass and vocals probably always get some compression to tape and
then maybe even at the mix.
Stereo bus - no compression.
I've never seen him do drum bus compression.
But, I haven't been around during any of his sessions in a long time. Please
correct any of my assumptions, here, Steve....just trying to help.
bob
Chris Hardings
Again, not speaking for steve, but I've heard him say that people put a lot of
emphasis on equipment and forget acoustic space. You can tell that steve
relies on acoustic space.
You may want to use different mics also. like not a 57. Not to bring this
argument up, but the frequency resonse of a 57 is not as wide as the
spectrum of a snare. if you have 1, the altec 175 or a sony 48 are much
better snare mics, and have gotten me more of the depth of the snare
whilst not loosing the attack of the hit.
Danmohr
If you're not getting the desired blend of drums in the room mics (too little
snare, too much kick, etc), the best technique would probably be to change
the mics or mic positions or alter the actual acoustic sound produced by the
drums themselves (moving them around or changing rooms if you have this
luxury or even something as pedestrian as selecting a different, louder snare
or begging the drummer to play like he's got a pair) though the latter is
getting into an area that may frustrate or anger the actual drummer and
risk damaging the quality of the performance. Having always operated out
of non-ideal acoustic spaces (basements, garages, et al.), I've found that
even though I do enjoy having a good deal of ambient sound mixed with the
close mics, sometimes it just doesn't fuckin' pan out. The blend is bad, the
overall tone is bad, whatever - it just doesn't pan out. At this point, I usually
just abandon the technique and try something else entirely. You can't turn a
cinder block basement with parallel walls into Center Field and you'll drive
yourself nuts trying.
Having said this, I fully realize that you're trying to work with pre-recorded
material, so I'll only offer that you may find some success using an expander
keyed off the snare (if you're trying to bring that out more) or a compressor
keyed off the kick (if you're trying to reduce its presence) on your room
mics. I've found that getting this set up correctly to achieve the desired
effect is extremely time-consuming but can really solve tricky problems like
this in a way that doesn't sound excessively stylized (like fully gating the
room mics off the snare a la Phil Collins' solo records or pounding the shit
out of the room mics with a Distressor might). If someone else has already
mentioned this - sorry for not paying closer attention.
Good luck,
Dan
MTAR
If your ambient sound aint working, it's probably because the room
acoustics aint working. Ive use the same ambient miking technique in tons
of diffferent rooms, and everytime it sounds completely different, ranging
from poo to huge. If you're getting too much attack of the kick into your
ambient mics, try using a fast, transparent limiter to suck some of that
attack out. If you've got a frequency dependent limiter, you can try to zone
in on the kick w/o affecting the other stuff too much. I like to use my
Langevin ElOp limiter for room mics cause it helps suck out the attack of the
drums and brings up the ambience (without sounding too effect-y), making
the room sound much larger than it is.
Also, delaying the signal on top of that can yeild really positive results. I've
found that in smaller rooms, you can't get away with as much as 23 ms of
delay. In my room (20' x 12') I usually end up setting it to about 17ms.
Another thing you might try is roll off some of your high-end on your
ambients, with a very gentle slope (like a slope of 3). Try around 6 K, or even
as low as 4K... brightness psychoacoustically translates as closeness.
good luck dude
Bob Weston
Or eq some of the attack zone out of the room mics.
bob
Compression [How To Use]: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Theemajormiller
I bought a dual channel compressor a few months ago. I bought it thinking I
would use it on drums (bass and snare). To date, it's gone unused.
I've always tried to keep things as simple as possible, but I still want to learn
how and why things work. I'll admit, compression is something I know next
to nothing about. But I'll also admit that I'm pretty satisfied with my
recorded output.
So why would I/should I use compression? Why do you use compression?

Am I missing out on a world of possibilities?
Rodabod
Have you ever used it for vocals?
Vocals usually really benefit from compression to reduce the dynamic range
- have you not ever found that vocals get lost at quiet points and are too
loud at other points?
How about bass guitar? It can help a lot for getting a good, solid, consistent
sound.
Compression is always a huge debate since it is so overused. It can be used

as a tool (like riding a desk fader) or as an effect (eg. making the sound
"pump").
Basically, read about what they do and you will realise how handy they can
be in some situations.
I think your approach of not using it because you don't fell the need is much
better than those who assume you should compress everything for that
sound.
Play with it on vocals or drums or something and you might realise its uses
better. Also, reading a chapter on compression in a recoding book might
help.
Theemajormiller
Well, I don't record vocals that much, but I plan on starting soon. I will
definitely try out the compressor.
I have used compression plug-ins on bass before and it does make quite a
bit of difference at times.
And yes, I absolutely need to do some reading.
Thanks, Roddy.
Definitely_not_the_swede
I was in the same boat not too long ago. I was convinced when I was setting
up my lil recording rig, that I was missing a compressor, and ended up
buying one with little to no knowledge of what for. I understood the point of
it, in a broad sense, but had no idea how to use it. So I tended to be very
light with it; and probably just using it incorrectly as another way to get
more gain.
As time went buy, I realized what the hell I needed it for: Drums, in my case,
benefited the most; I found that I could get the bass or snare sound (the
close miked snare) to sound like I wanted it to: a fat lil' thwack, which
sounded sort of weird alone, but mixed with the overheads really made it
work...
Recently I got a hold of the RNLA, and it was a very colored type of
compression, which I had never used before: More than anything, using that
taught me more about where and when to compress things, and the type of
comp to use. In the sense that it could really over do it, and you could easily
identify the compressor kicking in. From that I was able to better grasp the
benefit of a clean and pristine type of comp.
So I would recommend smacking some stuff, so you can hear what it can do
for your drum sounds, and go back and forth with easier settings: after a
while you can hear the difference more clearly, and decide if this has helped.
I also find that using comps on the overheads has made me more aware
with my playing. I find that I can play drums “to” the comp, and decrease
the effects I dislike with my playing, and of course emphasize the effects i
do loke as well. This may be why you never used them, you may be a better
player then someone who needs to emphasize certain sounds.
I find that a pair of overheads, placed behind the drummer, with the right
compressor and a good bass drum track, makes the need for close miking
sometimes irrelevant.
The more I mess with this stuff the more I hate anything I have recorded
even just weeks prior.Such is the curse of this audio world.
Lazybones
I usually don't compress while tracking, because I am not experienced
enough to confidently make that kind of commitment early on... except
bass and vocals. When it comes to those two, compression can really help
get more useable levels.
During mixing, I find a little bit of subtle compression and/or peak limiting
can be useful. I usually use the most I can without audible effects, which
often turns out to be very little compression. In the context of a mix,
however, those few extra decibels can come in handy.
Use compression and limiting during mastering to make your CD over 80db
louder than the competition. Call now to find out how.
I record stuff at home for love of the game, mostly rock band type format.
I'm far from a pro, so take what you may from my comments.
Full point
I bought an alesis 3630 for $30 intending to do the black lion mod to make
it more...uh....believable(??)..
It seems so ugly when I notice it being used so much. This is after sitting
behind dickhead "producer" guys who put it all over stuff I've recorded. I
wish I would've known then what I know now.
I think there's definitely a place for it but I'll be damned if it hasn't ruined
songs that I enjoyed writing and recording.
"If I could turn back time.....

If I could find a way-eeee............."
Theemajormiller
I decided to try out the compressor last night for the first time. Threw it on
the snare and kick.
While I still don't fully understand what's going on (YET), I played around
with the attack and release settings until my kick sounded nice and punchy
and my snare made a ball busting "thwack".
Time to read...
Bfields
Interesting, Swede. I've felt the same thing many times about my recordings.
I think that's the beauty of the learning process.
The compressor requires a bit of technical understanding and a good ear. It

might be a good idea to get a compressor with a bypass switch so you can
A/B your signal with and without compression to see where the sound is
going. It would be tough to go wrong with either the RNC or RNLA products.
-Allen
Killedbyalbany
I like the 3630 a lot, but mostly to do light limiting work. Though I'm not
familiar with the "black lion" mod. Can anybody expand on this and/or post
a link?
TheeMajor, if you have the means, try taking your kick and snare channels,
dump them into a group bus and then compress the hell out of the group.
Take your attack and adjust it until just before your sound begins to get a
little muddy, and your release to hold as long as possible until the next hit.
Then try bringing up the group just under the "real" kick and snare in the
mix. See how the results sit with you. That was where I first began to really
experiment with compression. In a standard rock&roll mix, it's probably the
best place to be able to hear how compression can alter a sound, and how it
can work in time with the song to give it a little more depth.
MTAR
hello,
I think that the 3630 is probably the worst sounding compressor I have ever
heard. Followed by the DBX 266 in very close second. I am posting this
because I do not want people to make the same mistake I made (I had the
266, and my old employer had a 3630 in their rack). Get the DBX 166, it is
actually useful and won't automatically make things sound awful (which the
3630 will do, even when not compressing). I understand that "bad" is
subjective, but not with the 3630.
mtar
wiggins
Even with all the stuff on compression I read (at least 3 books on recording,
this website) I still didn't get the hang of it till I sat and fucked around with it
on previously recorded stuff.
It seems like each recording I do gets exponentially better than the last one,
and most of the improvement I can trace back to learning more about using
the compressors I have.
I like to use them on drum room/ambient mics, especially with

uncompressed drum overheads. I limit bass to tape sometimes (high
threshold, high ratio) just to control a little of the "boom", and very slightly
on guitar after everything's printed to tape. Most of the time the little red
LEDs on my dbx 266s barely light up, but it makes things a bit more present.
Seriously the best thing to do is go over/down/up to your studio one night

when you're bored and spend 20 or 30 minutes fucking around with the
knobs getting every possible sound you can out of them with pre-recorded
material. That's the best way to learn what _not_ to do at least.
Anyone ever tried explaining compression to a non-engineer/non-musician?

its hard...
Theemajormiller
The other night I went up to the studio to experiment with compression. I
threw it on the kick and snare and it really beefed things up a bit.
I went back last night and threw it on EVERYTHING.
Still don't completely understand it, but I do understand how its overusage
can really, really fuck shit up.
I tried it out on the OHs and it is NOT needed. I compressed the hell out of
my room mic and that worked out nicely. Drums=done.
Today I'll mess with guitar tracks.
Thanks for your help, guys.
Tmidgett
TheeMajorMiller wrote:
I tried it out on the OHs and it is NOT needed.
this can sound good sometimes. it's an old pop trick to make the cymbals
go pishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. good for some things.
Davidpye
Whenever anyone asks me what a compressor does, I just say "It turns stuff
download automatically" cos thats essentially what it does, and to most
people that makes most sense.
If you think it's a device too make things sound "bigger", or whatever then
it's gonna confuse you as you adjust the threshold down and the signal just
gets lower.
Any sounds of "bigness" or (that wreched) "warmth" comes from the
compressor not REALLY doing it's job properly. By not turning something
down without colouring it's sound. Yes of course this is sometimes the
desired effect, but when you want something to compress you don't always
want to be able to hear it doing it.
The easiest way to think about a compressors actions is to think when a

loud signal passes through it, it gets automatically turned down, the attack
is how fast it reacts to the signal, the release is how fast it stops reacting to
the signal, then threshold is at which point a signal will make it compress,
and the ratio is by how much.
Killedbyalbany
Compressing EVERYTHING is something I try to avoid, mostly because I feel
like it's easy to add too much as it is, but you also have to think about future
compression of the mix down the road. Most modern records have
individual channels compressed, group busses compressed, then the whole
mix ends up being compressed to tape, and sent off to be mastered where it
is FURTHER compressed, and in some cases it may get airplay, where it may
be compressed AGAIN. When does enough become too much? Getting
proficient with compression can really make your mixes come alive, but you
get to the point sometimes where, fuck, you're just choking the life out of
the music.
With great power comes great responsibility!
As far as the 3630 goes, I'm intruiged by the sort of intense viceral reaction
inspired in TheAngryRussian. I use it mostly in live sound situations where
some of the intricacies of the signal are lost, but I'm now very anxious to
throw it in a studio rack and fidget with it for an hour or two. I don't have
the free cash to grab a 166 just now (unless somebody is selling one cheap?
eh?) but when I do, I'll be very interested to give it the ol' college try and
post my results.
I think the "worst compressor I've ever heard" award goes to the Nady
CL5000, though I only gave it a few minutes of a shot before throwing my
hands up in frustration and going back to the JoeMeek
Surfrider
My thoughts are that without a massively expensive setup comprising all
your dream mics / perfect acoustics etc, a tiny bit of compression can really
help with the bass, snare, kick drum, vocals, when used tastefully. So
basically i am just in agreement with most of you lot it seems.
Depending on what you're going for it can be very tasty on certain things.
After reading about some Beatles sessions, we put my bass through TWO
compressors and it was great. A cost effective way to get a lovely booming
kick can be achieved with some mild compression and some mild reverb
after it in the chain. Especially when the room you're using has below par
acoustics.
And i absolutely always use one on drum machines. It really makes them
shine.
Favorite Vocal Mics / Recording Vocals: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Instant Zen
I'd just like to get a feel for what everyone's favorite vocal mic is. Also, I was
wondering about some of the main differences between front-address and
side-address mics.
Thanks.
Tim
it's hard to pick one favorite vocal mic. my mic selection depends on the
type of vocalist. for screamy stuff or rap i like the electrovoice RE20. these
"singers" tend to really like to get close to the mic, and the RE20's generous
amount of proximity boost works well. for more singing based material i use
either a Soundelux ELUX 251 or an Oktava ML52. the ML52 does a nice job of
taking the edge off overly harsh or sibilant voices. more and more lately, i've
been using it over the 251 anyway. i love how dark it is. among the large
diaphragm condensers i own or have regular access to (414 B/ULS, 4033,
and the 251) i can't say i'm terribly happy with any of them as vocal mics. oh
well....
i'm sure someone will correct me or shed more light, but i believe the
difference between front and side address mics lies only in the design, not
the sonic characteristics. in certain applications, one might be favorable
over the other in that it is easier to position in limited space like between a
rack tom and a nearby cymbal. i suppose the design can determine sonic
properties, or vice versa. e.g. i can't think of any front address mics with a
figure 8 pattern. (or i can't think of any figure 8 mics with a front address
design). but i would guess that if you set up any 5 front address and any 5
side address mics and A/B them, the two groups would not be audibly
different from each other simply because of the design differences.
tim
Chris Hardings
My favorite vocal mics have been the Coles 4038 (actually this is my favorite
for most options) also the Josephson 700a and the Gefell m930.
I agree the RE20 is a good mic for people who scream. Mostly because it has
a really high SPL and proximity boost.
Yes, the reason microphones have different designs (front and side address)
is for positioning purposes. For instance, the Josephson microphones Steve
Albini had made for himself are side adressed and work well on micing toms
because of it.
Tim - check out the Coles 4038 i mentioned above, it goes for about $1000.
defiantely worth the investment.
Instant Zen
A problem i always run into is that I find myself moving around a lot when I
sing; even when I'm recording. Are there any mics that are particularly good
for us kinetic-type singers, or should I just break down and buy a
compressor?
Tim
thanks chris - i am quite fond of the 4038s but they don't have them where
i am working now. i agree that they are useful for a wide range of
applications. vocals, overhead, room, guitar amp, violin, upright bass,
fender rhoades cabinet, inside a piano...almost anything i threw them on
sounded great. they are near the top of my list of future purchases.
for vocalists who tend to move around a lot, heavy compression can help
even the recording level, but probably won't sound natural. you can always
use a handheld mic. maybe an EV re20 or a shure sm7, although you may
encounter some serious unwanted noise from handling the microphone and
jumping around. i've never tried it.
tim
Jeremy
I wouldn't use compression unless it was absolutely necessary. There's a
technique that I've used with crazy singers/screamers. In a dead room
(maybe 5x5) I set up the Coles 4038 as a vocal mic and then about 3 - 4
feet behind him I put an 414 (set to omni) I kinda used it like a "room" mic
for vocals. It needs a lot of gain, but it adds a weird presence that I like.
You'll want the 414 no more than a foot or two away from the apposing wall.
Stephensolo
not to take the post in a different direction, but you mean to say you use NO
compression on vocals going in? in my experience a little compression is
needed on any remotely loud vocals - going into a large d. condenser at
least.
Instant Zen
if the song allows, sometimes a ton of reverb or lo-fi filter will cover up
some dynamic issues. that's how i've kept from buying a compressor...
Jeremy
i assume you are talking to me (in reference to the "no compressor"
statement)
I do have one compressor. It's a JoeMeek. I use it for a pre-amp though. also
have a George Massenburg 8400 and a Sytek MPX-4A, both 4 channel mic
pres.
Between the 3 of them I get what I'm looking for.
The micing technique i mentioned before (using the Coles as the vocal mic
and a 414 as a sort of room mic) by far, not only compensates for any kind
of dynamic retardation of a singer, but adds a nice depth to a vocal. I
understand that somtimes a singer gets louder by accident but thats just
how they sing. if i have to, i will compress it. but thats in the event that a
singer can't help but sway, or jump around in the dead room. at which point
i probably will just hand him a 57 and give him a discount. just kidding
(actually the joke was that I even have a 57 - i don't)
steve
This looks promising. I'm going to try it.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Naoko
hey Steve:
maybe you could also try an RE-20 instead of the 4038.
this will give a far more powerful bass boost, because of the RE20's
extremely generous proximity effect.
just a thought.
MTAR
The 4038 should have a generous proximity boost (if not more than the EV)
since it is a fig-8. However, the closer you get, and the louder the vocalist,
the greater chance of snapin yo ribbon.
word,
mtar
Brianbiv
Quote:
this will give a far more powerful bass boost, because of the RE20's
extremely generous proximity effect.
I thought that the EV RE-20 was designed with the "variable D" pattern.
There is no proximity effect, there for no low frequency boost. isn't this true?
Jeremy
I don't recall there being much of a proximity effect on an RE20. Maybe
(whoever sad there was) was recollecting it's low end response (which is
pretty darn good). I don't use this much as a vocal mic being that there's
always something better. But it is a great kick mic. That's my primary use of
it.
I do have a question for all of you - does any one EVER get anything good
out of a shure beta 52? not sure what the big deal is with this mic. I never
like shure anyway. that 44 is ok i guess.
Naoko
brianbiv wrote:
Quote:
this will give a far more powerful bass boost, because of the
RE20's extremely generous proximity effect.
I thought that the EV RE-20 was designed with the "variable D"
pattern. There is no proximity effect, there for no low frequency
boost. isn't this true?
bingo. and even if it wasn't variable-D, it is a cardioid. by definition

therefore, it cannot have a stronger proximity effect than a figure-8
microphone. i was just stirring.
Brianbiv
Quote:
by definition therefore, it cannot have a stronger proximity effect
than a figure-8 microphone.
Quote:
From what I have read, and from what I have experienced the figure
8 has less than a cardiod. A figure 8 has less and Omni has NO proxy
effect.
Naoko
this is wrong. the proximity effect is the result of measuring the pressure
gradient of the sound field. a figure-8 microphone (classically, with a ribbon
transducer) operates in a pure pressure-gradient mode; consequently, such
microphones exhibit a strong proximity effect.
in contrast, an omnidirectional microphone is totally insensitive to the

pressure-gradient (neglecting off-axis diffraction effects, anyway...),
measuring only the local magnitude of the pressure field. such microphones
do not produce a bass boost at close working distance.
a cardioid combines both pressure and pressure-gradient components in

equal measure; so cardioid microphones exhibit a proximity effect, but it is
weaker than that obtained using a figure-8 microphone.
the RE-20 is a special case. although its pick-up pattern is cardioid, it uses
"variable-D" design to (almost totally) eliminate the proximity effect. the
proximity effect is produced by sound waves impinging on the rear of the
diaphragm. the RE-20 has a frequency-dependent front-to-rear path
difference, which is how it controls the proximity boost.
Jeremy
I was hoping to make a thread where people can share micing techniques
for vocals.
I read an article in tape op about Danielson Famile and Brother Daniel

mentioned in there a technique (from Steve?) that I tried that was really
interesting. Basically its a close vocal mic, with another mic 2 or 3 feet away
and another mic another 2 or 3 feet past that. the second and third mic
both have gains boosted (because of distance) and are gated. So yelling
and/or loud singing triggers the gates. This can also be done wtih just 2 mics.
Which is mostly how i do it.
This of course only really works with a singer who has a purposefully
dynamic voice (i.e. both screams and sings) but I've used this technique on
people who just scream and, in some cases, worked out fine.
Anyone else have any interesting vocal micing techniques?
Kerble
A variation of this is how the vocals on Bowie's Heroes was recorded.
Anyway, I've set a mic in a dryer cylinder and sang into it for an odd tone
and have also used reflections to pick up a backing vocal (i.e. face the mic
into a corner of a tiled room (like a bathroom), crank the gain and sing into
an opposite corner.) neat ambience.
Stairwells, hallways and other odd spaces do different things and can sit in
the mixes differently.
hth.
Nick92675
the first studio recording i did we put an SDC in the end of a vacuum cleaner
hose and sang into the end of it. that was kinda cool. also, on that same
session we did a spaced stereo pair SDC about 6" from the wall and the
singer screamed into the wall. that was kinda cool i guess. similar variations,
put the ambient mic in a heating duct... bass drum... whatever.
the mulitple mics described above in the other posts is how i've done things
lately. a lot the wierdo stuff above just kinda sounds like an effect - and the
bowie technique just sounds more professional.
i think i remember reading somewhere that some jesus lizard vocals had a
lavalier mic clipped to yow's headphones and he sang in a trashcan or
something for some songs - but chalk that up to internet speculation and
rumor.
those are the "wierd" things i can think of.
Chris Hardings
theres a certain effect I've heard on a few different Albini records(and Bob's
records too I think) and I'm wondering.....
You can hear it on The Jesus Lizards "S.D.B.J." off of Head. It's one of the
breaks in the song he yells and you hear (or so it sounds) how big the room
is he's yelling in. You hear it again on In Utero, i think on the last track, when
he gets loud. I think i heard it on Danielson Famile's "Domino Rally" from
fetch the compass kids when he yells "WHAT" come down dan, "WHO WHAT"
come down dan "WHO WHAT WHO"
I wanna say on June of 44's "Anisette" i heard it again.
anyone know what that is? or what i'm even talking about? I can't seem to
duplicated the effect.
Nick92675
uh - it's what jeremy & kerble are talking about. quick recipe: take close
mic and compress as usual for vocal track. take room mic and put in room.
delay it if you want more roomy sound. record both tracks simulatneously.
on the real loud notes the compressor clamps down harder and doesnt let
the level increase on the close mic, but the room mic (uncompressed)
comes up in relative volume. mix to taste.
read more by a much better engineer than me here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HEO/is_12_26/ai_9357945
6
Robert thefamilyghost
Jeremy wrote:
I read an article in tape op about Danielson Famile and Brother
Daniel mentioned in there a technique (from Steve?) that I tried that
was really interesting. Basically its a close vocal mic, with another
mic 2 or 3 feet away and another mic another 2 or 3 feet past that.
the second and third mic both have gains boosted (because of
distance) and are gated. So yelling and/or loud singing triggers the
gates. This can also be done wtih just 2 mics. Which is mostly how i
do it.
great technique..."borrowed" i know of from someone who did it earlier

(perhaps it was even done by someone else earlier, i don't know...) Tony
Visconti on David Bowie's Low and Heroes records (probably Lodger
too)...actually, when they did it was like one mic right up close, another a
couple feet away and the third was like completely across the room...well,
farther than 6 feet anyway...it's especially noticeable on the song
"Heroes"...the more passionate and loud Bowie's vocals get, the more
distant and detached it feels...it's a reall cool effect...it's been constantly on
my mind ever since i saw that documentary on pbs or whatever a few years
ago...
Instant_zen
This is sort of related:
when my band recorded, we did so with everyone (vocals included) in the

same room. granted, this caused all sorts of problems (see thread in "Studio
Questions"), but the one cool thing that it allowed us to do was, for certain
sections, leave the vocal mics on to pick up ambient sounds (bass
slaps/pops, scratching guitar pick-noises, and intense mid-range textures
reminiscent of a low-pass filter). So it's not exactly a vocal mic-ing
technique, but it involves vocal mics... i guess.
i'll stop now.
Blackjackdavid
nick92675 wrote:
anyone know anything about mulitple mics on vocals? i head it on in
utero and the danielson famile record. someone said david bowie
used it too? anyone got any resources describing how they did it or
who did it?
Everyone is mentioning the "Heroes" session which I just read about

yesterday, strangely enough. I found the article, which quotes Tony Visconti,
at the Sound on Sound website (www.sos.com). It essentially describes it as
described here: two ambient mic's with gates--they are triggered by
Bowie's louder singing toward the end of the song.
If you are an SOS subscriber you can also get access to an interview with
Steve.
Johnsuitcase
It's funny to say it, but I've been using a room mic when doing vocals
forever. I use a room mic about 10 ft back, sometimes pointing at a wall
instead of the vocalist. I'll compress it, or delay it or whatever. It is
particularly effective when a singer goes to an emotive, loud passage.
I remember taping a pzm to the control room window once, sounded

awesome on the screaming bits...
(all of these are in combination with a LDC, compressed, etc)
Trompus
I have recorded my own vocals by singing through an amp a few times, in a
studio and also on 4 track. Has anyone done much of this, do you have any
ideas or tips? I'm going to record in the next month or so, I haven't done any
recording in a few years and I would like to go into the studio with a few
ideas for recording vocals. I just do not like vocals to sound so separated
from the other tracks, but I don't know enough about recording to explain
myself.
Long_shaded_eyes
Just a question for the multi mic technic ....
Do you know how too avoid phase matters in the "Bowie's Tecnic".
I work mostly with crazy screamers (hard core) with a lot of variations so
I'm very interested by this one.
Thanks for any infos.
Johnsuitcase
You shouldn't have too bad of phase issues, since the distant mic will be
mixed in at a lower volume, and be delayed by a few milliseconds because
of the distance. If you notice it does sound phasey, try moving it farther
away, or eq out some freqencies.
I've never had any phase issues with this technique, but I suppose
anything's possible!
Rayj
For screamers, we used a SM57 (I know...) hanging from the ceiling lamp in
an apartment bedroom. Shag on the floor, bare hard walls. We used a
tranformer and plugged it into a ProCo RAT distortion pedal. The guy just
screamed into the room. Lotsa fun, and got the neighbors thinking in the
bargain.
Nick92675
can anyone give thier experiences and suggestions on recording an ambient
vocal track? [second mic recorded to be blended with close mic on the
same take]
i recently tried putting a LD condenser back in the room in omni about 10 ft

from the singer, and it didn't seem to work well in that instance. how about
use of compression? do you compress this to tape at all? i know there are
the obvious phase issues to beware of, and have seen the mics go on the
floor a la drum ambient mics. what techniques have you used successfully?
i had a lot of negative ambient noise coming in that wasn't at all flattering,
especially when i compressed it - which is why i ditched it. i'm sure being in
omni didn't help either since my room isn't the greatest - but i was
definitely looking for that bigger natural ambience you guys get at electrical.
any other suggestions {get a better room}? perhaps i should send the close
signal to an amp and re-mic on mixdown.
Tmidgett
try the opposite of compression: expansion
it's a 'steve albini' (tm) (r) trick that i like a lot
you can set the threshold so that it doesn't pick up bullshitty noises you
don't want expanded--a/c, rustling, singer farts, etc.
one of my favorite things is having it set so the singer can choke up on the
mic for the quiet parts and back up for the loud parts w/o having the overall
level go up or down too much
the quiet pts end up being intimate and the loud parts end up being more
chaotic
it's nice
benadrian
I've been having a fair amount of luck here at work, though I could never get
it right at home. The problem for me is the room. The ambient mic will
completely reveal he weaknesses in your room, and my room at home is a 8
by 15 shoebox.
Here's what I've been doing lately. Close mic and a room mic about 20-30
feet back on a wood floored area.
The close mic has been everything from A 58, and AKG C900, and RE-20, or
a Neumann 149. Depending on the agreaggressivenessthe singer I'll
compress this to taste. Really agreaggressivegers get almost limiting. As an
aside, I love the Cranesong STC-2 compressor. Such an amazing device.
The distant mic is usually a 414 on omni on a floor stand about a foot above
the floor. Use a quiet preamp. I don't compress this mic at all.
Track to two seperateseparate if you can. Blend to taste. the louder the
singer sings, the more the direct mic compresses, and the more you hear
the room mic. If you want more diffused ambience in the room mic, try
putting a baffle between the singer and the ambient mic.
Have fun.
Justinc
nick92675 wrote:
what techniques have you used successfully?
for ambience i like to set up two or three different types of mics around the
room and find a blend that sounds complimentary to the source. i rarely use
all three mics simultaneously, but if there are several overdubs to do it can
make getting good sounds fast work. predelay on the ambience can also be
useful.
Lee
I have to second tmidg on that "expansion" technique. it sounds beautiful.
when the singer goes from singing quietly to suddenly belting it out it adds a
cool kind of "opening up" effect that's kind of natural and shocking at the
same time. All of the sudden it gets huge. I think a similar technique was
used on "Heroes" by Bowie but they used a couple of ambient mics one
closer, one further back and maybe ducked the close mic so when the
others were engaged that's all you got. I saw something about it on an
otherwise lame "history of rock" documentary on PBS.
Mayfair
Another fun trick is to use your second mic to mic up the very edge of a
larger cymbal from under it and sing very near the cymbal on top of it.
Micing the reverberation as picked up by the cymbal can have crazy effects.
I guess this would be a cheap plate reverb kinda. I have also heard this done
with a piano with the damper pedal depressed as to undampen the strings.
If the signal is loud enough in the room (more for guitar, amplified sounds,
etc) it will start sympathetic strings to vibrate giving a sort of reverb but
much more musical and 'spooky' sounding.
Recording a Band With 8 Tracks: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
justinC
are you making records on 8 tracks sometimes?
how do you like to group yr drum mics? how many tracks do you use?
i know what i do,

but i'd like to know what you do too.
Steve
When I do a studio session on 8-track, assuming a rock band format, I do it
this way:
1: bass drum
2: snare drum
3: stereo drum kit L
4: stereo drum kit R
[these are a sub-mix of toms, cymbals and ambience]
5: bass guitar
6: guitar
7: singing
8: anything else
If the band requires more space, I'll sometimes make the drum submix
mono, freeing up one more track.
If the band requires even more space, I'll make a stereo drum reduction or
record the whole drum kit to two tracks to start. If the drumming is simple, I
may even record all the drums to one track.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Justin From Queens

Does this mean that you don't have any ambience for the
bass/guitar/singing? Or are those summed mono to the same channel as
the respective direct sound?
Steve
Yeah, if I use an ambient mic, it's mixed with the close mic.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Capnreverb
I just bought and hd24 last week, so for the first time i am going to go past
eight tracks.
I have been using 8 tracks for recording for the last 6 years or so. I have
recorded all kinds of music, from math rock, free jazz, garage rock bands,
electronica, ol timey music, electronica, and tabla cello duets. Some of my 8
track stuff has gotten some nice press and no one has complained about
the sound quality.
Some variation of Steve's set up is how i usually do things.
You really only need to submix stuff if you want to mic the shit out of each
of the drums. This i found to be necesarry if the room sounds like shit.
But, if you have a great sounding room and know how to mic things, 8 is
plenty. Most of the records before 1970 were done on 8 or less. Some of the
greatest recordings of all time were recorded with just a few mics and often
with just one track.
I am glad i was stuck with just 4-8 tracks for the last 10 years of recording,
because it forced me to hear and record with economy. I think that those
lessons will help in my journey into 24 track territory.
Geiginni
capnreverb wrote:
....Most of the records before 1970 were done on 8 or less. Some of
the greatest recordings of all time were recorded with just a few
mics and often with just one track....
-Furtwangler's Beethoven cycle

-Toscanini's NYPO recordings
-Casals' Bach cello sonata's
-Many of the Budapest Quartet's best recordings
-BG in HiFi
-Tangents in Jazz
-Blue Trane
-Ellington at Newport?
Am I missing more?
Seriously, eight tracks is perfect for a six channel true surround recording.
Record FR, FC, FL, RR, RC (optional), RL to your eight track. Then do a DSD
transfer to master a multichannel SACD. Mmmm, tasty!
Juche
Out of all the times I've tracked drums, which includes 16/1", 16/2", 24/2", I
find I really like the sound of some 8 track recordings where just used two
channels. The process was not slapdash however, I ran a long snake and
was one floor below the band, thus good separation from where the band
was playing. Plenty of recording the whole band to tape and then making
little adjustments led to the drummer walking out for awhile to brood
and/or recover. I'm fairly sure that the fact that I was running very high
levels to make up for narrow gauge 1/2" noise floor was a main factor in
why it sounds so nice. I won't claim the kick is huge or clean, that's the
main drawback. Maybe next time this comes up I will do 3 tracks.
If anyone wants to compare or swap such shoestring recordings over the

net, let me know.
Recording a Choir: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Nipper
Hello,
I need suggestions recording a 32 men choir, 4 sections, some songs with a
solo.
I' think we'll place them in a small church.
Any idea on miking?
We have these microphones:
2 AKG C414
1 Neumann U87
1 Neumann KM 183
1 Neumann KM 184
1 Electro Voice RE20 and others dynamics Shure, Beyerdynamic.
Thanks.
davidpye
Personally I'd go for, U87 for the solo voice. 414's as a spaced stereo pair,
not too close together, not too far apart. 184 and 183 out in the room as
ambient mics, try facing towards and/or away from choir.
That's where I'd start, then adjust if anything sounds weird.
Then RE20 on the kick drum, Beyer 201 on the snare top, SM58's micing up
the cars outside and other things you don't care about.... etc etc etc
congleton
i didnt notice anything in your question about drums? why was that
answered?
i recorded a mens choir in a church just like this few years back....
you have four sections so a stereo pair of 414s may not give you the control
you might want from song to song or in the bulk of a song. if this is
important to you might i suggest the u87 aimed at your tenors and bass,
and one 414 aimed at you altos and one at your sopranos. if the 414 on the
sopranos sounds brittle i would switch it out with u87.
if its nice sounding church use your km183 (omni) as an ambient mic. then
use the km 184 as an area mic and solo. good choir soloists are going to
serve as their own "compressors" and they will move around alot so place
the mic well above their head and face it towards the bridge of their nose.
good luck.
Jordanosaur
I have recorded a couple of choirs with limited mics, and I would highly
recommend staying away from the 414's when capturing a soprano section
- The last choir I did was with a stereo pair of 414's (that's all they had at the
site), and I couldn't find a way using placement to naturally roll off some of
the brittle top end those mics tend to have. It sounds like you have a pretty
decent selection to choose from, so I think you won't have any trouble
getting them to sound quite nice.
How many tracks are you working with, and what kind of media are you
recording to? Do you have any outboard preamp or compression?
Davidpye
congleton wrote:
i didnt notice anything in your question about drums? why was that
answered?
Ohhhh it was a joke!
Nipper
Hi,
thanks once again for your answer.
I add only:
the choir is only 32 male NO instrument.
Tracks are not a problem, we can go up to 12 - 24bits/96Khz or 24 - 24/48
So I thought to good stereo placement using the couple of 414. I have

generally good stereo results plus mono-compatibility with ORTF. The
difficult here is to give a well-blended and balanced sound having all the
other microphones different in make and brand. Capturing the sound closer
to source and mixing after the 4 different sections or solo with reverberant
ambient give more control on the final result.
What you think?
tarandfeathers wrote:
Height and distance will be your friends in this situation. See if you
can get hold of one of those crank-up aerial masts and put your
stereo bar on top.
Yes,
we have 2 stands that go up to 5 meters, but I think I'll try even more
distances hanging up stereo couple from the ceiling or between 2 walls if
there is a way to stop the microphones without they oscillate in the air
during recordings...
Valley Dynamite (Dynamic Processor): Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Hiredgeek
Does anyone have the owner's manual for this? The topography is like no
other that I've used.
Msmith4060
http://classes.berklee.edu/mpe/pdf_files/manuals_pdf/valleypeople_430.
pdf
Big John
A lot of studios I have recorded in had these "in the day". I noticed that they
use one at electrical. I just bought one used.
I remember them being used on guitars and drums but anyone have any
suggestions about what they like about it. I paid $160 for the same unit they
have on the electrical site stereo version.
Steve
I use them as gates, expanders and duckers (side-chain keyed limiter). I use
them all the time.
Bottom snare mic expanded, key from top mic to minimize rattle between
strokes.
Batter-side bass drum mic ducked by snare drum mic for the same reason.
Ambient mic expanded, key from close mic -- I use this on a lot of things to
keep the room noise to a minimum but retain the ambient effect.
I recall hearing that other engineers used them as limiters on drum

overhead mics and piano, but I've never had great results with them that
way.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Nick9275
it's a little more aggro sounding to me than some other compressors, and i
like putting it on bass guitar, or kick, or mono room - i have 2 at home.
Drum Mics (bussed together): Electrical Audio Forum Questions
-Bill
Hi there
I'm curious what drum mics ya'll buss together when tracking. I work on a
24 track and for a drum kit typically have 1-2 mics on kick, 2 on snare, 2 per
tom, maybe cymbals left and right, and room left and right. That quickly
eats up a bunch of tracks. I noticed in one post someone said Steve may
buss a left cymbal mic with the left side of the stereo mic in front of the kit
and the same for the right side.
Steve, are you in the habit of sending both top and bottom snare mics to
one track, both mics for each tom to their own track, and both kick mics to
their own track?
If you're recording a large band live to a 16 track how few tracks will you
allow for the drum mics?
thanks for any insight,

Bill
Steve
I like to have one track per piece of the drum kit, one stereo "overhead" pair
(can be -- or include -- a front-of-kit stereo mic), and a pair of room mics.
If tracking doesn't permit, I have been known to abandon the ambient mics
or mix them together with the overheads, or make a stereo pair for all the
toms if there are a bunch. If I have plenty of tracks, I'll keep the batter side
and front side bass drum mics separated.
Minimalistic Drum Miking: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Tw
i was wondering if anyone had some tips for two-mike drum set recording.
i've had great luck lately with an AT 4051a(small-diaphragm cardioid
capsule) overhead and an ATM 25 kick drum mike. the drums are tuned
pretty dead, and there's only one cymbal and one tom. we've been using 7A
sticks, so it's hard for a drummer to make a big racket with the cymbals...a
problem i've encountered before when i wanted to use the overheads as the
basis for a drum sound.
i think if the drums sound alright, the room is cool, and the drummer has
good control over his dynamics, then this can work well. a couple big
plusses are that it eliminates most phase issues and it simplifies mixing. if
you are careful with the placement, you can get a good snare/kick mix, and
if you really want a stereo drum sound you can use any number of stereo
overhead mikes.
that's my 2 cents, i was wondering if anyone else had tips for this approach.
thanks,
tw
Kerble
I don't remember the mic types when we tracked our drums like this but I
believe one of them was a Lomo and the other an AT (?) anyway, we had
one mic aimed sorta down at the drums from about three feet away maybe
six inches above the kick. There may have been one more mic here, I don't
remember.
The other mic was on the side of the kit aimed over the the tops of the toms
and snare. The cymbals and hi hats were loud enough and brighgt enough to
show up in the mix, and didn't need individual mics.
Overall, I prefer mic-ing the kit as opposed to individual drums as I feel it

sounds more natural. I'm not the drummer, but I feel that it sits with the
music a lot better. I also was not the engineer, so my recall of the events is
surely cloudy at best.
You can hear the results on our page in my www link below-the footer is a
one mic recording of the band done later. Adjust your ears for mp3
crappiness.
Faiz
_________________
I've been institutionalized! ( http://www.stockyardinstitute.org/ )
kerble@hotmail.com
El Protoolio
In my practuce space we use a Digi001 and small Mackie for more pres, but
this still leaves us with only 4 inputs. So when we go to record demos, we
track the drums first but need a guitar or bass plugged into it at the same
time, so that leaves us 3 inputs for drums. Usually we put a 57 on the snare,
a large dynamic on the kick and a large condenser as a room mic, positioned
high enough to get cymbals and more snare, and far enough away for some
sense of space. When it comes time to mix the drums are usually treated
Beatles style, ie, as a single mono signal panned left, right or center
depending on the sounds of the other instruments and whatever feels
better. We also add a good amount of verb for even more space. The room is
like 12x12.
Sometimes we overdub a ride or floor tom and pan it opposite to give an

idea of a stereo image, but usually its only 3 tracks. We don't see the
limitation as holding us back. We see it as an opportunity to make the most
we can out of it and are always happy with the results.
We want to go into the studio and rerecord the songs, but have been
debating that we might not get as good of a sound or a better result with
more mics on the kit.
Run Joe Run

For a really minimal recording of a drum kit, you can get good results just
sticking up a Â£30 stereo mic about 6 feet in front of the kit. It seriously
works. Sounds quite good if you compress it quite heavily, too.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my first "tip" for the Electrical board. And
probably my last for a very, very long time. Enjoy.
Alexdamon
i use four mics right now.
one on the kick, one just above the kick facing the snare and rack tom,
one facing the floor tom and one as an ambient mic.
i use my old four track as a mixer and run that into my computer.
i get some pretty good sounds from this set up.
Jeff Deff
I've had good luck recording drums with 3 mics. In fact, I've often been
more satisfied doing it that way then with 12. Check out these MP3s:
http://www.palliardmusic.com/palliardsite.music.html
These were recorded with three mics on the drums. In front of the kit was a
ribbon mic (Oktava ML-52), about 3 feet out, 2 feet high. Just 6 or 8 inches
out from the floor tom, I had a large diaphragm condenser (AKG 414 BULS)
pointing across the tom at the snare. The last mic was a small diaphragm
condenser (Josephson C42), over my right shoulder pointing in between the
rack tom and snare. You can measure the distance to the mics from the
center of the snare to the 414 and C42 to minimize phasing. You want these
two mics to be equally distant. In these MP3s there is also leakage from the
drums into the vocal mic which was an Audio Technica 4033a that was
limited and slightly compressed. This was all recorded live in the same room.
To be honest, the most important thing with this technique is that the
drummer hit the snare and toms hard enough and not bash their cymbals.
As far as mic choice goes, think of your mics as ribbons, small or large
diaphragm condensers or dynamics; think about their polar patterns. Don't
get hung up on particular models and name brands, think about their
general characteristics. Also, mic placement will probably have more effect
on the sound than what mic you choose. Once you find a good placement,
start switching out mics to fine tune if necessary.
Patrick MD
When I only had a few mics to record my bands practice sessions with I
would use a Shure Beta 52 on the bass drum, and a Rode NT1A out in front of
the kit, angeled in towards it. It sounded not too bad.
Oscar ruiz
I know probably almost everyone has had to record a drum with only 2 mics
some time or another so... Is there a way to record drums with just two
mics that might sound good? If it is possible, what kind of microphones
would you use and in what position? I have been doing it for the last year (I
only have two mics, an Oktava MK319 and a Shure SM58) and depend
severely upon processing and editing and then it all becomes blurred. Thank
you.
Schall
In most modest recording situations I've been in, a two mic set-up usually
entails using them as left and right overheads.
Although you are using two different mics, one of them being a 58.
Maybe throw the 58 on a boom and place it 8-12 inches above the bass
drum, pointing at the drummer. Maybe the other mic would then be the
overhead, or straight bass mic. This has worked for me in a pinch.
Just my amateur advice. Beware, I am a drummer, not a recording eng.
Justin From Queens

Well, there's a little bit of difference between how good a job you can do
with two mics and how good a job you can do with those two mics.
Advice from a cheerful non-pro-

As I teach myself how to record drums, I've gotten two matched omni mics
that are well suited for drum recording. I've put the drum set in my live
room and then spent a lot of time doing two things -
1. Treating the room to make the drums sound more pleasing in the room.
2. Moving the mics around the room (proximity to the drums, distance apart,
etc.) while paying attention to phase effects.
So, I guess this isn't so much advice for you as it is - "here's what I've done,
what do other people think?" I'm working under the premise that managing
many mics on a full kit can get very complex, and it's better to understand
environmental variables and simple placement before close micing
everything and processing away.
Nick92675
i'd start with the oktava and while someone;s playing the drums, wear
headphones monitoring the channel - and walk around till it sounds best.
i've had luck getting a good kit sound in what some people have referred to
as underheads - about 3/4 feet back in about the same plane as your snare
and bottom head of rack tom/top head of floor. just concentrate on getting
an even image and blend of the snare and toms/cymbals. then use your 58
to fill in the bass drum definition.
trust your ears and with limited resources think of the kit as 1 instrument
not 4 drums and cymbals. hope that helps!
Oscar ruiz
Thank you all! I was thinking of maybe getting an AKG d112 for the kick. I
have been doing more or less what you suggested, that is, using the SM58
for the kick and the Oktava as a mixture of overheard and proximity
combined with different rates of compression and EQ. The sound is what we
might call "expressionist" -nothing like the real sound but still suitable for
some kinds of playing.
I heard the Flaming Lips used just two mics to record the drums in their last
two albums but I don't know how much credit can I give to such assertion
after having listend to them.
Benadrian
Here's what I've done... and liked.
1. One mic in front of the kick about 2-6 feet back and about the height of
the top of the bass drum hoop. Second mic by the drummers right ear if
he's right handed (because I don't like blaring hi hats). If you want more hat,
try the left ear. Revers this if the drummer sets up backward.
2. Mic one in same position as above. Mic two about 10 feet back. the sound
of the room is of great importance.
3. If you want a more metal/hard rock kick drum sound put one mic in the
bass drum and the second mic in one of the two above positions.
4. dude, who cares. throw the mics up one way, record a minute or two,
listen. Repeat. Do this for like an hour and pick your favorite sounding
technique.
Have fun,
Ben Adrian
Greg
If you spend $70 on a SM57 or similar microphone, you will make your life a
whole lot easier. You can then have the essentials- kick, snare, and
overhead/room. Typically 58 would be best for kick (play with distances), 57
on snare, and the Oktava as an overhead. Obviously toy around with the
arrangement and distances to suit your needs.
It is possible to get a good sound with 2 mics especially when the drummer
plays well. I would use the mk319 as a kit mic (belt to chest high in front of
the drums 2-3 feet) and your other mic on whatever you wanted to here
more of.
It will be worth it to just get one more mic though
Bernardo
For rehearsal / songwriting recording purposes I've been using a 57 or 58 (it
varies) right in the center of the kit (I've seen it referred to as the "heart
mic"), with interesting results, a bit attack-heavy, but a natural balance
between the drums (except, maybe, for the floor tom). I've been wondering
if the "heart mic", coupled with a relatively distant room mic (probably a
condenser, for depth and cymbals), wouldn't give me a fairly complete
center-panned drum sound. Any tips on this? The occasion to use it hasn't
appeared yet.
Darktowel
hi,
here are a few options for a two-mike drum recording;

a: matched pairs as overheads; either x/y or a/b
i use this technique for the clearer and realistic sound: try balancing your
drums perfectly and keep the mikes quite high; otherwise the cymbals wil
start ringin' like hell!
b: bass and snare: a condensor mic pointing down from aprox. 3 a 2ft.
above the high hat towards the snare with a omnidirectional or figure of
eight pattern (preferably a large diafragm such as a AKG-414 although
something like a C-1000 is fine too!(
combined with any mike for the bassdrum ( another condensor in front of
the drums front-skin or a dynamic one inside the drum (the SM-58 works
well when it's tweaked afterwards with a little distortion (ahhhh
c: baffled stereo or fake-binaural technique with matched pairs:

just depend on great acoustics for a different sound
d: if you have the possibility, try overdubbing yr drums using first a and then
b!
good luck
bdp
Oscar,
Your post is an old one, and no doubt you’ve moved on since then but I’ve
recently had to experiment with a two-mic set-up using a pair of Rode
NT5’s so thought I’d share what’s worked for me.
Mic one pointing at the air vent in the snare, horizontal with the floor and
positioned under the hi hat, about 3-4 inches out from the snare. Usually
the mic is slightly off axis to avoid air coming through the vent hitting the
diaphragm directly. This does a nice job of picking up the hi hat, snare, and a
little bit of the cymbals.
Mic two looking over the floor tom at the kick, positioned next to the
drummers elbow. This captures the kick, toms and cymbals, and the
balance can be varied depending on how the exact positioning is done.
The final image is in mono, but it sounded better than an XY configuration
either in-front or behind the kit.
bdp
Conny
I've just been experimenting with using less and less mics while recording.
I've got perfect results on drums using two Royer 121 placed in front of the
kit, about 2 feet from the floor, 1,3 feet apart from each other, about 1-2
feet away from the bassdrum, slightly left of the bassdrum and IMPORTANT!
in a position where bassdrum and the snare are in one axis. In this position
you get a perfectly balanced kit, every instrument has the right level and the
tonal balance is superb. You'll have to mess around a lot with the position of
the mics turning them in and out because the Royer are very directional and
slight changes affect the stereo balance radicaly. I use the Royer with API
512 Preamps and I add a little Hi Mids (5-6 k) and Top End (12k) with a
Manley Massive Passive EQ and it sound rocking. I also tried a Tube Tec
MicPre which sounded smother with more top end but it had too much
sizzle for my taste. What is also great is to roll off the bass of the Royer
slightly and add a Bassdrum mic placed in the bd to get more depht (I used a
AKD D112 but I think most bdmics will do it). I also tried adding close mics
and everything works fine with this setup: The sound comes from the Royer
and the punch from the close mics. But as I sad it works perfectly well
without the close mics. You'll be excited how good the HiHats sound when
they are miked from this greater distance.
Enjoy
Conny
154
yes! i used a very similar method to this for years when i only had 4 tracks
to work with. i didn't have Royers and APIs to work with (though i'd love to
hear the results of that), but any old cardioid pair seems to work just fine. i
really love the natural width of the snare and bass drum and all the other
components tend to fall into the stereo axis believably. i eventually started
to use close up mics simply to get more of the resonance, but you can
definitely get a cool sound with 2 mics this way. (though it can get buried
fast if you have a lot of instrumentation)
Bob Weston
I've done a number of 2-mic drum recordings that I've been quite happy
with. It always ends up as one on the bass drum and one overhead.
The overhead is usually either a 4033 or a 414.
The bass drum is either a D112/RE20 (for the rock), or a 414 (for the jazz), or
a 4033 (for the anything).
best,
Bob
The matt clark

if you'd like to hear an example of a 2 mic drum recording bob made, and
$$$ put a dollar in my pocket $$$, get the love of everything record 'total
eclipse of the heart.' he used a 414 overhead and a 4033 on the kick. all
opinions on the music or drumming aside, it sounds pretty great. probably
helps that the drums were a kick ass old rogers holiday kit in their own
decent sized room with 12' ceilings, and the 3 different drummers involved
all played appropriately.
Casey_rice
I will say 'ditto' to one mic on the kick, one overhead... whatever you would
normally use in such placements... It is worth noting, like all recordings of
drums (or anything else for that matter) that you only get back what you
put in...that is, if the drummer plays like shit, then it sounds like what he or
she played...shit. If the drummer can take it easy on the cymbals, etc. then
it should be useable. its possible to do more corrective mixing with a
multiple close-mic'd setup. your mileage may vary.
Neilius
If you use one overhead, copy that channel and delay one copy by a small
amount (10 - 30ms) pan both channels hard left and hard right respectively,
and this will create a 'stereo' effect by widening the image. It's all to do with
psychoacoustics
Good luck,
Neil.
Sndo
Just hope that no one ever listens to it in mono. The result is most
unattractive.
It's probably more effective to invert the phase of one of those channels
rather than delaying it... kind of sounds similar, plus if anyone hits 'mono'
there's no problem (other than the overhead mic disappearing from the
mix... i think that's good in mono though, it keeps the mix from being
cluttered.)
Neilius
If you invert the phase of one channel you'll get lots of nasty comb filtering
and things being cancelled out. True about the mono compatability thing.
The summing of both signals will cause a similar comb filtering effect,
especially with small delay times.
Neil.
Sndo
But if the sound information contained on the room tracks is significantly
different than that of the other microphones than the comb filtering
wouldn't be so bad would it?
How far away would the room mics have to be before the comb filtering
effect is made null?
Neilius
I heard about a 3:1 rule or something, so they have to be 3 times the
distance away from eachother than they are from the sound source.
Neil.
Oscar ruiz
I am surprised that people kept posting their thoughts about this subject but
i guess it is an interesting one that challenges best engineers, that is, doing
more with less. i have moved on from the techniques i used in the sense
that i cannot expect to get the same sound from my mics from the same
position as if i'd use better ones. more work on the sound of the proper
drums has been done. i told my drummer to stop banging that god damned
ride-crash and change the patches and it has worked miracles. thank you
all. i still have got a lot of work ahead.
Walla
Hello, Oscar --
I personally *love* the two mic drumset. If you've got a dramatic sounding
space, especially. Here's what I would do (and have done, on a few different
records) in your situation:
Put the 58 on a boom stand. Set the stand directly in front of the kick drum
and position the microphone a few inches equidistant from the snare and
kick drums, pointed down toward the snare bottom.
Place the condenser microphone as far from the drumset as you can get it,
even aimed away from the drums; maybe into a window or mirror or
something.
Experiment with some compression on the close microphone; sometimes

you can pull the set together a little bit with a slow attack / medium ratio /
quick release sort of thing. It'll depend on the player (as it always does,
regardless of budget, equipment or situation). The coolest thing about this
setup is that you get a nice picture of the whole drumset; by nature, the
close microphone ends up being about as far from the toms as it does from
the kick and snare. You'll get some attack from all the drums in the kit, and
a fair amount of thud from the kick drum (you may have to crank it up a
little). The body and sense of space comes from the room microphone. If
the room is big enough, you'll avoid some basic phase problems this way,
and you've got a simple, mono mix where it's easy to control impact and
dimentionality: one fader for each.
Stylized, to be sure, but very cool with a little bit of tweaking.
— Chris
Recording 2 Drummers Playing Together: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Ianscanlon
Hi I'm going to be doing some recording for one of the bands I play in and we
have two drummers (myself being one of them). The room we're going to
use is big and has a pretty tall ceiling, It used to be the live room of a studio
and still has a control room at one end (sans windows all being repaired and
stuff). We've played in there and i did some rehearsal recording.. It's not too
splashy and live (has carpet and roughed up sort of artex on the walls).. but I
wondered if people had suggestions for recording the two full kits live.. The
other drummer plays kick, rack, floor, and snare plus a bunch of cymbals
and I play with just kick snare and floor and ride and hats.
My initial plan was set up either end of the room facing one another and use
a pair of OH's (i have the naiant teeny mic's) set up as a spaced pair facing
toward her (possibly low down to try and mitigate all the cymbals as
mentioned in the other thread), a kick mic' (tbc I'm hoping a sennhaiser
e602), and an sm57 knock off on the snare for her kit, and a RodeNT1A as
my OH and a mic in the bass drum (sm58 or sim' ) I want the kits to sound
pretty different.. Also I'm thinking of mixing them panned pretty hard left
and right..... but that's another matter!
I'm thinking of tracking all this live with the bass as well (PZM for room
sound directly in the centre of all three (bass amp halfway between the
drums at a 90 degree angle pointing in).. The bass amp is a really nice
traynor tube one (ts25B) they have at the space.. So I'm thinking close mic'
that with a decent guitar amp mic to get some good distorted type sound,
plus the PZM should pick up the bass.. I'm thinking we may DI a second bass
part as well if it's not clear enough. All this will be going into a helix firewire
mixer (8 mic pre's can stream sixteen inputs sim') into my macbook pro
running logic.. if that makes any difference! Mic' placement is based largely
on speculation on my part so please please please give me the benefit of
some experience here. TA!
Charlie D
You mention the differences in the kits, but what about the (playing) styles?
Do you two play in unison or does one person augment the other's parts?
I think that the differences in tone on the drum parts should be fine, but I'd
seriously recommend taking just a day of recording you two drumming
together to see (hear, rather) what will sound optimum; after all, what
sounds great lilve may not sound great on tape. You'll probably need to
reconsider your choices and placement, not just of the mics on the drums,
but the drums in the room. Make all your necessary changes at the very
beginning.
As far as the bass amp is concerned, you may want to consider pointing it
away from the drum kits and partitioning it off or, better yet, just do a
headphone feed; you'll be dealing with enough bleed as it is from one kit to
the next (unless bleed is what you're looking for... keep in mind, though,two
snares equals twice the snare rattle when the bass resonates the drums,
which, if you have some quiet parts that absolutely positively need to be
quiet, will be a bitch to clean up).
I should warn, though, this is all speculatory on my part. Other forum
members may (and probably will) have better suggestions.
Tarandfeathers
Recording two drummers at once is a challenge I have long wished to be
presented with. I did one drummer and two people playing two floor toms
each the other week, but it's not really the same thing. The record 'Free
Jazz' by Ornette Coleman has the hard panned idea that you speak of, most
of the Allman Brothers/Grateful Dead things I can think of have what sounds
like an overhead on each kit panned wide but not hard and a mic on each
kick panned centrally. I can never work out what's happening on the
Boredoms records that have 3+ drummers, though that's probably the
desired effect. My girlfriends old band had two drummers but the only
recording they did was kind of muddled, there was far too much room
sound for the kind of music they were doing.
Do the drummers play different beats, interlocking patterns, or do they tend

to play similar/identical things? That would probably influence my decisions
as much as the sound of the room. If you're planning to pan the drums
apart from each other in the stereo image I'm not sure I see the logic in
using two overheads on one of the kits?
Could you get hold of any additional mic pre's or a small desk so you could
take advantage of all sixteen inputs on your interface?
Ianscanlon
Tar and Feathers, were you the drummer in Like a kind of matador, (i don't
know why i think this?) If so hi, i was in hey colossus when we played with
you and boris one time.
style wise.. it's pretty fluid over the course of the material we're recording..
some parts we do play in unison, but i guess mostly it is her playing "the
beat" and me footling around... I see your point about two overheads if I'm
going to hard pan them. but I was thinking more of picking up her floor and
rack tom more evenly ..
one idea I had was doing like a four close mic'd sub mix on a separate desk
for each of us and sending that as a mono mix, this would be in addition to
what I have but then I thought that might be ludicrously complicated (and
need a lot more mic's).
Re headphoning the bass player.. I'm not so down with that I'd like to get a
basically live sounding rhythm set up.. (and i'd need to buy a headphone
splitter amp thing!) Good point about snare rattle though.. There are some
quiet parts that we may have to rethink that strategy for. Alot of the stuff is
semi improvised and relies on cue's from the bass though.. hmm.. thanks
for the thoughts!
Max
I've recorded two drum kits in decent seized live room with high ceiling.
We set up the kits facing each other.
The rest of the band was playing live in the same room and I used baffles to
control the bleed.
One of the two guitarist would swap instruments during songs and walk
from his guitar amp over to the second kit and start playing drums.
The drums were close-miced in a fairly standard manner. I think I might
have used mono overhead mics for the drums.
I'm sure that there was a bidirectional ribbon mic in the middle of the two
drum kits. Both lobes facing a drum kit.
I also had a pair of omni-room mics in a wide AB stereo setup equidistant
from the drums.
As an overdub we recorded a third mono-drumkit for one of the songs as
well. That was just a single ribbon mic for overheads and a distant ambient
mic bussed to one track.
I've re-read your first post and realized that you might be a bit short of
microphones for micing up everything twice.
I can imagine that if you set up the drums so that they are facing each other,
have a kick drum mic and a mono-overhead mic on each kit and a
blumlein-stereo pair in between the two, it can sound pretty good with just
six microphones.
If you have some spare mics you could also close mic the snare drums.
Ianscanlon
Thanks, I can see that having the two kits with mono overheads would be
preferable.. I guess I'll just have to experiment with maybe close mic'ing the
toms on the "main" kit to make sure I can blend them in. Thanks for the
advice.
christopherM
Toshi used 22 mics when he recorded Dale and Coady together...
Tarandfeathers
ianscanlon wrote:
Tar and Feathers, were you the drummer in Like a kind of matador,
(i don't know why i think this?) If so hi, i was in hey colossus when
we played with you and boris one time.
Yes I was. Maybe you recognise my username from another forum. I actually
organised the first Boris UK tour so maybe it's linked in your mind somehow.
Daniel is my real name by the way, hello Ian.
On reflection I think given your situation I'd probably go for a kick, snare and
overhead on both kits, and get an extra pre/mixer that would allow you to
mic both toms on the other drummers kit and bus them to a single track.
Then have a close mic on bass and a room mic, and if at all possible a DI at
the same time. DI'ing a different bass performance after the fact can come
out a little strange, I don't know if it's to do with it being a fairly low
frequency instrument but it tends to come out a little chorused sounding
rather than double tracked sounding, which I'm guessing would be a more
desirable effect?
At any rate you should be able to manage that with the resources you
mentioned previously assuming you can borrow a small mixer with direct
outs and a bus or two, mabye an extra mic.
Ianscanlon
Aha, I thought that might be the case, I think I recognised the name from
the collective site. I have a small spirit folio mixer which would do this I
think, and we're pooling resources in the band so hopefully we can get hold
of a few extra mic's etc.. thanks for the advice!
Phase Reverse on Kick Drum Mikes: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Andteater
heyo.
so lately i've been thinking about trying to mic my kick drum on each side
(before i've only been micing the resonant head)
i was wondering if there is any "rule" about which side to phase reverse?
i know that with snare drums, if you mic the top and bottom head, you
typically phase reverse the bottom side to match the side that is being hit.
so would you use the same idea with a kick drum (phase reversing the
resonant side to match the batter side, which is being "hit")
or is this a typical example of "use your ears" and see which one sounds
better?
discuss...
andyk
Rayj
andteater wrote:
or is this a typical example of "use your ears" and see which one
sounds better?
discuss...
andyk
Do the above, and play with nudging the mics around. You don't usually
have to invert the phase. Monitor them on headphones, and you should be
able to hear the phasing...but be sure and check it with your ambient mics
as well. Without decent monitors/headphones, you might want to look at it
in SMAART, or something similar...
Tmidgett
Andy,
If phase reversing is necessary, I would reverse the phase on the batter mic.
The mic in front of the kick is going to have more low end, and I like the fact
that the woofer will push air when the kick drum is hit, much as the drum
itself does.
Similar logic for snare--the thwack comes off the top of the drum.
You can also look at it this way--if you can only put one mic on a snare or
kick, where do you put it? That's the mic you should leave as it is. Phase-
reverse the other one if you need to do that.
MTAR
from using multiple mics on multiple kick drum on multiple instances i have
learned something about how the batter side and resont side of the kick
drum react. This discovery would not be possible without the graphical
waveforms generated by my DAW.
I have noticed constiently that when close mic'ing both ethe batter side (for
attack) and the resonant head (for low-end, tone and sustain), that the
batter side will have a quick spike, followed by some sustain. The resonant
side will not have this initial spike, but the first big peak in the waveform will
be the initial thud/resonance of the drum.
At first i looks like the spike of the batter mike's waveform and the initial
peak of the resonant head's waveform are the same "event" captured by
two different mics. Using a DAW you can line up your tracks for phase
compatibilty. When aligning these "events" along the timeline, the sound of
the kickdrum suffers. The reason for this is because thay are sperate
"events". The spike on the batter side is the attack of the drum, and the
peak of the resonant head is the body of sound ofthe drum. After close
examination, I noticed that the peak, and all of the remaing cycles of the
waveform of the resonant head line up perfectly with the resonant
waveforms (the ones following the initial "spike") of the batter side.
What is a little confusing is that the spike is usually a positive spike/peak,

followed by the sustain, which is a dip in the waveform, and the initial
"peak" of the waveform of the resonant head is in fact a "dip", and will line
up perfectly with he initial dip of the sustain on the batter head.
Anyhow, by listening to the sum of the waveforms when properly lined up,
the sound of the kick drum really comes through. It's pretty amazing really.
It's hard to have these waveforms line up naturally with mic placement
because usually your batter side mic is very close to the batter, and
naturally your outside mic is further from the drum. The difference in
distance between the individual mics and the drum create a time delay, and
when summed can hace some low-end cancelation and even cause a loss
of clarity in the attack of the drum, but it is usually acceptible. However, in
my experience once I actually line up the waveforms the low end and attach
of the drum become very focused and clear.
This is hard to explain without visual aids. I hope it makes sense.

_________________
Michael Gregory Bridavsky
Russian Recording
Push-Pull
cenafria
I usually check the phase of the close mics with the ambient mics (or
overhead mics depending on what's being used). So once the resonant head
mic is in phase with the ambient mics (by flipping the polarity if necessary)
then I check the beater head mic with the resonant head mic by switching
the polarity on the beater side mic while listening to both kick drum mics. It
works well for me. I do prefer, however, to record the beater mic on a
different track. With toms I follow the same process but I record both mics
to one track.
Eliya
MTAR wrote:
However, in my experience once I actually line up the waveforms
the low end and attach of the drum become very focused and clear.
you're quantizing the beater mic with the resonance head?
MTAR
no, there is no quantization involved. i am time/phase aligning the entire
wave form.
154
are you delaying the beater mic or moving the outer kick mic back?
MTAR
im moving the outside mic back... if there is a reason for that it's
subconcious. how's that for science?
Multiple Mic Setup For a Single Source: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Andteater
boys and girls...
i'm having trouble understanding a certain aspect of recording using

multiple mics on a source...
one example. i'm recording bass (or guitar) and have my first mic
somewhere near the speaker where i think i'm getting the best possible
sound, however, i want to add a different type of mic to pick up a different
aspect of the sound maybe five feet away from that mic...and note that i'm
not talking about trying to get some type of "ambient sound" i'm talking
about maybe noting that in this case each mic is picking up some essence of
the sound that the either is having trouble replicating...
is there a specific thing i should be doing here? many years ago, back before
the electrical forum was here, i spent most of my time reading the tapeop
forum and i remember reading there that in these cases, you were
supposed to delay the second microphone (the one X feet away from the
first one [the first one being the mic nearest the speaker grill]) appropriately
to minimize phase cancellation - but now as i started reading alot more of
my old columbia books on recording [i stopped taking classes on
recording/tracking before any of this stuff was covered] i'm starting to think
that my method is way offfffffffffff.
am i right/wrong?
in a similar sense...i've always used this method when doing "overheads"

for drums...in most cases, i've been recording myself playing drums close
micing each individual drum and then placing a mic about five feet in front
of the kick at cymbal height (reason: small ceilings that dont really allow
much space for placing mic's over the kit AND i am a pretty hard hitter, and
the cymbals never sounded "right" unless they were given a little room) - in
these cases, am i supposed to be delaying that mic (and again, note that i'm
not trying to go for an "ambient effect" on this mic, i'm trying to capture the
cymbals)
any help/instruction/explanation would be appreciated...
m.koren
If you dont want to use either mic for ambience, than make sure their
distance is exactly equal to the speaker (I mean break out the measuring
tape). Or at least start there. I find subtractive eq helps (dial the lows out of
your condenser if the other mic is a ribbon etc...). Do a mono check
too.Even if it's just two mics. Good luck.
Steve
Two mics hearing the same signal will hear it at diferent moments in time,
since their distances from the sound are not identical. This creates acoustic
delay that is reflected in the recorded signals. At short distaces, this can be
perceived as "phase" difference, but note that in broadband signals (rather
than pure single-frequency tones) there is no absolute phase, only time-
domain difference.
If you move the mic or delay the signal past the point where the signals
sound as though they arrive at the same moment in time (the Haas effect),
then their phase relationships are much more forgiving. In practice, this is
around 15-20 milliseconds. That's why delaying the distant mic sometimes
sounds good; it's simulating a physical distance that can be heard as a
discrete echo.
If you want to record something at a distance and close up, you either live
with the phase differences, delay the distant mic to the point where it
sounds like ambience, or delay the close mic until it sounds more coherent.
This is often touted as a cure-all by protools jockeys who slide tracks
around until the snare drum transients line up.
Note that this last option does not really solve the problem for something
like a drum kit, because the distance to the close mic and the distant mic
will be different for every part of the drum kit, and from the front of the
cymbal and back. There is no one specific acoustic delay, there are a
bajillion of them, and sliding the tracks is just moving the phasing problem
around. You can do it by ear, of course, and if you like it, then you like it.
You have two pair. Good luck with that.

_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
m.koren
Now can you please tell us about the Haagen Dazs effect ?
Bassdriver
I recorded a lot of guitars during the last weeks and got to the point that a
single microphone sounds best. I set up two sennheiser (md 403 and md
421) mics close to the speaker and a condenser in the room, but in the end I
always choose just the best sounding track. even the two mds can cause
phase problems though I set them up in the same distance. when I want a
"bigger" guitar sound I'm playing two different guitars/amps and pan them
left/right.
for the bass I figured out that the DI out of the ampeg sounds best.
I'm using the mono switch of my mixer a lot. If sounds disappear in the
mono signal, then there's probable something wrong.
Eliya
Correct me if Im wrong, but delaying the close mic is probably the worst
idea(that's what steve said, no?). Cause when you delay it so it matches
with the distanced mic, the whole sound is now delayed from the rest of the
drum set, or from the rest of the band.
While when you delay the distanced mic, you bring it to a point where it's
not contradicting with the first mic(as much as you can, it's not a one
frequency signal).
But then, like steve said, you get the feeling of ambiance. Delaying the close
mic will "reduce" the ambiance feeling, but may cause phase and delay
troubles with the rest of the drum set and or instruments. but, if it sounds
good, then it's good.
m.koren
He did say about 15-20 milliseconds Eliya .Most drummers play ahead of the
beat anyway. And they never do what you tell them.
Andteater
thanks for the information.
now my follow up question:
lets say i have a mic on a source. then i set up a second mic 10 feet away
from that first mic...
doing the math (using the constant of 1130 feet per second) that second mic
is going to be receiving the sound at a delay of 8ms from the first mic.
since Haas Effect (according to various sources quickly checked on the net)
takes effect when mic A is within 10 to 40ms of mic B, i should delay that
second mic AT LEAST 32ms to move it out of that range?
of course i understand there is more to this than just math and in most
cases, it will done by ear in the context of the room/recording conditions,
but i figure there has to be some type of starting point to work at using
physics...
i check.
Skatingbasser
Why not move the "ambient" mic forward in time instead of the close one
back?
Jealous eel
i have moved the ambient mic forward in time a couple of times on guitar
tracks. was never sure if this was a valid technique. sometimes sounded
slightly "chorusy" to me but what do i know being colour blind.
Scott
On the recent Chrome Robes recordings, we used four mics at a time when
tracking bass, four mics at a time when tracking baritone, and 3 mics at a
time when tracking guitar-tuned-as-baritone. In all cases, I think we
ditched one of the mics, which was a PZM on the floor a couple feet in front
of the amp/amps, because it was just massive high frequency distorted
sounding stuff. The other mics, we mixed them, like, adjusted the levels and
the EQ. That's it. No timeshifting to compensate for the close mics being a
couple inches away and the room mic being 20' away. Maybe this is the key,
that the room mic was far enough away.
Andy, sorry to hear you're making music.
Rodabod
skatingbasser wrote:
Why not move the "ambient" mic forward in time instead of the
close one back?
Less and less of the sound reaching the distant mic will be originating
directly from the source as you move it away (hence the ambient sound), so
I doubt this method would work well in theory. Perhaps worth a try.
Also, delaying the ambient mic has the added effect of making the
distance/space more pronounced which can be desirable.
Steve
andteater wrote:
... i should delay that second mic AT LEAST 32ms to move it out of
that range?
Try a short delay, say 10ms, and then adjust by ear.
I'll go ahead and put you all in.

_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Hiredgeek
"dude, just use a d.i. and compression..."
that statement burns me when recording people that are of that school.
this is a rare yet noteable mentality..
in the past and present: an ambient/room mic for bass with a close mic.
the slower the tempo of the song, the greater distance or delay can be
applied to the ambient mic. the room or environment of the bass amp is
considerable factor...chattering light fixtures, garbage bags in a garbage can,
phase issues, bleed, etc. i always have a room mic up. sometimes it works,
somtimes it doesn't. the ambient mic will contain different recorded
information than the close mic. it is a matter of desciding if the information
is useful or detrimental to the intention. sometimes the aid of being a jockey
will shed more useable knowledge, or, just drive a person nuts for hours.
there are so many factors, use the ears. the haas factor to me is using the
effect of phase shift to exagerate a stereo image and/or depth of space and
time...
i have no grammys or spelling capabilities.
the room mic is usually omni...
n.
ebeam
scott wrote:
On the recent Chrome Robes recordings, we used four mics at a
time when tracking bass, four mics at a time when tracking
baritone, and 3 mics at a time when tracking guitar-tuned-as-
baritone.
We also spent four months mixing the damned thing. Hah.
I used to spend a lot of time talking about multiple mic phase problems
(sometimes incorrectly ) and time delay vs. phase alignment or whatever
on forums. Now I just tend to trust my monitors and ears and move mics
around until I like it. Once you find something you like, take a mental note.
Beyond some starting points which have been pretty well stated already,
that's the only thing that always works for me. It still can be fun to throw up
a bazillion mics and mix and match or slide tracks around and stuff, but
getting something you're happy with from the start with just a couple mics
makes everything come together much more easily.
Another trick, which is probably somewhere on this site, for using 2 close
mics on the same amp/cab/speaker is to flip the polarity of one of the mics
and listen in mono until the amp hum/buzz is the least audible and then flip
back. This maximizes the hum, yes, but should also put your mic
diaphragms very close to the same distance from the source(s).
Neurosis Drum Mic Setup: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Mnotaro
ambient kentucky love triangle
http://mypage.iu.edu/%7Emnotaro/Ndrrmmics.gif
-mike
Mmazurek
How's about a mic list of the kit. (other than the obvious altec's)
Mnotaro
Geez, I was just excited that the picture was posted. I learned how to upload
to my very own UNIX account.
Mikes:
Room-Altec 150
Kbeat-SM98
Kfrnt-D112
Sntop-Lipstick
Snbot-SM98
Hitom-C609
Lotom-C609
OHL&R-Royer 112
ridec-C606
China-still cool
The picture sucks, but the sound was good. Room mics were delayed 20
msec or so. Snares were mixed together, put through limiters, key'd to
inputs to expand bottom snares explosive sparkle and duck unwanted fall-
out from beater side kick mic. Some compression used where and there.
Hi-Fidelity equalisation was applied to OHL&R from what I was able to
decipher. What frequency? 42 Hz.
There is also a spoke bell on the left of the hi-hat.
The key phrase this day was FLAPPY HYMEN.
Idoia
mnotaro wrote:
Snares were mixed together, put through limiters,
Were both mics going through a limiter before being mixed together ? Or
was it the mix of the two that went into the limiter ?
Thanks
Alex
Recording Snare Sound: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Carlitosno
I've just recorded a few drum kits to this day, and I have had a "problem"
with each one. The snare didn't sound too big, warm, rich, you name it. It
always tend to be a high-pitched "plack" that only gets to sound good if
blended with a bottom mic. I was thinking that, given that I have a good
sounding snare, a decent drummer and a couple of mics to try and I don't
get the sound I like, maybe loosening the batter side of the snare would give
me a more pleasant sound... Would this fuck up the tuning?
Ziess
Recently i've been trying a few things with snares.
I've found that if you're using a drum with an air hole on the side (I don't
know their 'proper' name....) it can sound pretty good if you stick a pop
shield on a decent condenser and mic the hole. No pop shield = unusable
sound due to air being pushed out of the drum. I gives the sound a bit more
realism (and a bit more of the actual snare sound) but not to a stupid degree
where all you get is rattle (as my experiments with miccing the bottom of
the drum have turned out).
Regarding tuning, I generally try to work with what's there but yeah
detuning the batter head might work. I always get drummers that i'm
recording to properly tune their drums on (both sides) to suit the room
we're working in. With drum tuning I find that what sound good in a band's
practice space doesn't necessarily translate well into a studio environment.
Cenafria
If you suspect the tuning may be wrong check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~prof.sound/
I found it a great resource not only about drum tuning but just generally
about drums.
I sometimes get more weight out of the snare pointing the mic to the middle
of the drum away from the rim.
Most of the time a little distance will help if you can spare it. Depends on the
hihat...
I always liked the snare sound in the overheads more than in the snare mic
(sounded more like a snare...) but rarely do I have a good mix of the drums
with only the overheads. Mixing in the snare mic gave more snare but I felt I
was losing attack. Lately I've had good results forgetting about the
overheads and using the delayed ambience mics and the direct mics. This
usually gives plenty of attack and can sound natural as well.
Try a dynamic and a condenser together on the snare top. I use a beyer
m201 and an akg c61 (it's what I have...) stuck together with duckt tape to
align the capsules. This way you end up using less eq...
I hope some of this is helpful
Carlitosno
I tend to like more the sound of the snare on the overheads too, but that
way it gets a strange feeling, like it being "a little away from the rest of the
kit". The room where I am recording its not too big, and room mics would be
useless, I think. I'll try to put the mic further away from the ring, but I think
it will only get me more hihat...
Javier, I've finished last week with the band I told you about. I'll make some
mp3's and send it to you, so you can tell me how do you see them. I've been
not be able to get away from the phase issues in the guitars... maybe the
next time I'll use just one mic on each instead of 3 or 4. Novice msitakes are
great!
Bernardo
Try leaning more on the overheads and especially on room / ambient mics
for the body of the snare, use the close mics for a little more definition, and
for making the snare sound less distant. Try starting with the overheads /
room mics, and bringing in the close mic slowly, until the snare starts
sounding, well, as close as you need it to. I wouldn't discard ambient miking,
even if you don't think the room is big enough. Give it a try.
In the case of spaced pair overheads, something that has worked for me is
making sure the capsules of both mics are equally distant from the snare.
It's usually not that much of a compromise in terms of the overall drum
sound to change the exact distance between the overheads and the
cymbals they're capturing, that precise positioning has much more of an
effect on the snare sound (at least in my limited experience). Try positioning
both overheads in a way that sounds good to you as far as the cymbals go,
then choose the one that sounds best with the close snare mic, leave that
one alone, and move the other one until you feel both overheads, when
summed with the close mic, make the snare sound inequivocally fatter and
more present. Usually I measure the distances with a mic cable.
I haven't gotten into checking phase relationships between overheads and

toms yet, anyone with any insight on that will be doing me a favour.
Cenafria
Quote:
I tend to like more the sound of the snare on the overheads too, but
that way it gets a strange feeling, like it being "a little away from the
rest of the kit".
Mmmm. I often find it useful to have the drum kit/snare "move back" a bit. I
guess it depends on the band/material. If you're going for a very dry snare
sound then you have to get it mostly from the snare mic. What mic where
you using? which preamp? Oh, check the phase. I'm sure you have.... I just
find it specially hard with the snare drum. Maybe double check it. see if you
get more weight out of it. If you've recorded on protools remember tdm
plugins delay the signal. This can totally fuck up your drum sound (if you
insert a 1 band eq plug in on your snare you delay that track three
samples@44,1Khz in a tdm system...)
I agree with Bernardo. Try to get some room tracks. I remember the pictures
you posted of the room you were working in. It didn't look promising, but
give it a try. I would go for spaced omnis against the wall (I mean touching
the walls...) or in the corners were the floor meets the walls. If you delay
these mics you might get something useful. I find the room sound provides
realism and more weight to the kit. It really helps to give a sense of size and
loudness.
This is kind of unrelated to your post but you might find it interesting.
http://www.danalexanderaudio.com/glynjohns.htm
I find it usefull when cymbals are bright and loud and I'm having a hard time
getting the toms to "come out".
I'm looking forward to those mp3s. Phase cancellation is a pain in the cock!
Carlitosno
Well, this monday we've been recording another drum kit for a friends' band.
I'll post the photos and how I mic'ed it and the rest of the band when we are
done with it, but i have to say for the first time I am happy with the drum
sound. The first thing I noticed is the HUGE difference that makes a good
drummer. Now I remember all the big guys saying that and I being
exceptical...
The snare, I got it right, I think. I asked the drummer to give a try loosening
the beater side to not get that high pitched sound from the snare, and boy,
it changed A LOT. For the room mics, I put a MS pair in fron of the kit and it
helped the stereo image and blend the kit toghether.
As I said, next week we'll finish the rest of the band and I'll try to post a large
explanation of the recording for you to see.
Thanks!
PD: fortunately, I am not recording in PT. It's a SSL 4000G+! (SAE Madrid).
The recorder is a digital Mackie, though... (tipical courtesy of SAE, too...)
Toomanyhelicopters
cenafria wrote:
...I would go for spaced omnis against the wall (I mean touching the
walls...) or in the corners were the floor meets the walls.
...
Phase cancellation is a pain in the cock!
Putting microphones near (reflective) walls or corners is a way to almost

guarantee that you will have phase problems, isn't it?
Carlitosno
...and what about using PZMs? would the phase problems be as big?
Olivier
no phase problem if the mike is directly on the surface . even it's the only
case where you are sure there is no phase problem .
i like to put omni mike directly on the floor or on wall ; very nice to get the
room sound in a small room where phase is tricky .
Cenafria
“Putting microphones near (reflective) walls or corners is a way to
almost guarantee that you will have phase problems, isn't it?”
If you put them near the wall, yeah, you get a lot phase cancelation. But if
the mic is against the wall, it's a different story. You have the smallest
amount of reflections and when blended in with the close mics it gives you a
useful room sound. Near the floor I find more bottom end and (usually less
cymbals)
Check this out. A great explanation...
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32&highlight=pzm
The first thing I noticed is the HUGE difference that makes a good drummer.
Yeah. Good players make me feel like I'm a decent recording engineer!
(maybe there should be a smiley here...)
”I put a MS pair in fron of the kit and it helped the stereo image and
blend the kit toghether.”
MS is my favourite sounding stereo micing technique! For room mics I find it

useful to to have quite a lot of the s component so the room tracks sound
less "focused".
”fortunately, I am not recording in PT. It's a SSL 4000G+! (SAE Madrid). The
recorder is a digital Mackie, though... (tipical courtesy of SAE, too...)”
Then you shouldn't have much problem checking the phase of your tracks...
As I said I sometimes really struggle deiciding on the correct polarity setting
for my snare tracks. I sometimes ask the drummer to "release the snare"
(well, you know what I mean....) and hit the snare in the middle of the skin
for a while... That usually helps.
Looking forward to those pictures!

In the meantime... Enjoy these. Good examples of mics on surfaces.
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=363&highlight=triangl
e
http://www.geocities.com/brikelly/doncab/pictures/adon_pics.html
mmmmmmm... Altecs...
Q1w2e3r4
Alright, if someone could help me with my snare sound, I'll promise you a
nice personal email thank you, delivered right to your email box.
I want a better sound than I'm getting. I dig a really huge, resonant sounding
snare and manage to get pretty good sounds when tracking drums alone,
mostly using room mics, but when recording a loud band in our small room I
have to rely more on the close mic and it never sounds all that good. I've
tried thus far: SM57 & 58, Rode NT1 & NT5, AKG 414 & C2000B. Can someone
suggest a mic? Should I buy a 421? Any crazy tips I can use, should I put a
clipboard under the snare, or solo the track after recording and pump it
through that PA and mic the speaker to a new track? (I've tried both of
these)
The drum is tuned well and sounds wonderful in the room. Please give me
suggestions on how to capture this.
Also, what do you all think about tightness of the snares? I personally dig em
pretty loose. The drummer I'm recording now prefers them really tight and it
sounds sort of choked and marching snare-like. Am I right in assuming that
looser snares would increase that ambience?
Thanks much then.
Congleton
maybe try a beyer 201 or a shure ksm 141 with a pad.
usually i've found that drummers (not unlike the one you mentioned) prefer
their snare drum pitched tight for more of the action it provides. one
compromise would be to tune down the top head and tune up the bottom a
full zone above the top.
im sure your big problem with the room mics is that you get the undesirable
cymbal sound, have you tried gating your room mics with a key input of the
snare?
and just out of curiosity what do you mean clipboard?
Nick92675
i have the exact same problem at my current space. (1 room for everything).
my drums cleaned up and sounded way better when i put the bass amp in
the corner goboed off and covered w/blankets to keep from leaking into the
"live room" - then had guitar as scratch tracks through a shity distortion
pedal for headphone mixes, then go back over guitars later. when i've tried
goboeing off all the amps, in my space, it was still too much and muddied
up everything too much. it's not the ideal way to do it, but for me it makes
the drums sound better.
hell, there may actually be a good use for a line 6 pod (just make sure you
erase the track before mixing)
as for mics the blend of room mics/overheads helps the snare sound more
like i want to hear it. but for a close mic i use a beyer 201. i used an NT5 as a
snare side mic, but have given up on that to have more ambient sound and
conserve trackspace. i use the NT5 spaced pair for ambients on the floor
(technique stolen from greg)
if it sounds wonderful in the room you're halfway there. stand where it

sounds best and put a mic there. then reverse engineer so that your amps
don't fuck that sound up.
hope that helps some.
as for the snares, i'd defer to the drummer. it's his drum not yours.
personally (i'm a drummer also) i prefer tighter snares. you can tell when
they're too tight though, like you said, they choke off. but if that's what
you're going for.....
benadrian
Hey there,
Have you tried mic-ing both the top and bottom and blending them to taste
(either to one track or in the mix later)? Remember to check phase.
Also, yeah, len on the room mics more for the sound. I find drummer like to
use big cymbals because a lot of drummer like bigger, lower cymbals (ego
thing?). However, the volume and sustain of bigger cymbals played heavily
can really get in the way of the snare and toms in the overhead and room
mics. Try to get your drummer to maybe use smaller cymbals for recording,
or just not to smash them so hard.
Nick92675
congleton wrote:
one compromise would be to tune down the top head and tune up
the bottom a full zone above the top.
im sure your big problem with the room mics is that you get the
undesirable cymbal sound, have you tried gating your room mics
with a key input of the snare?
hmm. usually the top head is the most important for me to have tighter for
the action. i'd be most hesitant to change that tension - though that's
completely a factor of how the drummer plays.
re: keying your room mics - let me back it up and ask a dumb question -
are you talking about only gating the signal, so that only on snare hits your
room mics open up in a stricly on/off manner - or are you talking more
about a ducking type thing with compression? i am confused. if you or
anyone could elaborate i'd be totally grateful.
hmmm. and while we're at it - you can do frequency dependent

compression right by sidechaining in an EQ - so that you could EQ out the
cymbals and only affect the toms and drums right? hmm. or maybe if you
multed out the channels to a crossover... now i'm rambling..
MTAR
Nick,
Using an EQ on a sidechain of a compressor will still affect the entire signal.
The sidechain simply allows you to use another source for you threshold to
"look at", so you are essentially changing what triggers the compressor. For
example, if you run an EQ into your sidechain and cut everything above 1
KHz by 15 dB, you compressor will not be activated by loud cymbal crashes
or a high hat, but will be more likely to compress from a kick drum or a loud
snare. However, when the compressor does go off, it still compresses the
entire signal. Still, a sidechain can be a very useful tool.
From what I understand from your post, you want to compress only the
drums and not the cymbals. In order to do something like that you would
need to use a multiband compressor (or as you mentioned above, you could
run your signal through a two way x-over and then route your "low" signal
through a compressor and back to a channel, and bring your "high" signal
right back to another channel. Match the level of your compressed "low"
signal to your "high" signal).
Q1w2e3r4
congleton: I don't have much of a problem with the room mics, other than
the snare getting lost when we track everyone live in the room. And I mean
a clipboard, like a basketball coach might use. I read it somewhere.
nick92675: I thought of doing the extreme seperation thing, (we have a

bathroom and a very small loft area to use for amps also) but the room mics
give it the 'live' sound I so desire. It also makes the drummer play better
when we're all in there kicking it loud with him... I must be in the minority
when it comes to snare wires, I like 'em all the way loose.
benadrian: Every time I use a top and bottom mic, I find myself not using the
bottom when mixing. And yeah, our drummer uses a 22" crash. Interesting
idea about larger cymbals, didn't think of that.
I'll check out the Beyer 201, where would I get such a thing in the US? My
Google searches are sending me all over the world...
matthewbarnhart
nick92675 wrote:
re: keying your room mics - let me back it up and ask a dumb
question - are you talking about only gating the signal, so that only
on snare hits your room mics open up in a stricly on/off manner - or
are you talking more about a ducking type thing with compression? i
am confused. if you or anyone could elaborate i'd be totally grateful.
He means patching your room mics through a gate or expander, and then
patching a mult of your snare drum channel into the gate or expander's
sidechain input. This would then open up the channel when the snare drum
is played, and turn it down otherwise -- a ducker would have the opposite
effect.
q1w2e3r4: Have you tried placing a clipboard underneath the snare drum
yet?
It's difficult to know what you mean by "I have to rely more on the close mic
and it never sounds all that good" -- is it duller, less reverberant, boxy? Are
the drum mics full of bleed from the amps?
I would hazard a guess and say that your problem is too much volume in the
room, which means you have three options: 1) Get the amps out of the room,
2) Turn the amps down, and 3) Get a bigger room.
If your drummer plays better without headphones, you could always try
putting the amps in a seperate room and setting up a pair of speakers near
his head instead, adjusting their placement for minimum bleed.
q1w2e3r4 wrote:
I'll check out the Beyer 201, where would I get such a thing in the
US? My Google searches are sending me all over the world...
Full Compass usually carries them, if your just looking for a big mailorder
joint. Otherwise, check with your local pro audio dealer (unless that dealer is
Guitar Center).
I'll cast another vote for the Shure KSM141. Works beautifully for me on
snare drum, acoustic guitar, overheads, and lots of other situations.
Tmidgett
first of all: matthew, i am an asshole. i am looking for that goddamn mic and
i can't find the son of a bitch. i will buy you a new one if i don't find it this
week.
second of all: the one thing i could add that i haven't seen addressed is that
the placement of the close mic is crucial with snare
lotsa guys put it in a chickeny position, tilted down at the drum and off the
edge so the drummer will never whack it in a million years
be brave! get that thing in there. i mean, keep it out of the drummer's way,
but get it as far over the drum as you can. try pointing it straight down if at
all possible.
Nick92675
matthewbarnhart wrote:
He means patching your room mics through a gate or expander, and
then patching a mult of your snare drum channel into the gate or
expander's sidechain input. This would then open up the channel
when the snare drum is played, and turn it down otherwise -- a
ducker would have the opposite effect.
maybe my gates just suck (actually, i know they do) but where i'm confused
is that isn;t there pretty much an OFF or ON position, and not a say 100%
signal, and 60% signal - this is where my confusion is. Maybe i just need to
try it, but it seems to me that it'd sound funny to only come on during the
snare hits - this is the model i have:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2545030610&categ
ory=23793
wait, i think what i'm missing here is the attenuation control? ahhh - i think
that's it. i guess i'm used to super attentuation when using them on toms or
something...
funny caveat about my gates, i got them from Gand in northfield for 30$
each, and they used to be used on the Bozo the clown show. only used
them a few times though... the price (and story) was too good not to pick
them up.
and i got my 201 from full compass as well. you can often find them on ebay,
and revox apparantly made some copy of them that you'll sometime see out
there.
matthewbarnhart
Quote:
second of all: the one thing i could add that i haven't seen addressed
is that the placement of the close mic is crucial with snare
lotsa guys put it in a chickeny position, tilted down at the drum and
off the edge so the drummer will never whack it in a million years
be brave! get that thing in there. i mean, keep it out of the

drummer's way, but get it as far over the drum as you can. try
pointing it straight down if at all possible.
Total agreement!
To rant: when I talk with other engineers, it freaks my shit clean out when
they say they've selected a certain mic "because it can take a lot of abuse".
Granted, you don't want to do something plainly stupid (like using a Coles
4038 on a heavy metal player's kick drum), but choosing
lazyness/practicality over sonics chaps my hide. I even had an assistant (not
at my studio) once tell me that his "instructor at <recording school> said no
one ever uses anything but dynamics on drums," and almost wouldn't let
me use the studio's C 451's and C 414's on toms.
Quote:
wait, i think what i'm missing here is the attenuation control? ahhh
- i think that's it. i guess i'm used to super attentuation when using
them on toms or something...
Yes, the "attenuation" control (if it works the way I think it should) is what
turns it from a hard on/off gate to an expander (more or less). Personally, I
wouldn't use a gate in this situation, probably only a few dB of expansion,
because of the reasons you state.
Cgarges
As far as the gate issue goes, if these gates open on the snare drum hits,
that still won't eliminate the sound of cymbals ringing when the gates are
open.
Say for example that the drummer chooses to hit a crash cymbal at the
same time as the snare drum. What happens? The tone of the cymbal
changes as soon as the gate closes. This can be minimized if you're
expanding, but is still an issue nonetheless. It gets really bad if the drummer
has large or heavy cymbals with a good bit of natural sustain, or if you're
applying additive high-frequency EQ to the snare drum.
Try to reduce the sound of the cymbals in the room mics to begin with. I
know this sounds crazy, but try putting a spaced pair of room mics against
the walls and put a gobo (or some type of baffling) between the drums and
the room mic. This will take off a good bit of high end from the drums, but if
you're primarily relying on the close mics for detail, then this may not be an
issue. It's an interesting option anyway. Try it out. if you dig it, cool. If not,
try something else. It's worked for me in the past to do just what you're
describing.
As far as mics go, I have and love both the Beyer M201 (hurray for Full
Compass) and a Shure KSM 141. The Beyer tends to emphasize lower
frequencies a bit, which is nice for a thicker snare sound, especially when
used in conjunction with a bottom snare mic. I often like a condenser on top
and the Beyer underneath. The KSM 141 is a different beast altogether. It's
the only mic I've used on snare drum that I've preferred by itself over a two-
mic technique. It represents a good, crisp attack with a well-tuned snare
and is pretty much my primary snare mic. They make a cardioid-only
version of this mic that I plan to purchase soon, pretty much so I can use it
on snare and use the 141 for omni duties. I would recommend this mic
highly if the omni pattern isn't a big issue for you.
As far as positioning goes, pointing down towards the edge of the drum will
give you more isolation, which may be better for you if you're utilzing
compression to help emphasize the ring in the drum. This sort of positioning
will reduce the attack sound somewhat. I used this sort of positioning for
years, but latey I've been experimenting with flattening out the mic position
and pointing more towards the center of the drum. I prefer this positioning
with the KMS 141.
For expander gates, I'm a big advocate of the underrated Aphex 612s. You
can typically find two channel units used for about $150-200, and they sold
new for about $500. I know that's considerably more than $30 and you
don't have the Bozo story to tell (that's awesome, by the way), but they're a
great tool for recording audio.
Hope this helps!
Cal
I've never had much luck with pointing the snare mic straight down at the
head. I did try it once with a 414, being a side address mic and all, and I liked
it alot. With other mics pointing it straight down it always gives me more of
that "pong" sound than I care for. Also, with a mic like a 201 or a 57 that's
about 8 inches long with a cable in it, the more I bring it in on the drum it
becomes an obstacle for the guy to play around. I've had some luck with
positioning the body of the mic parallel to the drum and the capsule peeking
over the rim and looking across the head.
As far as mics on the snare, the 414 I used that time is something I would
recommend. I have a Beyer 201, but for me it doesn't do the trick all the
time, and that's fine. I guess what everybody wants is a mic and position
that works all the time, which is a little bit too much to ask. By using the 57
in that same position all the time, folks can get a handle on what they need
to adjust because it's such a familiar sound.
Cgarges
I've used a 414 in that position a number of times, especially if mic
positioning is difficult because of the kit setup. I find that I usually have to
had a bit of top-end EQ to it, though. A mic I prefer to the 414 is the AT4050,
although sometimes positioning it with the shockmount can be a pain. It is
an excellent snare drum mic, especially for softer playing where find detail is
needed.
MTAR
I have been using an Oktava MC-012 with the 10 dB pad lately for snare (and
also for batter side kick). I like the attack I get from it, and it is quite easy to
position. I have also heard that the Audix D4 can sound good on a snare
drum for sausage gravy tone. The chunky kind.
E_shaun
q1w2e3r4 wrote:
How's about some links to recordings that y'all have done with drum
sounds you're proud of, and the methods/equipment used?
A combination that I came across recently and will undoubtedly use again is
a Sanken CU-32 on the top of the snare, towards the rim, perhaps 1/2 an
inch off the batter (~50 degree angle) with a Sennheiser 441-U on the
bottom...without phase reversal. If you do enough positioning, it can have
some really great results.
Mind you, the size of snare, the kind of batter, the snare material, the
proximity of other drums, the player's ability and technique etc. are
variables that make objective comments pretty weak in discussions like
these. Whatever you do, don't automatically think that a 57 is the answer,
just because 75% of all rock snares are recorded with them.
Nick92675
Quote:
All this advice and no one with links to samples of their proudest
drum sound moments? Peculiar.
http://www.newblack.net/mp3/03_New_Black_Cross_Stream_Action.mp
3
best i've done so far (i'm still improving - that's why i didn't wanna jump in
and pretend this snare is the second coming of christ or anything - or to
seem like an overtly self-promoting whore - but this is about the micing,
not the band...) this was done in our practice space to 1" 16 track. but this is
a beyer 201 about 3" off the batter head - back a couple inches. rode nt5s in
an xy configuration as room/kit mic about 3 ft high, 6 ft back. AT4041 OH
spaced pair. oktava mc012s on toms. atm 25 on bass drum resonant head.
8 tracks used for drums.
everything was through the standard soundtracs MR preamps then to tape.

drums and bass were recorded simultaneously, the other parts overdubbed.
the bass was goboed off in it's own mini-partition room - and then covered
with a moving blanket to keep the bleed from the drum ambient mics.
Cgarges
q1w2e3r4 wrote:
All this advice and no one with links to samples of their proudest
drum sound moments? Peculiar.
Most of the advice I've given has involved recent experimentation, because
it's the stuff I've been happiest with. Having worked FOR bands, I don't
generally run around posting copies of their stuff everywhere without their
permission. Much of the music I've commented on has not been officially
released yet, an awful sign of the effects of the economy on artsists in this
area. This applies mainly to the stuff with which I've been happiest and
believe most people would find enjoyable.
On top of that, I don't believe that anyone can really make an honest,
intelligent and informed judgement on something as subjective as snare
drum miking by listening to an MP3. That's part of the reason why I've never
responded to a post where someone puts up a mix and wants it critiqued.
If you wish to contact Bellyfull in order to do hear a 414 on snare drum

played by Curtis Wingfield, I'm sure you can find something about this band
by doing a web search. If you want to hear a fine example of a good-
sounding drum played by Jonathan Erickson, (a good drummer) and
recorded using an M201, you'll have to wait until Jason Scavone finishes his
excellent project and releases it. If you want, you can send some money to
Jason so he can finish his project. You can also check with Rayen Belchere
to hear a KSM141 on a snare drum played by Rick Murray, but since this was
mixed last night, I'm not sure what his near-future plans are for making it
available for critique. Vince Rivers, the drummer for Soul Station also really
digs the KSM141, but I don't know about the availability of their EP. I was
under the impression that they would be using it to get some gigs locally.
I'm not sure what the point of your post was. If it REALLY was no more than
an observation, I apologize. My point is, I don't think I have to PROVE my
opinions when someone asks for advice. Get some of these mics and try
them yourself. They work for me, they may or may not work for you or
anybody else. I don't think that by listening to an MP3 that anyone is going
to rush out and buy whatever mic I used on a snare drum. In the case of the
Scavone CD, by the time it's been mastered and converted to MP3, the
snare drum will have been processed by no less than three stages of
compression (depending on the mastering job and MP3 conversion process)
and more than likely, two stages of equalization. I still manage to make
music for a living.
Q1w2e3r4
Well, I didn't expect anyone to break any laws, I'm sure many that post here
are home recordists, and didn't think it would be much of an issue.
And I do think that I can make an honest, intelligent and informed

judgement listening to an mp3. I listen to mp3s all that time. I'm aware of
the differences between the mp3 versions of records I love and the vinyl
versions on my home stereo. Make a 320 kbps version, it'll be good enough.
Many many things make it subjective, don't pin it all on it being an mp3.
I wasn't asking for proof. Just an exchange of ideas. And maybe to

understand where someone is coming from when they say "This mic is the
best, all you'd ever need". Thanks, by the way, Nick, the drums sound good.
Oh, and as much as I'd love to buy an endless supply of mics and preamps
and try every single possible combination myself, I have to pay this pesky
rent each month.
Cgarges
All I'm saying is that you can only make a judgement for yourself by trying
out the mic yourself. Take these suggestions, see what common ones
you're hearing and get hold of one or two of those mics to try out. That's
what I've done over the years and it's how I've bought mics. I don't think
I've ever actually returned a mic and I can't recall ever having bought a mic
based on a single example I heard. I hate to be the one to break your bubble,
but I too have to pay rent and I still own a decent mic collection that I've
chosen without hearing MP3s and without criticizing people for not telling
me what mic to buy.
Darktowel
A nice distortion will always do the job.
Try combining this with a directional condensor aimed at the bottom of the
snare and not too close to the snare.
fair enough, this will pick up everything in the damn room but that's ok!
i quiet like this in combination with dryer tracks of say the guitars without
any ambience.
If you're recording your drums live while others are playing as well, try using
some straight signals from the guitars.
Snare (Minimize Ringing Without Muffling): Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Bernardo
Any specific tips on tuning / snare adjustments that will help me get rid of
nasty high pitched harmonics on a snare drum? If not, any secret muffling
expertise that will not maim the drum sound too much? Also, is there
anything room / drum position related that will affect this aspect?
Additionally, if anyone has the formula for the Nomeansno "Wrong" snare
drum sound, do consider sharing it, cause that's what I'm going for.
Thanks.
MTAR
Have you tried Gorilla Snot (tm)? This can be pretty useful. It's a little sticky
square of gel and you can place the gel strategically on your drum head to
dampen resonances. It's nice cause it's so small and won't completely
mangle the tone of your drum. I think there is another product called Moon
Gel or something, but I may be wrong. Anhyway, you can get some at your
local music store
mike
Nick92675
that moon gel stuff is ok too - the trick is when you use it not to just slap it
all on there. it helps if you lay it length wise with the majority on the rim,
and that way you can sorta tune how much of the gel is actually on the
head. a small bit - like a centimeter worth can be nice. there's also the loop
of tape trick that works sometimes as well. (make a loop of tape with the
sticky side on the outside and place that on the head) like everything,
there's no right or wrong, and sometimes one thing works great and sucks
another time. but you can try those two to see what you get.
i haven't had to do either as much as i've started pulling the snare mic
further from the head and used more room mics - since your ultimate snare
sound isn't gonna just be the close mic, but how it works with your
overheads/ambients etc. that and of course you can just back up to the
source of the problem and tune it out of the drum. that's actually the best
idea. maybe a wood shell snare vs metal?
Jerm snyder
You obviously want resonance, but no ring. The ring comes from the
imbalance of tuning on each lug. If you tune the head properly there won't
be any ring.
Try tuning your bottom head low and your top head high (but tune each
head to itself properly).
I don't personally like this sound but it will help.
just to reiterate from the previous post, You aren't relying on the close mics
anyway.
Bernardo
Thanks a bunch. I did find something that may or may not be a moon gel
similar (I wouldn't know, I don't think we have the original in Brazil), either
way, it worked great.
We had already spent a long time tuning the drum to the best of our (limited)
knowledge and experience, it sounded good in the end, but the ring was just
a bit too much.
The amount of room I'll use will vary, since we range from slow sections to
blast beats, and we need a usable close mic sound for the busier snare parts
(which are more frequent than the more spaced ones).
We're hoping to start tracking tomorrow, btw. I have tons of pics, if I put
them online I'll post a couple of links.
Cgarges
Bernardo wrote:
The amount of room I'll use will vary, since we range from slow
sections to blast beats, and we need a usable close mic sound for
the busier snare parts (which are more frequent than the more
spaced ones).
If you're talking about bringing up the volume of the gjpsted notes, here's a
trick you can try:
Place a cardioid or hypercardioid mic behind the drummer, over near the
floor tom at snare drum height. (Don Dixon calls this the "butt mic.") I like to
use an Audio Tech 4050 for this. Make sure that the capsule is aimed right
towards the top head of the snare drum and that the drummer is between
the mic and the hi hats. Apply compression with a high ratio and an
extremely fast attack and release. The Empirical Labs Distressor is the most
effective box I've found for this. Combined with a close mic, this will clamp
down on the transients from the actual backbeats while bringing up the
volume of the ghost notes without too much hi hat in your signal. Plus, it
will also add nice bit of ambience to the kit as well. Hope this helps.
Lobsterman
cgarges wrote:
Place a cardioid or hypercardioid mic behind the drummer, over
near the floor tom at snare drum height. (Don Dixon calls this the
"butt mic.") I like to use an Audio Tech 4050 for this. Make sure that
the capsule is aimed right towards the top head of the snare drum
and that the drummer is between the mic and the hi hats. Apply
compression with a high ratio and an extremely fast attack and
release.
Considering the placement and compression, don't you get a lot of toms in
this mic as well? I'm not opposed to bleed, but it seems like you'd get as
much of the toms as snare this way, am I missing something?
Cgarges
Sure you do, but it's more of an ambience thing. At a high ratio, you get the
quiet stuff louder, which is great for snare drum gost notes (again, if you
want a nice, ambient sound) and because the compression is taking off the
transients, you should be getting more sustain from the toms. You can use
close mics to accentuate the transients. It's purely an effect. Certainly not a
be-all, end-all solution and it's a technique that I use fairly infrequently, but
it's one with which I've had some luck. Everything's a give and take. Try it. If
you dig it cool, if not, you're back where you started, complete with the
knowledge that that particular technique didn't work for you that time.
Jerm snyder
if all that doesn't work, use a different snare.
You shouldn't have to spend 4 days preparing a drumset, cheating sound
waves, and making decisions to "fix it in post".
Recording Brushed Snare: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Swill
I've been trying to get a good brushed-snare sound, but mostly the brushes
wind up sounding like tape hiss.
Also, if the drummer brushes around the circumference of the snare, the
volume goes up and down as it moves to and from the mic. This is less of a
problem, I can ask him to make smaller circles.
Any ideas on how to get a really natural sound here? Thanks.
Geiginni
Here's a thought.....
Don't close mic the set.
Use overheads and a kick only.
Use the most sensitive and neutral mics you have in a coincident pair. If the
room is good and you have figure-8 patterns available, try that, and play
with the relationship between mic height and the direct/ambient balance
versus stereo image width.
Try a boundary layer mic 2-3 feet in front of the kick, or set within the drum
(if possible) on an isolating material.
BTW, Is this jazz you're recording?
Swill
Thanks, Gei. No, it's not jazz. I'm not sure what to call it. Mellow.
It's just a snare and a kick, no other drums or cymbals. I mic'ed the snare
close with an RCA 44 and far with an Oktava 012.
I want it to be in mono, also. Oh, and the room is not good, pretty dead.
Djimbe
Got an omni capsule for that Oktava? Try that as an overhead above the
drums pointing down, that may help some of the "coming and going"
problems. I like omnis for brush work. No proximity effect either if you
choose to close mic the thing. Lotta that hiss has some lower frequency
component.
Wire brushes or nylon? Also coated heads or smooth? Both of these factors
have a lot to do with the sound. I like wire on a coated head, but yeah,
sometimes that can sound like hiss, depending on the performers technique.
If it's just egg beater brushes with no accented hits, try disengaging the
snares. No extra snare strand hiss that way, you see...
good luck, brush work can be a real challenge...
MTAR
Swill wrote:
I mic'ed the snare close with an RCA 44
the reason you are getting such volume swells with the snare is because the
44 is a fig-8, which means it has a very tight polar pattern, and very
extreme nulls. I would recommend "close" micing the snare with an omni..
and dont be afraid to put some distance between the mic and the drum.
Getting some distance with an omni will give you a much more natural
sound. Try the 44 in front of the kit, about 3 feet away just a touch above
the cymbals. I would also recommend micing the kick drum ofr some
definition.
mtar
_________________
Russian Recording
Push-Pull
cgarges
Yeah Mike! Good answer.
I recorded brushed snare all day yesterday. I love me some AT 4050 as a

close mic for brushes. I alternated between cardioid and omni, depending
on the song. I also had a bunch of ambient mics and I liked all of them to
varying degrees, much more than the close-miked sound prominantly
featured.
There are SO many variables to getting brushes to sound good, the least of
which is the type of mic used. The player's technique (which usually sounds
better if they have room to get around the drum, rather than being limited
to just playing a small area of the head), the condition of the brushes, the
condition of the drum head, the type of drumhead, the tuning and snare
tension, the type of drum, and the material of which the brushes are made.
Get all of that appropriate to what the drummer really likes (or close to it)
and the rest of it should be a breeze.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
Room & Overhead Mics / Snare Phase Issues: Electrical Audio Forum
Questions
Bernardo
How far do you usually go regarding getting accurate phase for your snare
bleed on your overhead cymbal mics? How critical is the difference, as far as
the finished mix goes?
Also, how do you usually work your ambient / OH mics against each other? I
used to be a big XY overhead fan. However, since I´ve started to lean more
on my room mics, I´ve been increasingly bothered by the urge to filter the
high end off of my room tracks to be able to use my overheads for more
accurate imaging and clearer attack, without having a washy mix. However,
I find that I lose a lot of the good stuff from the room mics that way, and it´s
a hard compromise. So, lately I´ve been moving towards individual cymbal
micing, in order for me to be able to use the cymbal channels more
sparingly, letting the air on the room mics be a bigger part of the picture.
Moving away from XY is bringing me a bunch of phase issues, I´m afraid, and
I´m still trying to find my footing there.
I´m also usually torn between having my room mic phase-accurate with the
kick drum, from the perspective of it being the main body of my drum
sound, and having the close mics just complementing it and situating the
attack of the drums, or delaying the room for depth and size, but losing
clarity of attack unless I use more heavily my close mics.
Anyone´s perspectives and approaches regarding these issues is

appreciated.
Capnreverb
Part of the problem with recording drums is the drummer. Each has his/her
own way of playing in terms of dynamics. It can be a real mix workout if the
dynamics are all over the place. A lot of times the harder the drummer hits
the cymbals, the more phase problems i get. I've never really liked the x/y
as overheads, I have found that proper spacing on the r and l sides gets a
better feel. If i had a zillion tracks to work with, micing each cymabal might
be cool, or just more mixdown hassle.
Sometimes overheads used as the main meat of the mix with just a smidge
of close miked can get a good feel. Also, a second pair of mics or even just
one placed far away at chest level facing the drums can be a real differance
maker.
Also, you did not say if the drums in question are being recorded by
themselves or if they are being recorded live in the same room as the other
instruments. Also, how fuckin' loud the other band members are in this
group context will change how i mic them.
If the drums are being recorded by themselves, then the world is your oyster.
Also, it depends on what kind of sound you are after and what kind of music
it is.
I am amazed sometimes on how good drums sound on old jazz records with
a super minimal amount of mic usage. Same with old stax/chess/motown
stuff. You know Rudy Van Gelder was not micing the shit out of the drums,
and guys like elvin jones could really pound.
Along with the upright bass, the drums are the clusterfuck of recording.
Bernardo
Thanks, it´s mostly rock / metal based stuff, where the beat has to stick out
at least a little bit.
Something I tried a few times lately, and enjoyed the results, was micing the
kit from behind the drummer, on the floor tom side, w/ the drummer
between the hi hat and the mic. The position is usually at snare drum height,
and in omni pattern. Someone suggested it here, I think, and I found the
result very interesting.
Oh, and the drums are usually isolated, or w/ very little leakage from the
rest of the band.
Capnreverb
Also, i find that better mics really help. Just getting the right snare sound is
hard. Also, micing the kick drum can be a lifetime pursuit. Unless you have
amzing pre's, i would avoid using sm57/58's to record the snare or kick
drum. I've never had too much problem with phase issues from individual
drum mics, unless the drummer is hitting the shit out of the hi hat/cymbals.
If your drummer is good at dynamics, i would just go with some overheads,

one on the snare, or raised a little bit to get the snare and the hi hat, and
one on the the kick drum. My fave right now for kick is an re20, and for
cymbal/snare is 421, or an at3025.
Also how high the overheads are will change everything, along with the
angle of the overhead mics.
Toomanyhelicopters
and of course the room's acoustic properties and the drumkit's placement
within the room can be a very important issue when it comes to phase... put
a drumkit anywhere near a corner, or even a reflective wall, and you can
run into phase problems, with even just a single mic.
Morze
if you tend to favor the room mics and phase is an issue, don't forget to try
just a mono overhead. just to pick up the detail- and let the room mics do
all the 'stereo-izing.' then add a kick and snare mic to solidify things.
i've done this a few times with results ranging from neat/weird to Zeppelin-
like.
enjoy.
Cenafria
Ok. It depends on the situation but a lot of the time I treat my oh mics as my
main mics and check all the other drum mics (like the snare which is usually
two mics on that track) against the OHs. I don't usually go for the cymbal
mic approach because most of the time (although not always) I find there's
more than enough cymbals everywhere (specially hihat...) If I mic the kick
drum batter I check the phase with the kick drum mic on the reso side
because I'll duck it from the Snare...) A lot of the time I see my oh mics or
room mics as more "important" to my snare sound than my close mics. I
guess I mean it sounds closer to the snare I'm hearing downstairs in the live
room... So getting the phase right is important to me specially because
flipping the phase when mixing is a bit more of a hasle on my desk.
About the amount of room vs oh, it depends. Sometimes I don't even end up
using the ohs and "build" my sound from the room mics. other times I don't
use the room mics at all. Yeah, with the close mics you have clearer attack
but to me, generally an important element of the sound of a drum kit is the
stuff bouncing back off the walls. It helps my brain go "wow, thats f ing
loud".
I hope this helps
909one
i've been experimenting with a mono overhead lately. i have always done
stereo out of habit, but i just realized that most of the recordings that i like
don't use alot of stereo panning anyway, i.e. the huge tom roll across seven
toms that pans across the speakers. i tried the mono overhead after trying
to sum my stereo overheads to mono and realizing i had major phase issues.
as far as placement, i am most happy with the sound of the mic as close to
the drummer's head and ears as possible. again, this may not be the best
for the cymbal bashers. to me, the player and the acoustics make all of the
difference in the world, great mics won't matter when the room sounds like
doo doo and the drummer has no control of dynamics.
ps. hey captain reverb, fancy seeing you around here. donny.
Bernardo
I'm going for a drum sound with similar characteristics to:
Tar - Jackson (track 4)

The Jesus Lizard - Mouth Breather
Neurosis - A Sun...
Shellac - The Man Who Invented Fire
The Pixies - Bone Machine
I'm thinking more of the kick / snare combo (though I'm really fond of the
cymbals on the Tar track). Probably not as large sounding (due to both the
type of music, death / grind, and the severe room size limitations). I've only
started using room mics for drums a small while back, so I'm still learning
how to use them.
Given that the drummer, the room and the drums can't be adjusted much
further, what kind of sound should I look for in the room mic?
For the preliminary tests we did so far, we used an AKG C4000, about 1,5
meters from the drum set (which is as far as it can go), about 30 cm from
the floor, in cardioid mode, looking at the space between the snare and the
kick drum. So far I'm thinking of losing most of the high end in mixing.
I have some mic options (including a C2000 and a C3000), but in the
collection we have an AT mic could be considered arcane, so there's nothing
too different (or expensive).
Also, any eq'ing tips (especially subtractive eq) are welcome. Is there a
particularly important frequency range for room mics to do their job in the
mix?
Sorry if I was too long winded, I guessed it'd be better than being too vague.
Thanks in advance.
Jerm snyder
Honestly, It has A LOT to do with the kit and the drummer.I agree with
everything said before me.But the reason that Bone Machine sounds great
and say, pigface/tapeworm - not so great, is the performance. Steve didn't
use worse mics, or bad techniques. Surfer Rosa (for the most part) sounds
like he has some nice deep drums, snare tuned high.
definately stereo room mics. On the floor. try the triangular positioning seen
here - http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=363
click on the link in the first post.
Bernardo
Thanks, guys. We went with the C4000 in omni mode (after trying a few
different mic choices, and the same mic in cardioid mode), it did sound
much better that way.
I used those tracks more as a general example of the kind of sound I dig (as
opposed to, say, the Tool drum sound), our playing style alone makes sure
we're not getting that sound (and the room definitely does not push things
that way).
btw, max, thanks for all the detail, it definitely gave me some perspective
that came in handy.
Shellac-type Drum Sound: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Jerm snyder
I have a quesiton reguarding the drum sounds on Shellac's "At action Park"
and "1000 Hurts" as well as (if anyone has a log or journal or a well honed
photographic memory even) Nirvana's "In Utero". I have a large collection of
recordings Steve Albini has done and these 3 stick out to me the most. I
understand that drum sounds have alot to do with the person playing them,
but i was curious as to what Mic positionings you guys (EA) use.....and how
Steve got that kick sound on "Milk it"
Maybe you could make a page with a few common Mic positionings you
guys use because Drum micing seems to me a common topic on this
website
Jerm Snyder
Benadrian
Check out this thread
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=152
I've tried a few of these options. Here's things that worked for me when I
want this type of drum sound.
1. big, acoustically pleasing room.

2. Blumlein pair in front of the kit about 5-6 feet back and 3-4 feet from the
floor. Last time I used two 4038s for the mics and it was very
complimentary to the harsh cymbals the drummer had.
3. Non-matching ambient mics, not necessarily placed symmetrically. Put
one behind a baffle of some sort to cut out cymbal bite.
4. A non-mid-peak mic on the snare. I've not had much luck getting a good
snare whump out of a 57 or the like. Snare mic I've liked: Steadman N90, EV
RE-20, AKG C900, Oktava 012, AKG 414, AT 4050, AT ATM025.
Oh, tune the drums really well, and make sure that the cymbals don't
overpower the snare and toms acoustically.
have fun
MTAR
I just wanted to jump in and aggree with the Stedman N90 on snare.
I was having a hard time finding something it was awesome at... and it's
definately awesome on snare. I think a pair would make great overheads too
though...
Oh yeah the Oktava MC-012 sounds real good on snare also, even though I
would say it's got a mid-range bump in it.
dosvedanya,
mike
Nick92675
i wasn't too hip on it as a snare mic, but i use them as tom mics all the time.
MTAR
nick#s,
the MC-012 or the stedman?
The MC-012 sounds good on some snares. I really like it on a dark/deep

snare cause it brings out a little snap. Also, I've found that if you angle it
towards the head "low-profile" style, it doesn't sound nearly as good as
putting it up high and point almost straight down at the "hot spot". There
was a thread about this on here somewhere...
Nick92675
michael-
sorry - i put mc-012 in the subject, but that doesn't stick out too much - i
should have been a bit more specific. i've never tried, or heard the stedman
- i'll have to check it out. it's got a cool name at the very least. in most
cases i've found a higher angle and further off the head sound better than
close and low. generally speaking i've used them on tighter snares - i can
see how the mc-012 might be nice on a lower tuned drum. what's that
fletcher always says - YMMV!
i think one of the coolest things about recording is that what sounds
awesome one time can totally blow the next!
Delaying Close Mics?: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Davidpye
Hey I hate to say it but this question is mainly based around a principal
within DIGITAL recording.
As we all know, we don't like it but some knowledge of it will help us to a
certain degree.
SO. Lately when at work (protools system = BORING) I've been testing out
delaying close mics so they line up perfectly, with ambient mics.
Say for instance when micing a guitar cab, instead of putting a close mic,
then moving the second ambient mic around to get the phase right. Just
recording them in, measuring the delay between the mics, and using a
sample delay to wipe it out, and getting the phase spot on too.
You get a really good sound by mixing the two together when they are spot
on like this. It also works nicely with drums, lining all the mics up to one
point can sound great.
Of course there are a lot of times when this isn't wanted, you often want
that delay to make the room sound more natural.
I was mainly just wondering if anyone else does this, or has tried it???
I know a lot of engineers mainly ones trained at the BBC use it for classical
recordings, to put the ambient mics BEFORE the close mics to give more of
an audiences ears emphasis on the sound.
Also does anyone know of a hardware (rackmount or otherwise) delay unit
that can have REALLY close delays like would be needed to do the same
thing with analogue gear?
Thanks all!
Jeremy
Well you could zoom in super close and line up the waves. Which will keep
you from having sampling delay, which occurs when you add a plug-in.
What you saying, addding a dealy plug-in, makes your measured delay NOT
spot on because you aren't compensating for the latency of adding a
medium delay plug-in.
(if you REALLy wanted to waste a ton of time, option-click on the bottom of
the fader where it tells you how many dB your fader is at, it will eventually
show a measurement of dly. that's your delayed sample rate and you can
nudge the region that many sample back to compensate. gae if you ask me.)
But the reason I use a secondary mic on guitar is because of all of the
characteristics about it. Not just that it's also recording the guitar, but its
distance, it's difference from the first mic, etc.
It's always better to do things manually (and audibly) then it is to fix it in

post or to mathematically fix it.
I love the space between instruments, and I'm willing to have small
amounts of phase to not lose the reality of the music.
MTAR
I will check the waveforms of 2 mics on a similar source, that are supposed
to be equidistant. For example, if i put up 2 mics, each on two speakers in a
gtr cab, i will measure and make sure the diaphragms are euqidistant from
the speaker cone. I will then check the waveforms of each mic and make
sure that they truly are equidistant, and if not, then I will move the mic until
the waveforms line up really well. This is a good way to get to know your
mics and where their diaphragms are located behing the grill. Lately Ive
been getting the waveforms lined up within 2 samples (at 88.2KHz) on the
first try. That's within 4.5 millimeters of eachother. Oh man, Im such a
badass.
I wil occasioanlly line up two kick drum mics in a waveform editor though,
since I generally place a better side mic very close and the front mic a little
further, which can cause some weird phase problems.
Ambient mics however get their character from being delayed from the
close mics. It's unnatural to hear ambient sound at the very same instant as
the direct sound. I generally delay ambient mics even further to help
seperate the ambient sound from the direct sound, which often times can
add depth and clarity.
mtar
Ebeam
I think this is one of the coolest things about a DAW. Of course, bllindly lining
up tracks is silly, but if you listen while you are dragging the waveform it is
pretty amazing how much you can change the sound of multiple miced
sources. I find that (especially in my less-than-ideal enivronment) it really
helps tweak the sense of depth in ways that aren't practical for me to do by
moving mics, playing, recording, checking, repeat......
I've been playing around with this on acoustic guitar. I always like the sound
of a 'stereo' recording on acoustic guitar but it never comes through that
great in a mix for me. One of the ways I like to do acoustic is with a 2 mics -
one up close and one a few feet back. Then I'll typically pan the close mic a
bit to one side and the far mic panned harder the other way or something
like that. But then I started playing with the relative delay and levels
between the two. You can really manipulate the Haas effects and do some
pretty wild things with the sense of space this way. One of my favorites was
leaving the far mic lower in level, but dragging it over so it is ahead of the
close mic in time. A few samples can make a pretty huge difference.
Jeremy
My favorite acoustic micing technique to date is MS. no dragging necessary.
I think alot of this 'experimenting' is what's causing a lack of care on the

engineer side these days. I'm all for experimenting - if you know what
you're accomplishing and it's helping you. but people use this as an excuse
to be lazy. "ah don't worry about where the mic is -I'll just nudge it". Gae.
Learn your trade, then experiment.
anyway, sorry for the diatribe, but I encourage anyone to learn the real way
to do it before you start experimenting with the lazy way.
Jeremy
Klem
What did they write that makes you think they are not well-versed in
principles of audio engineering. Granted you are not directly accusing them
of it, but sheesh, it seems a bit inferred. It just seems unfounded. If anything,
that someone refers to the Haas phenomena is a good sign.
Ebeam
MS is fine and good, but how do you make it really work unless you have the
mid mic panned dead center? If I'm doing coincident stereo, I always find
x/y to be more flexible, but I usually like the more dramatic effect of spaced
pairs or a close/far thing.
Nudging tracks (ie delay) is not the same thing as moving a mic, so I don't
think you can really say it's just the lazy way. It's really just another effect.
Like when you put your room mic up for the drum kit in the best sounding
spot and then put some delay on it to get just the right sense of space. You
can't recreate that sound by moving mics. Nor can you recreate the sound I
mentioned above by just moving mics.
Davidpye
Jeremy,
I take on board what you are saying totally, I too believe in the "Learn the
trade don't cheat" ideal. BUT I am doing that. I have done the whole, how to
put a mic where you want to get a disired sound.
What I'm doing here is purely experimental.
Plus, your comment on it not being real in some way to do things like this. I
dunno I think in a way it can sound far more real. You as a person hear
things from one point within a room. The true ideal way to record anything
to get the sound you want in the room would be with a binaural set of mics
in front of whatever instrument you're recording. But we all know the way
that even really great mics can get washed out but things like cymbals.
When you stand in front of a drum kit you hear all the elements, and you
hear the depth of the bass drum and the crack of the snare, these things
don't often all come through on a stereo pair in front of the kit. SO we put
close mics in as well. BUT as a human you don't hear the close mic'd sound
of the snare mixed with a delayed room sound. You hear the sound of the
snare directly from the snare. Aligning these mics, does give a more realistic
sound of whats being played in the room.
I agree, with much more distant mics the delay is necessary, as when
standing in front of the kit you hear the reverberations bouncing back off
the walls so you do hear a delay.
When it comes to Guitar cabs, having a mic right up to the speaker is great
for getting a good thick tone. But when again you stand in front of an amp
you don't hear the tone from any particular part of the speaker cone. You
hear that sound mixed in with the higher/lower freqs being put out from the
cone and the sound of the cab itself vibrating and the ambience in the room.
When you have two unaligned mics, this isn't what you hear. You hear one
signal before the other, if you align them with a sample delay or nudge,
whatever, you get the tone you actually hear in front of the cab.
When it comes to compensating for the delay caused by the sample delay.
You don't have to worry. It always starts (This is in pro tools) with a default
setting of 4 samples as this is the delay the plugin places on the sound, so
you don't have to add this delay to the sound additionally. If one mic was
ahead of another by say 60 samples, so roughly half a meter away from
source you would just set the delay to 60.. And you would get a closer
approximation of the sound you actually hear with your ears at this distance.
Allowing for other plugins to be added is pretty easy too, you either just add
the same plugin to both tracks whether or not you use them is immaterial,
or just calculate the delay. It's off the top of the heads maths nothing hard.
But don't get me wrong, I don't abide by this stuff 100%. I know how to use
mics to capture an ambience, this is just something I've been playing with
as well. It gives interesting and quite dramatic results so I thought I would
see if anyone else used it.
I'm not working on a fix it in the mix idea either this is stuff to do when
recording. It more of an idea to complement the feeling of,
"OK all I have here is digital equipment which sounds like a dog dieing, so
how can I use it in a unique way to gain a better sound."
When it comes to nudging, I just find using sample delays are easier as you
don't have to recorrect after each take.
Sorry just realised how MASSIVE this post is, just wanted to say it's not all
aimed at you jeremy, just the first point sorry. NO ONE take any offense
from this. SORRRY!
Favorite Drum Mics: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Admin
I was just wondering what everyones favorite drum microphones are.
Russ
The 606 and 609's are great on toms.
Methylbenzoate
I'm quite fond of Sennheiser 421's, as they can achieve excellent results on
any drum in the kit. Experiment with them on the snare.
Dan
i really like the eathworks TC40K's, they sound good on almost any drum
and they work well as room mics
cal
What about overhead configurations? This is one area that I'm always
changing around. Not only mics, but where they're placed as well. What gets
used alot for this at Electrical?
Greg
It depends on a lot of things. For me, the character of the cymbals and room
are the big factors. If I'm in the live room of studio b I'll want a focused
cardioid spaced pair to minimize pickup of the rooms reflections. The mic's
would be hovering over any two clusters of cymbals. I'll then use dedicated
room mic's for ambient conrol. The Schoeps 221's, Lomo 19-18's, and AT
4051's work well in this setup for a bright, clear, and direct overhead option.
If the cymbals are almost to bright, Coles 4038's, Beyer 160's, and
Neumann/Geffel CMV 582's (cardioid capsules) tend to tame it down. If I'm
in the a dead room, I'll use either one of my favorite mic'ing techniques; M-
S, or Blumlein. They would be above the drummer's head (looking down), or
in front of the drums just above the top of any rack toms, about 2'-3' away.
My mics of choice here are the AKG C-24, or SM-2. We have the stereo
Royer mic wich Steve uses like this but I find it too dull. Any chance I get, I'll
use M-S. It can sound so perfect to me.
How are you dealing with the extremely high output of the TC40k mics
when using it for drums? We have phantom power patch points on the
patchbay so we can feed it to a line level unit.
I like the 421 as a batter side, and inside kick drum mic.
MTAR
Hey Greg,
what mics do use for your M-S pair? I have been experimenting with M-S
quite a bit lately. Rather than using the typical cardiod mid and fig8 side, Ive
been using an omni for my mid mic, and have also experimented with
hypercardiod as my mid-mic. For an ambient stereo pair I placed a TC-30K
on the floor in front of the kit as my mid mic, with an old russian tube mic
(Oktava MK-13) resting above it as my side mic. The result was a nice dark
sound that did not interfere with my overheads.
mike
Russ
First, I just want to make a little note and apologize for starting this topic off
by replying to myself. I was just setting up the forums and needed to test it.
It was a lonely world back then.
Second, I just want to mention that on my last project I used a spaced pair
of STC/Coles 4038's as overheads, fairly close (12-18") to the cymbals and
was really happy with the sound. Especially when there was a lot of cymbal
bashing going on.
Lunar
Actually,
I find 451's good enough for all overhead situations...I do experiment with
their positions, but I use them almost all the time...Sometimes I replace
third 451 on hi hats with plain c-1000. I have no other reason but to achive
great separation, when I need it.
I tend to use Rode NTV as a mono room mike, or I'll put PZM mike from AT
also to be used as single mike=mono.
I like mono sound of drums, when most of it is really mono...it sounds more
realistic to me...I get confused when tom rolls hit from far left to far right, it
sounds to me as two things: a car passing by and limping horse running
around...It was very popular in glam-rock recordings, I know!
441 I use for toms, and somehow I prefer them to 421 which are equally
good.
For bass drum I would like to own EV PL20, but for now I use all kind of mics
that I can get hold to...from PZM's to beyer m88,d112, even d12 for rare
opportunities.Sometimes I combine those with small condenser AT used
normally for TV applications (to sit on some assholes tie).
It usually brings some "freh air" to the sound of bass drum.
Of course, you need to find good pre's for those aswell.
Brianbiv
I like the Beyer M88 on Kick, but that can sound too bouncy if placed inside,
the 421 is also charming but the D112 is predictable. On a snare I really like
the 441 or the M201. On Toms, AKG's 451 or 391 are great especially if the
drummer is using coated skins. I dig the Blumlein configuration for micing
the room using a matched pair of 414's.
Analogelectric
I rotate quite a bit but there are a few standard mics that I like to use.
CMV563's (omni) in the corner of the drum room, behind the drummer. I
was told Mr. Albini used CMV's in the corners of the main performance area
at Pachyderm for the 'Inutero' album.
Binaural Head w/pencil point Audio Technica's embedded in the ear canals,
(mostly a substitute to the KM184's). They push between 4K-8KHz and 20
to 80Hz. They get good top and bottom without being muddy. Mixes in well
when slightly compressed in the mix. Really brings out the bottom from the
kick and the sheen from the cymbals.
KM184's for overheads/room -- I generally don't place them in any specific

way it's dependant on where they go to get the grizzle out of the cymbals
that the CMV's don't.
Blueberry on the snare (side of shell) -- picks up some hi-hat and kick but
it gets a good brightness out of the snare mixed in with the overheads/room.
And it helps the kick have a little extra punch.
ATM23HE's for the high toms. I still have yet to hear something better than
these mics on toms, airy yet punchy. The Sennheiser 609 is a close second
to the ATM23He's.
ATM63HE or SM7 for the floor tom. Pretty much anything I've thrown on the
floor tome sounds good, if the Floor Tom is tuned correctly of course.
Sometimes I'll use the e609 if a ride cymbal is really close by.
For the kick it's a crapshoot. Here's what I'll try in order; D112, SM7, SM58,
Blueberry, U87, SM90, or my Binaural Head. Then it's up in the air if I don't
like those or it's back to re-tuning the kick drum.
James stringfellow
I like a matched pair of 414 TLII's setup as MS in front of the kit, 421's on the
toms, RE20 on floortom and kick front, D112 inside or 57, funkwerk liepzig
cm7156 on ride (it sizzles) an old BPM cr73 II on snare, along with a 57 and
undersnare (a crappy soundelux) A neuman M147 in front of the kick and an
AKG pencil C360 (i think) over the hi hat bell.
Belullah
man, somebody here is gonna think i'm crazy...
but... and this is mainly for the '"i'ze on a budget" folks in the house... i
usually do the dave fridmann two mic method, and occassionally i have
been known to also individually mic the snare. well both for the overhead in
the two mic situation and as an individual snare mic i have really loved the
sound of an oktava mk-319. i shit you not.
it is almost like the mic in those situations takes on a beefy quality.

especially as the overhead mic. everything just sounds kinda darker and
provides an illusion of warmth. then in the mixdown a little compression
can bring out the ring of the snare (if you want) or the brightness that has
been subdued by said mic.
now the crazy talk may ensue...
sonixx
order of preference...
Overheads: e22S or R84
Snare: top-sm57 bottom-mk012
Toms: top- md421 or e22S bottom- e609S or e22S or mk012
Kick: d112 or atm25
HiHat (seldom): akg460 or mk012
mayfair
I have been having great luck with a stereo pair of Beyer M-500's as
overheads and also am happy with a Shure SM-7 on the top snare. I am still
working out the other mics, though an RE-20 has done well on my kick
lately.
Vance
pzm's for everything.
u87 in bass drum

lomo for some toms
schoeps for some stuff
altec for things.
lawson for other things
its all subjective.
no 57's no 58's
some sm-7's
telefunky hitler on hitler.
Clyde2.0
For Rock...
Kick - Lawson L47fet, 414, D12

Snare - sm57, Beyer201, 414
Toms - 421, 4033, 414
Hat - sm81, 460
OverHeads - Royer 121, C12, U87, km84 or 86
Room - B&K, 414, km84
I just did some surf for my project... Here's what I used..
A Sony C37A Tube Mic in front of the kit as a mono overhead in a lively room.
Delaying Ambient Mics / Daagen Haas Effect: Electrical Audio Forum

Questions
Brew
In reference to Session Documentation #1
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=152, why are the
ambient floor drum mics delayed? I understand why delay may be used
when there are several sources and several mics used at different distances,
but a drum kit is essentially a single source. Why not move the ambient
mics back 2 feet (effectively a 20ms delay), or, more appropriately, delay all
the other mics on the kit so that they align with the ambient mics. What am
I missing here?
Steve
There are several functions served by delaying the mics.
The ambient microphones receive both a direct signal from the sound
source (this is the first arrival of sound at the mic) and a diffused
omnidirectional reverberation from the room reflections. The direct signal is
acoustically slightly delayed from the close mic signal (as determined by
difference in distance from the sound). Notice also that the delay is different
for each part of the drum kit, as there is a non-trivial (at audio wavelengths)
distance between the hi-hat and the floor tom, for example. These
differences create a complex comb-filtering effect which can muddy or
hollow-out the sound quality when the two signals (close and far) are
added together.
Since sound travels (very roughly) at 1000 feet per second, one foot of
distance roughly equals 1 millisecond of delay.
Now imagine a stereo pair of ambient mics on a drum kit at an equilateral

distance of 10 feet from the center of the bass drum. The mic on the left
side would be only 6 feet from the snare drum, while the ambient mic on
the opposite side of the kit would be 12 feet away, but only 8 feet from the
rack tom. This creates a mess of overlapping short delays specific to each
instrument, and different for the left and right ambient mics.
You proposed delaying the close mics to match the acoustic delay, which
might work for a physically small point source and a single ambient
microphone, but would entail running the principal signal through a delay
unit (which could degrade its sound quality), and would require monitoring
and recalibration of the delay whenever climatic conditions changed. This is
also ruled-out when using stereo ambient mics, as time differences are
inherent in stereo recording, and it is also impractical when using several
(many) close mics, as it would be a total pain in the cock.
Much easier is to delay the two ambient mics by a few milliseconds, which
moves them out of the haas effect (the delay range where delays affect
sound quality and localization rather than being perceived as ambience) and
into the range of perceived ambience.
There is a logic to this from acoustic perspective as well. If there is a

boundary 20 feet from you, its reflected delay time (from your position) is
double the physical distance to the sound source (approximately 40
milliseconds), because the sound has to make a round trip out-and-back.
Adding a few milliseconds to the acoustic delay inherent in a room mic
seems to mimic this effect, making the ambient sound seem less muddy.
-steve
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est
max
Hey brew,
I have no full explanation but I've delayed ambient mics myself on some
session and here is what I recall:
There are basically two things that you're misunderstanding.
1. Sound travels much faster than you think. It travels more than 22 feet in
20ms (depending on the room temperature). The live room in studio B is
quite large but just pulling the ambient mics back some additional 20 feet
on each side of the kit might be difficult.
2. Those mics on the floor are ambient mics that means to provide an
additional ambience they mustn't be time-aligned with the close mics on
the kit. To delay ambient mics is a psycho acoustic trick to make the room
sound bigger.
I've never recorded in a room where I could spread mics 40 feet to each side
of the kit, but I think it wouldn't sound that cool because the amount of
indirect sound into the mics would be much bigger than the amount of
direct drum sound. If you place them 22 feet away from the kit, you'll get a
nice balanced mix of room reflections and direct drum sound, that can
contribute to your whole drum mix.
Delaying room mics has a great effect on your snare sound. You have your
initial close miced snare signal and before this signal is over the delayed
room mic brings the snare in again and makes it sound much longer and
bigger. The close miced signal and the room signal don't overlap so you
should not have phase problems (assuming you have the right delay time).
A different and annoying thing is the Hihat. It's a very short signal so the
delayed Hihat signal from the room mics can be heard . The human brain
can seperated two signals from each other when the are at least 14 ms
appart from each other (Haas effect).
I know that this was a very rude and uneducated explanation, so please
correct me if I was wrong.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see Steve's answer when I was typing my reply. So you
better stick to his explanation.
Danmaksym
Steve,
Which outboard delay do you prefer for this type of work?

Also, what factors do you take into consideration when determining the
length of delay? Is 14ms the minimum or should the delay be tailored to the
room size?
Thanks.
Dan
Brew
Thanks for the reply. I goofed on the 20ms/20ft thing, but...thinking about
the Haas effect makes a lot of sense for separating the ambient signal from
the close mics.
danmaksym, I believe the length of the delay in this case is mostly based on
the limits of the Haas effect, which says that short reflections (<30ms about)
are not perceived as distinct ambience but are blended with the direct
sound. Therefore your delay should be at least 20ms, if not greater...but
only experimentation will yield the best answer in any given situation.
Cal
Don't mean to run this subject into the ground here, but has anyone
compared the benefits of delaying your room mics as you're recording
versus doing it after the fact, during mixdown?
I did some experimenting and it seems that recording the delay as it's going
to tape sounds better than delaying it upon mixdown, but maybe I'm biased
because I think I wanted to believe that it would before I even began the
experiment. Plus, there was no one else around at the time to give an
objective opinion.
I reckon two reasons why it would sound better as it's being recorded is
because you're hearing it in the context of the rest of the band as they're
playing and you're eliminating one step of the shit you have to remember to
do when you come back to mix it.
And what about gating/ducking things as you're recording vs. waiting 'til
mixdown? I've read here about some guys using a ducker on a batter-side
bass drum mic, sidechained off the snare, and it seems that there would be
too much of a risk of not setting the ducking device properly because you
have no way of knowing what the guy is going to play as it's going to tape,
and if what he plays will be in accordance with whatever settings you
happend to have on your gate/ducker. The idea is to have things set up to
begin recording pretty quickly, so how much time do you spend sitting there
tweaking the settings of a gate so that you can be able to feasibly do a
whole record with a band in just a day or two?
Nick92675
i've always done the delaying in mixdown cuz i've been too much of a pussy
to commit to tape that early on. i think i've gained my sea legs now and am
gonna start committing on the onset. delaying to tape also frees up the
delay box for other uses during mixdown - which is nice. like you said,
another advantage seems to be everyone involved gets used to the sound
early on, and that's just one less thing to worry about it the chaos of
variables mixing.
Mayfair
This subject of committing to tape or waiting until mixdown comes up a lot
in the book 'Behind the Glass' by Howard Massey in which he interviews
over thirty record producers from Geoff Emerick to Phil Ramone to Eddie
Kramer to Brian Wilson. The conclusion ends up being that the british
producers more often print effects straight to tape and the americans wait
until mix down. It is reinforced interview after interview. It is a great book as
the questions asked are about mic placement, compression use, and other
intricate recording specifics used by these pros. Tony Visconti comes off as
being the coolest mofo of them all while Eddie Kramer sounds surprisingly
lugheaded.
Drum Room Mics On The Floor / PZM: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Max
Hi there,
first of all I'd like to tell you how much I like your homepage. It's a very
useful source of information. John was so kind to inform me about the fact
that there are about 50 words in English with a similar meaning than GREAT.
So, great job Russ.
I've seen Altec 150s taped to the floor on the Don Caballero recording
pictures in the Kentucky room as well as on the pictures of studio B's
liveroom. In both cases the mics were facing the drum kit. I've seen people
using stapes and earthworks mics in the same application. I understand that
taping mics to the floor minimizes unwanted combfiltering effects.
All these mics mentioned above have typically an omnidirectional pick up
pattern. Is there a reason why people use omnis for floormics? Do they
behave more like PZMs when taped to the floor than directional mics or do
they just capture more of the room ambience? Are the arranged in a decca
tree setup with a stereo mic as center mic ?
How would cardioid mics behave in this application. I was thinking about
trying directional mics as drum floor room mics just because I also record
the rest of the band in the same room and I want to avoid to have guitars
and bass on the drum room mics.
Is there a reason why generally speaking omnis are a better choice in this
application than cardioid mics?
Bob Weston
By definition, a PZM (Pressure Zone Microphone), or Boundary mic, is an
omnidirectional capsule against a boundary (floor, wall, metal plate that is
built into a Realistic or Crown PZM).
A cardioid against a boundary would not be a PZM. I'm not sure what the
pattern would look like. Try it out and let us know what it sounds like.
Typically, people at Electrical tend to only use 2 on the floor in a triangle

with the bass drum.
best,
Bob
Greg
I've used cardioid mics like this (with them facing the drum kit) a lot. It
catches more of the kit than the room, but the blend is nice. If I'm in a
bright sounding room and the hi-hat is out of control this can help. I think
it's because the low frequency reception at the rear of the mic filters out the
"ssss" and keeps the whoamp of the kick and tom reverb.
Faced away from the kit, there is less direct drum kit and more reverb
(Obviously). Depending on where it is in the room, it can be brighter (center
of the room), or bassier (facing a corner).
Maybe we should set up a kit and record the differences in a controlled way
so you can hear from the website.
Steve
Hey:
An omni microphone on a boundary (the floor) has a hemispherical pickup

pattern, with minimal change in sound quality across this hemisphere. A
cardioid mic typically has lumps in its frequency response as the signal
moves off-axis. In some cases, there is also a pronounced lobing of the
sensitivity that varies with frequency. Also, given that the idea of the room
mic is to pick-up the diffused room ambience, the less directional, the
better.
Unless you figure out a magic sound-stopping raygun, it is unlikely that you
will be able to isolate different elements of the room tone (different
instruments, for example) once the room has been excited by more than
one sound source, other than by using proximity to accentuate one thing or
the other.
The boundary effect is exploited by the PZM microphone in a special way:

The microphone element is very tiny, and placed in a small air gap above a
plate. Since this air passage is so small, it is operating in a pure pressure
mode, with flat phase response up to a very high frequency. This concept
was presented at Syn-Aud Con in the 1970s, first manufactured by Ken
Wahrenbrock and explained here: http://www.pe.net/~tmaki/pzms.htm
among other places.
While all PZM microphones are by definition boundary mics, not all
boundary mics are PZM mics. In the examples you give, there is no second
boundary to create a gap. Well, there is, but it's the roof of the building, and
that isn't really the same thing.
Crown (Amcron in Europe), makers of the PZM, made a directional boundary

mic using a cardioid capsule on a mounting plate. It was called the PCC (an
acronym for Phase Coherent Cardioid) mic. We own one here at Electrical,
but it hasn't made its way to the mic page of the website yet, and from my
experience, it's nothing to fight your grandmother over.
In the 1980s, there was a minor engineering fad to use cardioid mics as
ambient mics, facing the reflective surface opposite the sound of interest
(rear of pattern facing the sound source). Not being a big Robert Palmer fan,
I never pursued this approach.
The ambient mics in the photos you see are in A/B stereo, which has a poor
stereo image from a localization standpoint (too wide to have good
phantom center image), but bearing in mind that these mics are usually
used to supplement the close mics, it's an appropriate choice. I often use an
M-S pair as ambient mics, and even in this case, I will often have the stereo
image wide enough to create a "hole" in the center for the same purpose.
good luck,
-steve albini
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Benadrian
I've noticed low end boost when putting directional mics on the floor. It can
also be viewed as a useful high cut. Personally, I get a lot of bands where the
drummer has HUGE, LOUD cymbals and more normal volume drums. When
that's the case I put ambient mics low just to avoid brash, abnormally loud
cybmals. Many times I'll just leave out overheads in that case.
My recent standard ambient mic choices have been a Beyer M130 and M160
in M/S at waist level or lower. Every time I record drums I try to throw one
mic somewhere new or interesting just to see what it sounds like. Many
times they get taped over for an extra track, but sometimes they work. Last
time I did this I used a 4050 on omni laying behind some amps pushed up
against a wall.
Congleton
while i find putting the mics on the floor is a good "safe" room sound bet
and one i do use very often. ive found depending on the rooms particular
charater and high end brand of splatter, facing "more" directional
microphones at the wall can be a good way to get a more vague distant
drum sound without contending with cymbals. this only in contrast to
putting super far away ambient mics on the floor. however every situation
and drummer is different. and usually prefer my room sound to have more
locational type qualities to it.
Cgarges
Hey, Ben,
Try your 4050 set to omni inside a large, padded hard-shell snare drum
case next to the front of the bass drum. (Keep it on the shockmount so it
"floats" near the bottom of the case.) You may have to flip the polarity to
get it really happening, but check it out for some extra thump.
Swordfish
The only genuine pro engineer I know put mics on the floor when he was
doing an SSL demo for some Japanese, because they kept stalling him so
that they could write down his eq settings. When he set up the mics, they
were all out there measuring and poking, wondering how he got such a
great drum sound...even though those mics were not routed anywhere.
Little bit
Nice history of PZM's Steve, not many people know about it.
I did a project in a small studio that was set up in an old church in about '81
and they had some "original" PZM's made by a Syn-Aud-Con member.
Great stuff for recording in church's, slapped them everywhere we could
think of.
But what I haven't seen manufactured since was the pair of handheld PZM's.
A body not unlike a 58 but with the head sawed off flat and a smaller
version of the capsule mounting device. Stick that in next to the snare, talk
about bright. The other obvious choice would be for horns.
Heylow
Aw man......
I'm always coming to the party late!
I'm sorry but, could someone please further explain the taping of
microphones to the floor to me? I get the triangle with the lick drum thing
but......are we talking like a WOOD floor...or at least uncarpeted? What kinds
of distances are we talking.....y'know....ballpark? What could one expect to
hear with this method compared to say, the usual room mic?
I'm so NOT in the know here....forgive me in advance.
Mnotaro
heylow:
Quote:
are we talking like a WOOD floor...or at least uncarpeted?
Like, any floor will do Scooby. I'd like suggest trying various floors to hear
the difference. A carpet, being more absorbent, would probably yield very
different results from the relflective, polished wood floor.
Quote:
What kinds of distances are we talking.....y'know....ballpark?
I have seen the mics here at EA to be about 3 to 5 feet from the kit. It is all
about what space you have to work with in the room. You must experiment
and I don't mean with Scooby snacks.
Quote:
What could one expect to hear with this method compared to say,
the usual room mic.
What is the 'usual' room mic? Take your usual room mic and a/b it with the
floor setup. Maybe we can post an a/b at some point, but like don't hold
your mary jane in.
Miko
At a session at Electrical we used 150's as floormics for guitars in Center
Field. One amp at each end of the long wall mic'd. Then we placed 2 150's at
the bases of the columns near the piano. I put them there to be out of
harms way. The results where some of the best guitar ambience I have ever
heard.
When The Room Is Less Than Ideal…?: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
lehabs
Would you simply close mic as much as possible...stuff like amps, etc? Also,
on drums...we mic very minimally...close snare (421 or M201), just inside
kick (re20 or D112) and then some sort of overhead(s) (if stereo MK012's or
Pro47's...if mono AT4050 set to omni). This has been working out ok on
drums, but I know it can be better. I really think that guitar is giving us the
most problems though. I guess my main question is should we be avoiding
ambient or room mics in our less than ideal sounding room?
Benadrian
When I record at home I record in what is basically an oversized shoebox. I
have to make the best of it because it's all I have.
I think you're on the right track with minimal microphone setups. Also, try
relocating the drum kit to a few different spots and directions and see how
it records.
A few tricks to try. Use two ambient mics and limit the second one with a
quick release. Use that one at kind of a cheater room "embigginer". Also, if
you have a compressor that you can use as an expander, try expanding the
ambient mic, but keying the expander from the close mics on the kick and
snare. Play with the attack and release to boost the volume to emphasize
the decay only after kick and snare hits.
Or just record dead drums. Spoon has some great examples of very
resonant drums with a very dead room.
For guitar, just be weary of phase issues, and don't expect any distant
miked amps to be very in your face. I find omni and figure 8 mics about 1-2
feet from the speaker can be fun for a pretty direct sound with a bit of room
tone, but not so much that you can hear your crappy sounding room!
Good Luck!
Nick92675
disclaimer: i don't work at electrical, just a recording person in town
i have a pretty crappy 1 room situation that i've dealt with your problems a
number of ways, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
first, am i understanding that you're trying to track everything live in the

same room, and your ambient mics are getting contaminated by the guitars?
or there's not enough definition?
for this type of stuff i try and avoid omnis since there's already such a
struggle to keep some semblence of definition going.
one sound i've liked before w/minimum setup is use your MK012s as
underheads - which kind of blends the OH and ambients roles a bit. get
enough room in there while capturing the kit as a whole. i've had the most
success about 5 ft back and at about the plane between the bottom head of
the rack tom and the top of the floor tom. use this as the majority of your
kit sound and fill in the definition w/the snare/bass drum mic. -+
guitars i've had some success sequestering into an opposite portion of the
room and using old office partitions close micing the cabinets - and having 1
kind of general guitar ambient mic to blend to taste.
i think it depends on your room and how much you like or dislike it. i'd
prefer to hear a crappy room miced sound than a bunch of close miced stuff
because it gives a more unique sense of place in your recording - it may not
be studio A at electrical, but it's your studio (and you save up to go to studio
A for your next record). i think theres that addage, if it sounds right it is right
- and only you know that.
that's my 2 cents at least. good luck! although i should add that my favorite
sounds have been where i tracked the rhythm section simultaneously, then
added others as we went. not the ideal way, but sonicly the best solution in
my situation. enough room tones without creating murkiness.
ben - funny, i finally just picked up series of sneaks the other day and have
been running over the drum sounds in my head - do they seem really loud
to you? the high hats jump out a lot - and those toms really resonate. they
have a lot of personalilty. i love the drum sounds on girls can tell.
Analogelectric
I have a pretty small space but have found that moving amps and close
mik'ing has worked pretty well in certain situations. If it's a three piece and
we want to do the initial tracking live I'll set them up LIVE; i.e. drums center,
guitar left, and bass right (or whatever config). I'll match level and tone for
what they're after, throw some heavy blankets over the kick drum, and
place mics accordingly. Sure, there's bleed and the band doesn't really have
a choice for punch-ins but with enough patience for inital set up renders
great results.
If you're looking for isolation try using blankets or baffles for the guitar/bass
cabs. If you want a little more ambience from the guitars later you could
always reamp them later with a distant mic (be aware of phase). I've even
dumped isolation and gone full on with a combination of ambient mics and
close mics for varying results. There's something to be said about close
quarter performance areas and the results they get.
Keep in mind that no formula is ever set in stone. If one day it works
perfectly for a certain session doesn't mean it'll work for another. I don't
know what style of music you record. I have just enough room to isolate the
drums but they are in the same room as the amps. A little bleed is ok.
Tmidgett
my band recorded one of our albums in a very small basement with a very
low ceiling
we didn't do anything differently other than point the amps across the room
----> this-a-way, up at front of room
and the drums back to front
^ this-a-way, in back of room

|
|
|
we also cut the vocals sitting down to minimize reflections off the ceiling
(like i said...very low ceiling)
generally, we cut all band tracks at once. we would cut stuff and see how
the bleed into the overheads sounded--sometimes it was a mess and
sounded cool, sometimes it was a mess and sounded dumb. on a couple of
the songs on which it sounded dumb, we did the drums first, then bass,
then gtr etc. making records in that bricklaying way is not as much fun, but
those songs of course had more clarity than the others.
suffice to say we record at electrical whenever possible. but i find basement

recording to be most fruitful when issues such as bleed etc. are not
agonized over to any great degree. separation never going to be great in that
situation--the best you can do is make it work for you somehow.
Mothrock
okay,
I am very amateur at recording, but I've tried some stuff and had pretty
amazing results. first off, I record digitally (I accept any flack I get for that,
but I am just too dang poor to afford any decent analog gear). but we are
recording in incredibly un ideal rooms. what I do, is run all the drum mics to
the mixer(4 mics only) , panning them hard left and hard right, and these go
into the recorder . guitar, bass and vocal directly into the recorder and run
the recorder to this old stereo I have that breaks your ear drums if you wear
headphones.(this is the drummers monitor.) I then run the drums out of the
mixer to just a guitar amp at the other end of the house. it works like a
perfect intercom system and completely eliminates bleed over. it is kind of
like playing with your eyes closed, but hey if you are poor, that's the best
way to do it.
and as far as mic'in the ams, I always run a dry signal from the amp, and a
57 about 3-4 inches from the cab and a either a bass drum mic or an
octavia condenser, or both. I always try to emphasize the guitar sound.
there is nothing worse than a muddy guitar. throwing three mics on the
guitar seems a little excessive, especially if you are running direct also. but it
beats the hell out of multiple over dubs.
oh, and mic'in a marshall cab with a bass drum mic is godly. talk about ballz.
I am not trying to come off like I know ANYTHING about recording, so don't
take this post the wrong way. Its my first post on this board and I am just
trying to "nerd-out" with the best.
Phase Issues: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Adc
i know you people are probably way past this stage by the sounds of it,
but..... i'm losing an awful lot in my drum mix due to poor separation, so
bascially everything ends up sounding like its in the centre of the mix. unlike
the guy in the "favourite drum mics" post just below this one, i really like a
very dry drum mix and mixed in hard stereo.
i'm assuming its my mic placement thats poor and i've got this far on
common sense and little else, so does anyone have any helpful tips to take
me from a training bra to a 32A?
dano
Hey,
I'm not sure what type of mics your using, but you should check out their
polar response pattern first. For good separation, use mics with highly
directional response patterns, Hyper or Super Cardioids. Cardioids will even
do the trick. This will avoid unwanted spill from neighbouring drums.
One of the hard ones to contend with is hi hat spill in the snare mic. I usually
avoid using a hi hat mic all together and just let the overheads do the work.
Another way to deal with this problem is to use a compressor in ducking
mode, feed the hi hat through a hi pass filter and then into the side chain of
the compressor with the snare going through the main compressor path.
This will cause the snare to drop in volume when ever the hat is hit.
Personally I hate this method because it causes the snare to modulate in
sympathy with the hats, causing a loss in "whack" to use the not so
technical term.
Another option would be to use a spaced or even co-incident stereo pair in

front of, and slightly elevated over the kit, to get good stereo imaging and
then use spot mics sparingly to accentuate the drums you want to
dominate in the mix.
Hope this helps.

Best of luck.
Cgarges
Try leaning on your overhead mics a bit more. You will probably wind up
with a little more ambient drum sound depending on your room, but it may
help you out.
Assuming you're using a atereo pair of cardioid mics (if you're not, THERE'S
you problem) Try putting your overheads just above and behind the
drummers ears. Give him a bit of space to move around if he needs to,
though. When you do this, your mics will need to be pointed slightly forward.
I try to aim for the space between the toms and cymbals. Then, make sure
that as much as possible, the drummers head is between the overhead mics
and the snare drum. It's amazing how much of a difference this will make in
"unlocalizing" the snare drum in the overheads. You can then add a close
mic on the snare to sneak into the mix just enough to give you some
definition.
Depending on your close mic situation, how "dry" you want your drums to
sound, and how mono-compatible you want your drum sound to be, try a
pair of ambient mics (the spaced pair on the floor technique used frequently
at Electrical works well) with the polarity reversed (so that the mics are
farther out of phase). This will give you a very wide image, even though it
will largely disappear in mono.
Good luck!
Chris Garges
Adc
wow, thanks so much. i understood a fair bit of that, more than i expected
in fact, but some of it lost me.
the stuff on careful mic placement of overheads, i'm going to try that out,
sounds great.
the stuff on what kind of mics i'm using kind of passed me by. i'm using akg
condenser mics for overheads. these are cardiod mics as i understand it (as
opposed to hyper cardiod right!!) and if using a "stereo pair" means using
two of them panned left and right, then yes i am.
in case you hadnt figured, i've set up a room in my house for recording, and
my kit is placed on top of some heavy felt underlay and thick nylon
carpeting. i also have close mics on the three toms, snare, and the bass
drum.
i get as youve suggested alot of hihat in the toms and snare mics, and i read
that by taking the skin off the bottom of the toms and putting the close
mics inside them, it can really improve the separation that way.
i'm figuring once i get decent separation i can start eq'ing it properly.
you fellas are obviously experts. thanks. if anyone needs to know anything
about thier cars, maybe i can help you sometime.
cgarges wrote:
with the polarity reversed (so that the mics are farther out of
phase).
can i ask what does out of phase mean?
and how i reverse polarity? - if this has anything to do with wearing your
wife's clothes i'm telling mother straight away.
Cgarges
Wow. Anyone else want to field this one? I don't have a few days.
I guess since I opened that can of worms, I'll try to give an EXTEREMELY
BRIEF overview.
Phase relationships deal with how two or more sounds arriving at one point
affect each other. This can mean two mics on a guitar amp, a mic and direct
bass signal summed together, or the sound of a voice directly reaching a
mic diapragm while the same voice bouces off a nearby music stand and
arrives at the diapragm a few milliseconds (or sometimes microseconds)
later. Sometimes, when two or more signals combine in certain ways (or
arrive at a point at different times), there are cancellations that occur at
certain frequencies, making these frequencies sound quieter or disappear
altogether. In short, this can make your signal sound funny.
Phase relationships are everything in how sound works. Especially when

using multiple microphones on a drum kit. Have you ever gotten the bass
drum to sound great by itself, then when you listen back to the whole kit,
it's not the same? That's probably because of phase issues.
An easy fix (sometimes) is to reverse the polarity (positive and negative) of

one (or more) of the mic signals, so that the sounds are more in phase with
each other. This can be done if your mic preamp has a polarity reverse or
"phase" button. But that's not to say that a signal can be either in phase or
out. A polarity-reversed signal is considered 180 degrees out of phase.
There are many degrees of phase relationships (360 actually, like a circle)
and so there isn't really an easy cure-all.
More than half the times I have been asked to mix a project that someone
else has tracked, I have sat down at the console to find a really wimpy bass
drum sound. That's usually a pretty good indication that there wasn't any
phase checking at the tracking session.
This is a super-huge topic and one that I am finding to be greatly overlooked

by people getting paid money to record other people. And it upsets me.
Hope this helps a bit.
And by the way, taking the bottom heads off your toms may give you more
isolation, but in my opinion will probably make your drums sound terrible.
Keep 'em on!!!!
Adc
thanks man. and dont be upset.
i'm a bit concerned i could fuck it up even worse now. is there someway of
conveniently flipping the polarity on the mic like some sort of adaptor and
then if its having the wrong effect flip it back again?
youre scared of my dumb questions arent you?
Cgarges
Not at all, education is the key.
It is a big can of worms, and a neat one to be sure. Once you can develop an
understanding of how phase manipulation works, there's alot that can be
done with it. But it takes a good while of experimenting and developing your
ears to hear exactly what's going on. You must understand, too, that I'm a
big believer in learning your craft and a bit of the history involved (whether
it's engineering, drumming, or cooking) before you automatically start
"taking it out."
Shure makes a polarity-reverse adapter. The old version (that's probably

the same one made today) is called the A15PRS, and actually had a switch
on the connector. It's a barrel-type adapter, like their pads or in-line
transformers. You can put it anywhere in line and it will work. This is
assuming that you have balanced inputs on your... (wherever your mic is
going). It only works with a balanced signal. They can get a bit expensive,
but are a semi-convenient solution if you don't have a polarity reverse on
your mic preamps. I just read a posting at Tape Op from Fletcher (of
Mercenary Audio) where he noted that he always uses polarity reversed
cables in lieu of switches at the preamp because the preamp reacts to how
it sees the polarity of the mic signal. He's absolutely right, but that's a pretty
subtle thing. These adapters would work in the same regard.
If you're handy with a soldering iron and know how to make your own mic
cables, it's really easy (and probably cheaper than buying a bunch of Shure
adapters) to make your own polarity reversed mic cables.
Steve Albini once said that he was working on an article on phase

relationships for EQ magazine (if I remeber correctly), but I never saw it. I'd
love to know if it was ever published and if it was, I'm sure it would be of
great help. He just has a way with words.
Hope this helps shed some light. And don't worry, I'm mad about alot of
things.
Adc
www.studiospares.com has some adapters for £5 each so i've picked up a
few of them for a play around. i'll noodle about and see if i can make some
improvements.
i dont have mic preamps, and i darent say what i'm using to record on
because alot of people on here will think i'm the antichrist.
i can tell you i've been relying on some heavy eq'ing to make my drums
sound like i want, so now i have some decent kit and a bit more
understanding, i'm ready to see what new stuff i can discover.
thanks chris garges.
Kevin H
I found this site (http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos.html) a while
ago and found it helpful to get a basic understanding of the physics of sound.
It is kinda technical, but the animations are very illustrative to understand
phase relationships. I found it interesting, but I'm kind of a nerd that way.
I finally understood why parts of my room are bass heavy, and other parts
have no bass at all. Now just to figure out how to fix it...
Stereo Microphone Techniques
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
X-Y technique: intensity stereophony
Here, two directional microphones at the same place, and typically pointing
at an angle 90° or more to each other — see also "The Stereophonic Zoom"
by Michael Williams. A stereo effect is achieved through differences in sound
pressure level between two microphones. The level difference of 18 dB (16
to 20 dB) is needed for hearing the direction of a loudspeaker. Due to the
lack of differences in time-of-arrival / phase-ambiguities, the sonic
characteristic of X-Y recordings has less sense of space and depth when
compared to recordings employing an AB-setup. When two figure-of-eight
microphones are used, facing ±45° with respect to the sound source, the X-
Y-setup is called a Blumlein Pair. The sonic image produced is realistic,
almost 'holographic'. See also Acoustic intensity.
A-B technique: time-of-arrival stereophony

This uses two parallel omnidirectional microphones some distance apart, so
capturing time-of-arrival stereo information as well as some level
(amplitude) difference information, especially if employed in close proximity
to the sound source(s). At a distance of about 60 cm (0.6 m) the time delay
(time of arrival difference) for a signal reaching first one and then the other
microphone from the side is approximately 1.5 msec (1 to 2 msec).
According to Eberhard Sengpiel this is enough to locate the sound source
exactly at the speaker on the respective side, resulting in a stereophonic
pickup angle of 180°. If you increase the distance between the microphones
you effectively decrease the pickup angle. At 70 cm distance it is about
equivalent to the pickup angle of the near-coincident ORTF-setup. This
technique can produce phase issues when the stereo signal is mixed to
mono.
M/S technique: Mid/Side stereophony
This coincident technique employs a bidirectional microphone facing

sideways and another microphone (generally a variety of cardioid, although
Alan Blumlein described the usage of an omnidirectional transducer in his
original patent) at an angle of 90° facing the sound source. The left and right
channels are produced through a simple matrix: Left = Mid + Side, Right =
Mid - Side (the polarity-reversed side-signal). This configuration produces a
completely mono-compatible signal, and if the Mid and Side signals are
recorded — rather than the matrixed Left and Right — the stereo width can
be manipulated after the recording has taken place, which makes it
especially useful for the usage on film-based projects.
ORTF & NOS Near-coincident technique: mixed stereophony
These techniques combine the principles of both A/B and X/Y (coincident
pair) techniques. For example, the ORTF stereo technique of the Office de
Radiodiffusion Télévision Française (i.e., Radio France), calls for a pair of
cardioid microphones placed 17 cm apart at a total angle between
microphones of 110 degrees that results in a stereophonic pickup-angle of
96°.[1] In the NOS stereo technique of the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (i.e.,
Holland Radio), the total angle between microphones is 90 degrees and the
distance is 30 cm, so capturing time-of-arrival stereo information as well
as level information. It is noteworthy that the spacing of 17 cm has nothing
to do with human ear distance. The recorded signals are generally intended
for playback over stereo loudspeakers and not for earphones.
Binaural recording
Binaural recording is a method of recording audio which uses a special

microphone arrangement intended for replay using headphones. Dummy
head recording refers to a specific method of capturing the audio, generally
using a bust including pinnae (outer ears). As one's pinnae are unique, and
the filtering they impose on sound directionality is learned by individuals
from early childhood, use during recording of pinnae that are not the same
as the ultimate listener may lead to perceptual confusion.
Dummy head being used for binaural recording;
the second microphone is obscured.
With a simple recording method, two microphones are placed seven inches
(18cm) apart facing away from each other. This method will not create a
real binaural recording. The distance and placement roughly approximates
the position of an average human's ear canals, but that is not all that is
needed. More elaborate techniques exist in pre-packaged forms. A typical
binaural recording unit has two high-fidelity microphones mounted in a
dummy head, inset in ear-shaped molds to fully capture all of the audio
frequency adjustments (known as head-related transfer functions (HRTFs)
in the psychoacoustic research community) that happen naturally as sound
wraps around the human head and is "shaped" by the form of the outer and
inner ear. The Neumann KU-81, and KU-100 are the most commonly used
binaural packages, especially by musicians. The KEMAR system is another
alternative. It was presented already in 1972 as a research mannequin for
in-situ testing of hearing aids. The HEAD acoustics aachenhead unit
provides different equalization interfaces, either to make signals compatible
with loudspeaker reproduction or to allow for comparison of signals with
standard microphone recordings. Other alternatives are the B&K[1] and the
01dB-Metravib[2] mannequins. A simplified version of binaural recordings
can be achieved using microphones with a separating element, like the
Jecklin Disk. It uses a 30 cm (11.81") acoustically-absorptive disk between
the mics. Now the new Disk is 35 cm in diameter and has a spacing of the
microphones of 36 cm.[3]. Nevertheless, not all cues required for exact
localization of the sound sources can be preserved this way, but it works
well for loudspeaker reproduction.
Binaural "in-ear" microphones can be linked to a portable Digital Audio Tape

(DAT) or MiniDisc recorder, bypassing the need for a dummy head by using
the recordist's own head.
MS Technique / Ambient Mics: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Idoia
Hi,
I am testing different techniques to record a drummer.

I have a few questions:
I have seen many configuration using two room mics down the floor at 6-7
feet either in front or at the back of the drum kit pointing at it.
I have also read about the MS configuration for a single point stereo
recording.
What does make an engineer to choose between the two configurations ?
I quite like the theory of the MS configuration, for lots of reasons but I still
wonder to know how to use it right. I mean I guess I would use my room
mics to get the deep of the drums without too much bleed of the cymbals.
But should I use the MS mics the same way ? In that sense :
-would a MS config down on the floor be a good idea ?
-what about the delay of 15-25ms on the room mics, does that apply to MS
configuration ?
-at last if the room is small and bright(reflections) which of the MS or room
mics is the more suitable config to use ?
Thanks a lot.
Darktowel
Alex,
Here's how i use m-s on drums:

I use a good distance from the kit (like 6 feet) and place them at about
eyeheight with the drummer .
If you don't want too much cymbals in these mikes, try alligning your
stereo-pair with the direction of the cymbals. Cymbals produce sound
which travels from the surface, upwards and below.
As far as microphones go, i mostly use a Beyer 130 and 160.

If you have a limited number of tracks, you can also place your m-s pair
closer to the kit to capture the kick-drum, instead of using an additional
(second) microphone for this. When i do this, i replace the Beyer m160 with
a AKG 414 (tl-II).
There are many posts on this forum wich discuss the use of microphone
techniques for drums. Have a look around.
XY / ORTF Technique On Overheads: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Losthighway
Did it for the first time at a session today and totally loved it. Great stereo
image. Also nice to get a little further away from those loud hi hats everyone
is always complaining about. I have always done a spaced pair, but I think I
will get used to this for a while.
Who like it?
Skatingbasser
Either XY or ORTF over here.
Always hated spaced pair.
Punk
pretty much always XY.
I'm recording a lot in environments that are not conductive to a spaced pair.
like shitty rehearsal rooms.
XY seems to work better more often.
Vetter
ORTF is even better IMO, it gives you a wider stereo image.
It is easy to set up and very useful in small space with low ceiling (like
basement) that's why i use it in most session.
As far as i'm concerned, spaced pair aren't so easy to place to create a good
stereo image (i always strugling to center the kick drum with it), and need a
large room with quite hight ceiling to work well.
Japmn
XY above and a mono LDC out front about 4' at tom level
You almost don't even need anything else
I also like a far mono overhead if I am close micing everything else.
Losthighway
Wait, jog my acronym brain. What does ORTF stand for?
Japmn I have been using a LDC about ten feet away from the kit right
around toms and it gives everything character. Right now XY I use Shure
Ksm141's and room mic seems less specific. They all work similar (the LDC's)
I use my Blue Babybottle for that, just cause it is kind of expensive and I
have so few other uses for it. I put the Audio Technicas and the Akgs (LDC)
on guitars/bass/drums meanwhile.
Other freaky thing. I've got one of the guitar rigs (a really loud vintage
Ampeg head) with an AT 4033 and a Heil PR30 both about eight or nine
inches away, that's really far for me. The PR30 at that distance is a little thin,
but very clear. The AT is just as meaty as it is closer in.
Endofanera
japmn wrote:
XY above and a mono LDC out front about 4' at tom level
You almost don't even need anything else
I also like a far mono overhead if I am close micing everything else.
This. I also often put an XY pair about chest height out in front of the kit. So
nice.
Eliya
Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française
Endofanera
losthighway wrote:
ok francophiles, but I still don't know what technique ORTF stands
for. Where are the mics on that one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique
skatingbasser
losthighway wrote:
Wow. You learn something new everyday. Do you get much of the
center with that configuration. It seems like it would create a bit
wider image than xy.
About 20 degrees wider, in fact. It's a decision I'll usually make ahead of
time.
If I'm doing something like a rock trio, I'll might be looking for a wider spread
come mixdown than what I can get with a limited musical arrangement. And
I don't hard pan bass or guitars. So I'll throw ORTF up as the drum overheads,
knowing the competing will be for the center.
On the chaotic 9 piece ska/swing/punk project I throw XY over the kit,

because I know how busy the mix will be and will want my drums focused,
there will be plenty of horns to give a decent spacial spread.
Tape Choice: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Benadrian
After a long period of recording on ADATs and a shitty reel to reel 8 track I'm
finally getting occasional work in an analog studio. There seems to be a 499
vs. GP9 debate where I work. One engineer likes one, another engineer likes
another. Who prefers what and why?
Greg
This has always been a problem for me. I'm trying to establish what makes
one tape better than the other. I basically narrow it down to how well it
works with the machine. If the machine is used to a type of tape, and the
tension is calibrated with that tape then that tape is better than the others.
We had listening parties where we compared different tape types. One of
these parties included BASF/Emtec 900 to Quantegy 499 stand-off. We did
as close to an a-b setup as we could (2 of the same 24 tracks syched
together, monitoring through matched faders track for track on the Elite,
and a ton of other details). There was a difference, but it sounded 99.98%
same. I'd be willing to bet toes that it makes no technical or musical
difference between the 3 high output tapes (calibrated correctly obviously).
There is no chance you are going to point out in a recording what tape was
used, or discover that it was the tape's fault that it sounded so
good/horrible.
This is all based on the assumption that we're working with fresh reels. Not
guitar center tape ( I saw an old Ampex 456 1/2" reel in one store. They
stopped using that name 7 years ago).
Anyway, it becomes a matter of what you've had better experiences with.

We have had good experiences with Emtec. Quantegy kinda dicked us
around once. Our machines use all the tapes but mostly Emtec 900, and 911.
I use GP9 for my 1/4" mixdown machine (because it has been working fine).
I've heard that the smoother backing on Emtec tape upsets some machines
at first. I don't know, works fine on the MCI,Studer, Ampex, and Tascam
machines I've used it on the most.
All companies have bad batches from time to time.
My advise would be-
1. make sure you have enough to complete a project. You don't want to go
though 3 reels of 2003 499 and then have to run out to guitar center and
get an emergency reel of 1987 499. Buy more tape than you think you need.
You know you're going to use it sometime.
2. calibrate your machine before every session (it's like tuning your guitar)
I don't know man, does anyone have a stong or other opinion?
Matthewbarnhart
I've had a few frustrating experiences with GP9 on our Otari MTR-90,
namely poor packing (due to slitting problems, perhaps?) and "loopback"
problems. I tried out a reel of 900 in its place two years ago, and haven't
looked back.
I have used both GP9 and 900 on our 1/4" with good results, but like Greg
said, the differences between high-output tapes are so miniscule that I feel
you might as well choose a tape formulation on a technical basis. You won't
ruin anything by recording on 499 vs. GP9, so do a project on each and see
if you have a preference.
Steve
Bonjour.
I have used Quantegy GP9, 499, 456 and Emtec 900 and 911 all within the
last month, so my memory of the experiences is pretty good. My
impressions are pretty much as they have been for the last few years:
499: my least favorite in sound. The high end seems slightly brittle to me.
Other than 499, I don't really have a quarrel with the sound of
contemporary tapes, and in any case, the differences are small.
GP9: lower noise and apparently better bass response (compared to 499).
The measured difference was really small, and Jay McKnight says that LF
response of tape shouldn't vary with type in any but the worst cases, but I
noticed it and so did other people on different sessions. Very low noise.
456: seems to run quieter mechanically through the machines than the
other two Quantegy types. There was a period in the 90s when the slitting
on their 1/2-inch was up the spout, but it got better until we stopped using
it.
Emtec 900: Really smooth performance in the transports. Excellent quality

control, nice boxes (Je déteste les boites plastiques!), and other than
occasional interruptions in supply (which we combat by placing huge,
Novotny-terrifying orders), I can't think of anything to complain about.
Emtec 911: Their 456 equivalent. I would agree, except that EMTEC's QC is
much better.
Quantegy were real dicks to us, expending a lot of effort to lose a 30 - 50

grand account. If they are willing to work that hard to lose a 20-year
customer, I'll let them have their way.
Emtec, by the way has begun packaging their 900 tape in plain silver reels
(Je déteste le swoosh bleu!), as requested by Bob Weston's petition at the
Tape Op 2002 conference. Thank you Bob!
beste,
steve en France
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Cal
I converted to Emtec 900 a while back, because to me it had some of the
qualities of 456, but in a high output tape, plus the low end is nice. On 499
there's something I don't like about the high end. I tried using GP9 several
times until I walked out of the control room one day to look at the tape
machine and there were little flakes of oxide all over the top of the machine,
so that was the last time I used it. Nowadays I'll either use 900 or 456,
depending on what suits the band. Lots of folks are requesting Pro Tools too,
so I'm using 456 more and more to track and then transfer into PT, cause
456 sounds the most "analog tapey" to me.
Nick92675
anyone know what's up with them? i placed an order with markertek and
they told me they've gone under and couldn't get any more tape. (then tried
to get me to get 456 instead) that doesn't seem really possible to me -
(maybe it is?) - where do you guys get your tape from? markertek was a lot
cheaper than the other places, that's why i used them.
Russ
I'm not so sure we should really be concerned about what kind of tape we
are using so much as we should be concerned with how much tape we are
using.
Does it really matter anymore? I'm not talking about sound quality issues,
tape pack, flaking, shedding, slitting, level, or any of those things. I'm talking
about the fact that if we don't continue to use tape as often, and we get
hung up on minor issues such as the number on the box, that we are only
hurting ourselves.
I'm fully aware that this (using less tape in general) has already happened to
quite a few, if not most of the people that I know. So, it's not really a new
issue. But, can I please ask you to stop worrying so much about which tape
formulation you should use and ask you to just use more tape, period.
russ
DaveiZDave
Ben Adrian and all,
For a lot of years Ampex 456 was the standard in every pro studio in my
area except one who was using AGFA. I was never once disappointed with
performance of either one pre-1980. Most guys around here switched to 3M
996 but you can't get it anymore (unless you work for the U.S. Government).
My opinion is this was the best tape ever made and if you can find a stash of
it somewhere you'll probably get reel happy. 499 was introduced
specifically to compete with it but sounds noticeably different than 456 and
doesn't share the "9db hotter" characteristic of the 3M 996. Quantegy
acquired ownership of the 3M formulas shortly after 3M quit making audio
tape for public consumption and several months later introduced GP9
claiming it was actually 996 with a new name. I am not convinced the
formula is identical and all their QC has certainly been intermittent ever
since then. Emtec 900 gets my vote at this point in time.
David
Matthewbarnhart
If you don't mind buying used tape, TapeTape apparently has a Fort Knox-
sized vault of the stuff, as they'll try and sell it to you no matter what you're
looking for.
I've actually bought 8 used reels of 996 from them -- despite being
ridiculously heavy (Is it thicker than GP9, even?), I was happy with the
sound, and the bands were happy that they only spent $65 for the reel.
Steve
since a few people have mentioned "shedding" in this thread, I will share my
contribution to a discussion of tape shed from the Ampex forum a few years
ago:
Whenever I'm involved in a discussion on tape shedding, it bothers me that

the term is used to describe several different effects, and I'd like to propose
a new standard nomenclature for these effects:
"Shed" -- tape losing oxide particles as dust or irregular flakes, which may
collect on mechanical parts of tape machines, unaccompanied by any
stickyness or binder deposits.
"Shear" -- tape losing oxide coating from the cut edges of the tape as it
travels in the tape path. Oxide coating will appear as "hair," or slivers, and
will be most apparent when A) changing to a new tape formulation after
some time using another as a "standard," or B) tape manufacturer changes
slitting procedures or equipment.
"Stickyness" -- tape surface becomes sticky from depolymerization of

binder over time, causing build-up of binder gum on mechanical parts of
tape machine, "squeal" in tape path, and loss of oxide through adhesion.
Please, feel free to refer to this as the "albini nomenclature," because, to

date, nothing else has been named after me.
Shed (albini nomenclature) is exceptionally rare, except in archival tapes of
very old red-rust formulations, which are mercifally free of both shear and
stickyness. I can only suggest that you clean the machine often, wind the
tape gently, and don't play the tape any more than you have to for the work
you need to do. I have never seen this condition make a tape utterly
unplayable, so we're good for another century.
Shear (alb. nom.) is a nuisance, but is only rarely a manufacturing defect. I

have heard countless times that one tape or another "sheds like crazy," and
that one tape or another "don't shed a lick." The people saying this are
usually referring to shear (a.n.), and have misplaced the blame. If a tape
machine uses a single type of tape for a long period, all the mechanical
parts become slightly worn to accommodate it (metal oxides being
abrasives). Since tape manufacturers all have slightly different tolerances
and standards for tape width (I always suspected 3M tape was slightly
narrower than Ampex), changing tape brands may subject the new tape to a
groove literally "cut" into the tape path that it is slightly too large for, and its
edges will shear(a).
When the new "heavy coat" tapes were introduced (996, 499, GP9, 900),
they were also stiffer than the old formulations, and didn't deform in the
tape path as much, which made them especially prone to the problem.
This shearing will correct itself in time, as the new tape stock recuts the
tape path to accommodate itself. This is no doubt the reason everyone says
"but it ain't do it no more -- they fixt the rotten tape finally damn."
Quantegy _was_ making 1/2-inch 456 in the mid-90's that was pure
bullshit in the slitting department, which caused shear and really bad
azimuth problems. They invested a fortune in new slitting equipment, and it
got better by 1997.
Stickyness is easily solved by baking, and the baking can be repeated in

another 20 years or so when you have to play the tape again, and again
after that, so quit crying about it. Quantegy will do it for free, and you can
do it yourself in a food dehydrator over a weekend.
If a sticky tape _absolutely must_ be played immediately, as did several

sticky tapes I had to remaster in 1991, you can wipe the surfaces of the tape,
inch-by-inch with a cotton pad saturated with alcohol (change the pads
often) as you wind the tape by hand onto a new reel. It'll take you all night
to do it, and you'll need to clean the tape heads after every play, but it
works. I don't know if this removes sufficient water from the de-
polymerized chains to effect a long-term cure, but you can meet a deadline.
Of course I am referring to analog masters. Digital masters (which are also

on tape, I remind the digital apologists in attendance), won't survive even
the mildest of any of these defects, all of which they are subject to.
I should also point out that digital masters on metal-particle tape are
particularly nasty in storage, because the metal particles are chemically
aggressive enough to oxidize in air over time, which will make them
unplayable if none of the above do.
In all of the above deterioration scenarios, the analog master tapes will -- in
some manner -- be playable. Digital tapes, when subjected to the slightest
of either deterioration or deformation, become utterly unplayable. I rejoice
when I think of the music from this era that will be lost forever due to this
shortsightedness. As an old man, I can play my Stooges records, my Glenn
Gould, my Rachel's, my Clarence Carter, and when I get bored, I can string
up an Ampex and listen to some old master tapes -- but I'll never have to
hear Alanis Morissette or Beck again!
-steve
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Gone fission
Okay, what about non-high output formulations? I'm on an Otari MX-5050
1/2" 8 track and an MX-5050 1/4" 2 track. These guys are pretty old and not
designed with the thicker backing in mind and don't really have the juice to
get anywhere close to the high outputs that would make the newer
formulations worth the cost, at least in terms of noise performance.
So, the discussion of 911 is a bit of news to me, since I didn't really know
anything about it. Is it bias compatible with 456 or just similar? I know
Ampex/Quantegy 406 is bias compatible with 456 and is supposed to be
maybe a more "vintage" mellow sound, but I haven't encountered any to try.
And how about the Emtec 468? I know it's a different bias setup than 456,
so I'll have to tweak it to try it, but I've heard just enough that I think I want
to. However, I've been boring and stuck with the 456.
Steve
swordfish wrote:
steve wrote:
If a sticky tape _absolutely must_ be played immediately, as
did several sticky tapes I had to remaster in 1991, you can
wipe the surfaces of the tape, inch-by-inch with a cotton
pad saturated with alcohol (change the pads often) as you
wind the tape by hand onto a new reel.
-steve
Sorry, this scared the bejayzus out of me.
You're saying wipe the tape with alcohol. Won't that remove the
coating completely????
Am I missing something???
Yes, experience.
It won't hurt the tape, as long as you don't scrub violently in one spot or use
Brillo.
Quote:
BTW, this is "interesting":
http://www.rogernichols.com/ArchivePack.html
I always knew Roger Nichols was a blowhard, but I never knew he was just
plain full of shit.
Unintentional comedy abounds as Roger tells us with crumbling grammar

and syntax that all of our analog recordings are deteriorating, but if we
"archive" them to digital formats, then they will sound "truer." The second
half of the piece is a description of all the problems with these digital
formats.
That he constantly refers to the "state of the art" is the best though. His art
is apparently frozen in 1986.
Highlights:
"For the first time, analog masters can now be archived to digital
BACKWARDS at HALF SPEED using state-of-the-art 20 bit converters and
custom designed sample rate conversion systems."
"Roger has used his extensive science background in nuclear physics (a

former Nuclear Engineer at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in
Southern California) to design many of the machines used to recover audio
at a much higher quality than was previously possible."
"Digital Atomics is very meticulous about the quality of their work. Every
effort is made to insure that each tape is transferred to archival media at
the highest possible resolution resulting in an archival copy that will be
indistinguishable from the original...If no additional resolution is obtained or
necessary, then 16 bit storage will be the final format."
"It doesn't matter what brand or type of analog tape you use, there is still a
generation loss, and it degrades the sound of the master. With new masters
being produced on digital 48 track machines and mixed on consoles like the
AT&T Disq system, it is a major slap in the face to artists and producers to
even think about archiving to analog tape."
"Archival CD-R discs are playable on any CD player, it doesn't have to be

some special professional machine."
A 48-track digital tape machine: I don't know, maybe $4000 if it works.
Knowing Roger Nichols is full of shit: Priceless.
-steve
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Nick92675
this is related to the conversation i believe - it appears emtec is going under
officially.
http://www.medialinenews.com/issues/2003/july/news0715_2.shtml
http://www.emtec-group.com/Public_Relations/Press_Releases/
as recording people, what can we do? it seems money is the only thing
imation, emtec or whomever really care about - but really, is there
something we, collectively as recording people do? bob weston's petition to
get rid of the blue swirls worked - what about a petition to keep them
going??
it really seems that most people would rather have emtec around than not,
so how can we help them stay around? maybe i'm a little too optimistic and
young and naive, but it seems like there's got to be something that the
recording community can do to keep emtec 900 going [even if it turns into
imation 900 or whatever].
from steve's comments regarding quantegy [poor customer service], and

the no brainer-econ 101 reasoning against a monopoly - what can we as
consumers do to prevent this? russ already suggested buy more tape - but
are they really gonna care if i only buy 2 or 3 reels of 1" every couple months?
what if there were a tape collective or something that pooled resources and
purchased en masse?
am i totally off base here, or are we really just supposed to let emtec fade
away without a fight? [cue rocky music!] steve - you're clearly the most
seasoned professional here on this topic - what are your thoughts?
Greasygoose
steve wrote:
swordfish wrote:
BTW, this is "interesting":
http://www.rogernichols.com/ArchivePack.html
I always knew Roger Nichols was a blowhard, but I never knew he

was just plain full of shit.
From what I’ve heard, he’s in dire financial straits. Hard to imagine given his
prominence in the recording industry, until you get a load of all those extra-
curricular hobbies detailed on his website (I just love the pictures of the
exams he had to take at San Onofre). I have witnessed him first-hand spend
hours laboring over a Dolby SR alignment with an assistant, repeatedly
calling the studio where the tape originated, insisting the tones were faulty,
baffled at why the Dolby tone was playing back “low” (it is recorded at
about –15dB, as is clearly stated in the manual).
steve wrote:
Unintentional comedy abounds as Roger tells us with crumbling
grammar and syntax that all of our analog recordings are
deteriorating, but if we "archive" them to digital formats, then they
will sound "truer."
It’s worse than that. His research “facts” also change mercurially, and he
provides no cross-referencing whatsoever to back up his claims. I think
we’re expected to take him at his word because he’s a nuclear engineer and
he’s worked for Steely Dan (who canned him) and John Denver.
Unintentional comedy indeed. Some more lowlights, quoted out-of-
sequence and out-of-context to facilitate my rebuff:
Digital Atomics wrote:
Because the predicted life of CD-R is more than 100 years, and the
fact that CDs are immune to EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse), made
this storage method more desirable to this particular client [sic].
We have been working with Kodak concerning CD-R media for long
term storage. As of today, Kodak CD-Rs will last over 200 years. If
you transfer old analog tapes to CD using 20 bit converters and
Super Bit Map or UV-22 processes, you can be ensured that you
won't need to make transfers again for a very long time.
Considering the fact that this is the last time that you will ever have
to transfer your digital audio data, and that the data retention is
more than 267 years, the cost for the satisfaction of knowing that
your mixes will be there when you need them, is very modes [sic]
Basically, he says that tape, both analog and digital, is bad for a number of
reasons, and that CD-R and optical media are the way to go (the very same,
elusive “perfect media” the folks at RADAR told us doesn’t [yet] exist). He
also gives differing accounts on the life expectancy of these media. I’d love
to read some of the research done by Kodak and others, but alas, none is
provided.
Quote:
Along with standard methods of conduct when it comes to caring
for delicate tapes, you must also involve "common sense" in the
practical application of those methods. Recently (Summer `95)
Digital Atomics was involved in transferring masters for Blue Thumb
Records. Some of the masters had very loud clicks scattered
randomly throughout the program material.. The clicks were
present on tapes from different studios, recorded in different years,
and by different artists. As it turns out, the clicks were put on the
tape by playing the tapes. At some point, prior to our transfer of the
material, the tapes had been played or wound from one reel to
another. During this process static electric charges built up on the
tape. When the static discharged, it recorded clicks on the tape even
though the machines were not in record. Now when tapes in that
condition are transferred to digital, the clicks added will have to be
digitally removed.
Before the tape is placed on a tape machine, determination should

be made as to the condition of that tape. You are not supposed to
see if the tape has dried out by counting the number of static
sparks. You do not ascertain whether the tape is sticky by trying to
play the tape at full tension while watching the machine come to a
complete halt.
Put away the electron microscope for a second. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
the problem described above is due to sheer negligence and analog stupidity.
If the involved machines were properly maintained and the heads
demagnetized on a regular basis, this phenomenon would almost certainly
not have happened. Blaming the gear is always a sure sign of bad
engineering.
Quote:
We talked about all of the digital formats that have dissappeared
[sic], but remember, there are literally millions of CD players out
there. Archival CD-R discs are playable on any CD player, it doesn't
have to be some special professional machine. You are guaranteed
of always being able to retrieve your material. The next time you will
have to worry about protecting your investment will hopefully be
267 years from now.
We also want to make sure that if there is a giant leap forward in

storage technology, that the material can be transferred to the new
media with NO generation loss, and that the transfers can be
automated. This increases dramatically the longevity of the current
investment in today's archival process.
What is the distinction between an archival and consumer copy? Is it fair to

say, “I went to Tower Records and bought an archival CD of Donald Fagen’s
‘The Nightfly.’ 267 plays later, and it still sounds truer than the original!” I
think we should be alarmed that Roger’s essentially proposing we make our
archives on a consumer format.
Quote:
Why Not Backup to Analog?:
For the same reason that you don't keep color Xerox copies of $100
dollar bills in your safe deposit box. It might look good, but try using
it for anything.
Seems to me that if you’re dealing with valuable digital information, the safe
play is to make an analog archival copy in addition to whatever digital flavor
of the month abounds. You know, just in case. Maybe that’s not cost
effective for corporate record labels who would rather pay for “giant silos
with robotics access to all stored tapes” so they can endlessly automate the
duplication of these digital coasters.
Quote:
Many companies transferred their catalogs of analog tapes to digital
many years ago. I transferred the Steely Dan analog masters to 3M
digital format in 1981. By transferring the tapes early in the "digital
age", any further analog deterioration was halted. More recently the
early 3M tapes were transferred to CD. The 3M tapes were marginal
in their ability to play back correctly and finding a machine to play
them back was a task in itself. Because the data was digital, it was
possible to recover the albums completely with no further
degradation during the additional 14 years of storage.
Fourteen years, my, that is a long time. I have a theory. Maybe Roger is
claiming to have found the perfect medium (in CD-Rs no less) so that he will
get everyone’s business and he can pay off the bill for his personal archive
of Lowrance computers and SCUBA gear. Then, fourteen years later when
that “giant leap forward” has been made and everyone’s replaced their CD
players with whateverthefuck is next, everyone will come running to Roger
again for his “special professional machine.” Anyone considering spending
their money on one of these archiving “services” will undoubtedly get a
carefully researched, painstakingly documented copy of their music,
performed by an old pro. After all, he charges by the hour. With any luck, he
won’t hijack your tapes and hold them for ransom on some remote
Caribbean island.
Tmidgett
that roger nichols site is unbelievable
a half-step removed from mfrs of 'hi-fi' cables
>>"Digital Atomics is very meticulous about the quality of their work. Every
effort is made to insure that each tape is transferred to archival media at
the highest possible resolution resulting in an archival copy that will be
indistinguishable from the original...If no additional resolution is obtained or
necessary, then 16 bit storage will be the final format."
'we will clone it, unless sketching it out with a crayon is easier'
this is the product of great desperation, so i feel marginally bad for him on
that front. sort of.
Danmohr
Quote:
Most record companies are not aware of the fact that if you re-
master a digital tape (the original mixes) you are producing a 24 bit
high resolution signal inside the mastering console, even if the
original mix is only 16 bits. This high resolution version can be re-
released in the new high resolution format.
Oh, those foolish record companies! I'd like to see the math on this one.
Does the extra 8 bits of precision get stored in the mastering console? Why
don't I just "archive" my masters as MP3's? When archeologists digging
through the charred remains of the Earth "need" them, I can just safely
assume they'll magically transform them into "state of the art" high
resolution versions using this new math. Anyone who has ever converted
MP3's to WAV files can attest to the fact that the information lost in the
original translation can only be roughly guessed at or interpolated. Or
anyone who has ever tried increasing the resolution of a 72 dpi JPG for the
web and printing it on a laser printer. It looks peachy, let me tell ya.
And who the fuck am I going to sue in 267 years when my white funk band's
17 minute cover of "Paint the White House Black" won't play back on my
archival Discman?
Tim, are you referring to such Hi-Fi sites as this?
http://www.silveraudio.com/design.htm
http://www.magnan.com/column.shtml
All those big words just convinced me that I need to start spending $300 a
meter on all my cabling needs...
Tmidgett
danmohr wrote:
Quote:
Tim, are you referring to such Hi-Fi sites as this?
http://www.silveraudio.com/design.htm
http://www.magnan.com/column.shtml
yes, tho this guy is the king, so far as i have found:
www.vansevers.com
of course you can make a speaker cable that will fuck with the signal before
it comes out of the speaker. you can add passive networks to the signal
path and enclose them in a plastic box at the end of your cable. i have heard
various speaker cables that color sound in this way, usually by adding high
end, which will fool people into thinking normal cable is missing something.
has anyone ever looked inside the connectors on the monster 'bass guitar'
cable? i tried one once, and it sounded extremely muddy. i was pretty sure
there was a low-pass filter in there someplace, but i wasn't going to buy
one just to find out.
probably you can make a power cord that divides out part of the wall AC and
thereby lowers the AC voltage to the amp, the DC rails of the amplifiers in
the amp, and the sound of the amp in the process. easy to do w/tube amps,
not so easy w/SS if they are properly regulated....
but, obviously, these devices are not 'overcoming' some flaw in the
reproduction process. they are coloring the sound as surely as one would by
turning a loudness knob.
i'd really like to do a blind a/b test sometime with various cords that do NOT
have these 'corrective' networks in them (but purport to be extra-specially
great) and plain old 14 gauge copper wire (properly shielded and terminated
with nothing special).
Russ
this is a common "tweak" in audiophile circles. It goes on the principle that
putting things (speaker stands, equipment shelves, etc.) on points reduces
the vibration trasferred to them by outside sources.
I don't really think it's that stupid of an idea. And it seems so common-
place these days in audiophile-land that I hardly take a second look. In fact,
my home speaker stands rest on four sharp pointed tips, and I built those
myself.
Steve
Gone Fission wrote:
Not to derail the slamming of Roger Nichols and/or Steely Dan [a
worthy and noble pursuit], but can I again ask for information about
the not-so modern formulations, or at least those for not-so-high
levels (911, 468, 406, and, well, ever more on 456 if there is more to
say)? Especially with the current Emtec news, should I be concerned
about stockpiling any of their product for my forseeable needs?
Bear
Hey:
We use BASF 911 for our 1/2-inch stereo machines daily. It has a similar MOL
(Maximum Output Level) to 456, and was intended as a practical equivalent.
406 is slightly lower in MOL, and slightly higher in noise than either.
468 is not a current product, I think.
For any tape, you should set recorder bias as a matter of routine, as tape
batches even of the same type can vary slightly. It also ensures that drift,
head wear and component tolerances don't interfere with your alignment
on a day-to-day basis.
I'm not a proponent of banging the tape with as much level as I can -- I
prefer to operate the tape within its linear range. Feel free to do otherwise,
but I can't give you any advice in that regard.
I have seen an incredible amount of utter bullshit written about "tape

compression" and such, and how hitting the tape hard makes your "tracks"
"phat," and how one brand of tape or another is The Sound. This bullshit
saddens me, as it is a distraction from the best attributes of tape recording:
it works, the recordings are faithful, and the system can take some abuse or
oversight without much trouble. Romanticizing it or attributing to it some
kind of Sound Magic is a red herring and belies an interest in avoiding the
real issues we have to contend with when making records.
-steve
best,
-steve
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Getting started With Analog Recording: Electrical Audio Forum Questions

Marco D
Hi!
I've been lurking on this board for a few weeks now and I registered because
I have a few questions I'm hoping you guys could answer. I'm 20 and have
no experience recording what so ever, but I've been reading allot of stuff
online and want to get into analog recording. I'm planning on buying a Teac
A 3440 4 track so I can record some demos for myself and some friends.
However I'm not exactly sure how this whole reel thing works. As I
understand it, each reel(The Teac uses 1/2" 10 inch tape yes?) only holds 2-
3 songs right? Okay, So how do you go about recording a session? Do you
have to keep switching through multiple reels ? Also when recording down
to a 2 track tape for mastering do you have to send multiple reels to the
mastering studio or something? Also Where can you buy reels and how
many should you have at any given time? Sorry if these questions sound
dumb but I think it'll help allot if you guys can explain reel to reel tape to me.
Also being a newbie, if anyone has advice to share on getting started
recording please share. Thanks!
Mark
Okay. First of all: the 3340 takes 10 inch reels of 1/4" tape. This comes in
varying thicknesses, and hence lengths. You should avoid the really long
tapes (3,600 feet or over) because the tape wil be thin and more prone to
print through and breakage.
Secondly: The number of songs you can get on a tape depends on four
factors.
1: The actual length of each song

2: The number of takes you commit to tape
3: The length of the tape
4: The speed you run it at
A 2,500 foot reel running at 15 IPS (the maximum speed of the 3340) would
give you about 33 minutes of music. So, if you keep the number of takes as
low as you can, you should be able to get a fair few songs on 1 reel.
Thirdly: no you don't need to send multiple two track reels to the mixing
house. Just mix all the tracks on the 3340 down to the two track and send
that.
Fourthly: I'm British, so I've NO idea where you'd buy reels of tape in the US.
Sorry
Chris hardings
If you're in New York, there's a place on 47th (i think) called AKY Wiring. they
carry tape, last i checked.
Otherwise, you can always just call up Quantegy (tape company).
You should also buy an MRL tape (alignment tape) for the machine. The
manual will explain how to align the machine.
good luck,
-Chris
Lehabs
Maybe I'm just getting older and not getting it anymore, but the more I see
young guys just starting out looking to get into recording and looking to
purchase 30 year old low end, analog recorders, I just have to ask why. Back
when I first got started, it was the early 80s. We only had the choice of stuff
like the 3340 or maybe a few cassette machines. I still remember the first
Fostex cassette 4 track our band bought. $1100 and sounded like arse. But
we were learning. There simply was no option of getting pro quality gear
back in those days and the concept of pro-sumer gear just wasn't really
there yet....but starting. So, my point...most of us started on some sort of
tape based recording. Now, the pro market was still 100% analog. You still
had to learn it if you wanted to either understand what was going on when
your band went to one of these facilities, or if you wanted to try to work in a
"real" studio someday.
Since then, we've made a complete transition and back to some extent.
Just about every studio out there has a PT rig, or some other DAW setup....if
not multiple ones for editing, etc.
Now, back to the main topic here....the young guy starting out looking to get
into recording asking about a reel to reel deck. Why? As has been pointed
out, the tape is going to be pretty expensive....$20-25/reel for 4-5 songs.
Then you're gonna need another open reel deck for mixdown....and then
another $20-25 reel for mixdown. Then what are you gonna do with the
tapes? Send them to a mastering house? Probably not....in most cases.
You're probably going to either take that 2nd generation tape and then
dump it into your computer, where you'll edit and then burn onto a CDR. Or,
you might learn to splice the tape properly and burn the two track deck
directly to a standalone CDR.
So, what have you gained? That classic tape sound? Hardly....
Unless the decks you're using are Ampex MM1200's to record and
something like the old Ampex 440's to mix down to. Oh, and only if you
really did send those mixdowns off to get properly mastered.
Then, you'll maybe get that coveted "tape sound". This leads me back to my
first statement....if you're recording on a 30 year old 3340, then the quality
you're getting can probably be beat with a modern, new cassette 4 track
that you can get for a few hundred bucks at Guitar Center. It's not as sexy,
or cool, but actually about the same fidelity. OK, maybe I'm taking this a bit
too far. Let me back up. If you get really lucky and purchase a 3340 that's
still running at factory specs and the headlife is still really good. Say you do
spend the $75 or so and get the proper MRL tape and align the deck like
you're supposed to. You get the manual for the deck and do all the other
adjustments to your deck...or should I say decks.....then, it will sound better
than a modern cassette recorder. But, will it beat something like a
Digidesign 001? The beauty of the 001 or whatever DAW you happen to want
to work on, is unlimited recording time....only dependant on your harddrive
space, which is dirt cheap these days. Also, learning PT is a sure way to get
you a job in a real studio....probably faster than splicing tape.
OK....I really don't mean for this to be an argument on digital vs analog as I
know there are differences. But these differences are just as swayed as a
scene in a Michael Moore film. Good analog is amazing. Good digital is great
too. The key is to record a great musician, playing nice instruments with
good mics into good pres. You want to add some grit? Get some iron in your
signal path. The whole "tube" thing is such a marketing ploy as well....don't
even get me started on that one....I'll have to save it for another rant. Neve,
API, Trident, 1176's, U87 etc......transformers/iron is where that old school
grit is at. Tape or digital....you use a signal path with some of the above
names and I guarantee you it'll sound great.
n.c.
So to me, the issue is not that by 'going analog' you'll get better quality than
spending the same amount of money on a digital set up, or a modern
cassette 4-track, and I would have to say that the Teac is not the way to
go.....(Otari 1/2 inch MX5050?) to me the idea is that you are learning age
old techniques.... You'll upgrade eventually, and you'll work out of pro
studios sometimes......
But to dude that knows jack and wants to start recording - INTERN. Find a
halfway decent studio with analog AND digital set ups, tell them you know
jack but really want to clean their toilets, learn how to conduct yourself as
an intern, and when you've got plans to go to the water park on a Saturday,
and the studio calls and needs someone in an hour to assist for the next 12
hours, GO.
And get a subscription to Tape Op (if you haven't already).
Marco D
Thanks for he replies. This has been really helpful . I am buying a 4 track
tape just to learn on but eventually I'd imagine I'd upgrade.... kinda like if I
bought a digi001 or mbox I'd eventually get a Pro Tools HD rig. Hmmmm...
there is a pro studio close to my school that has a 24 track Studer machine
and a Pro Tools HD rig, perhaps I should bother them. Alright, well since
more than one person has told me the Teac is crap are there any 4- 8 track
tape machines you guys would recommend? Thanks again!
Lehabs
I hate to sound like i was saying teac/tascam is crap. It's not. It's just that
when these decks were new, they were little more than consumer grade
stuff, not studio grade quality....if that makes sense. I just think that guys
read in tapeop and other places things like "tape sounds fatter" or "analog is
better" and take them as blanket statements. They are far from that. As I
said before, a real analog 2" deck, like a properly maintained Studer with a
great board and great mics is the pinnacle. But, use that same great board,
mics and other gear and you'll have a decent sounding digital recording as
well....assuming you use top notch converters.
So....I can't get started on another rant....I've already reached my 1000
word limit on this thread.....haha....
There are some great deals on analog decks these days, but you still risk
getting one that's worn out or just not working. Isn't there a thread going
around now where someone has a Tascam 38 that got an estimate of $1500
to fix it? Imagine if that was a more expensive deck to begin with and better
yet...a Euro company that's out of business or just about......
Heads can always be built for an older deck, but it's gonna cost you.
Some decks to look for might be some of the Otari MX decks.....Studer, MCI,
Ampex....even the Tascam 48 or 58 are nicer decks.
If you want to learn tape decks and splicing, etc....why not keep your
current setup and just pick up a two track, mixdown deck. You could still
record stuff and dump it into a computer for editing, etc...then use the deck
to mix the whole thing back to. This might be the best of both.....and a bit
cheaper of an experiment.
Dylan
Before I agree or disagree with lehabs' approach to what you're trying to do,
Marco, I'd have to know also why you decided to invest in a reel-to-reel
recorder. I agree that recording is fun and one should be able to know why
certain decisions result in certain sounds (this is mostly in favour of analog
recording, but I'm trying not to dredge up that whole argument again), but
there are 4 track cassette recorders that are under $100 right now that will
probably be warrantied for quite some time. Splicing tape is pretty cool, but
if you're working off a 1/4" reel, it's almost the same as opening up a
cassette case (which is really frustrating in a fun way) and splicing that tape.
So, what gives?
Toomanyhelicopters
is this for real, that there are cassette-based recorders that can rival 15ips
1/4" tape? aren't even the fanciest of newer cassette 4tks using much,
much lower tape speeds than that? i mean, i got some sounds outta my old
tascam cassette 4tk that i was proud of, and am still proud of, but how bad
of shape does a 15ips 1/4" machine have to be in before it sounds like
3.75ips cassette?
does that tascam in question have a mixer built in? that's another benefit of
the cassette gtr center box over the normal reel to reel, that you don't have
to spend hundreds more on a mixer that'll maintain your fidelity.
i've been recording for almost 15 years, and i still haven't had the pleasure
of owning a multitrack reel to reel machine. the investment of space and
money have kept me away. i could barely afford all the money i spent on
cassettes for my tascam!
this is a whole can of worms, the relevance of all the components along the
signal path... but when considering the amount of money that needs to be
spent on mics, cabling, preamplification/mixer, storage devices, power amp
and speakers for monitoring, and then actual media for recording... for the
new entrant, is it best to split the money across all parts of the chain and
end up with a sorta crummy though consistent signal chain, or is it better to
concentrate on getting quality components for one component at a time
until there's a usable system there?
just thinking about the upgrade path...
me, i've focused on the mics and mixer before the tape machine. i'd rather
do a mediocre job of recording something that sounds nice than do a great
job of recording something that sounds like dirt.
Lehabs
Hey Toomanyhelicopters,
Good points there....this is sort of the message I was shooting for. I sorta
turned it into the analog vs. digital thing...nearly, but really tried not to.
These are the exact points I wanted to bring up.
IMO, get good shit. Looking back on all the crap products I bought over the
past 10-15 years....I wish I'd just bought one really good mic, or pre or
whatever and worked on that. A room full of mediocre gear will give
mediocre results.
I just think too many young guys think that they can take all that same
mediocre gear and record it on a cheap, worn out tape deck and it'll sound
like albini.
Endofanera
I had a 3340 years ago, and the sound quality at 15 ips, even when the deck
was perfectly aligned and well-maintained, wasnt significantly better than
my latter generation Tascam cassette 4-track (a 424? 446? I can never
remember the model numbers). It was way better than the cassette 8-track
I had though, that's for sure. So yeah, I'd say the cassette 4-tracks of the
late 80s/mid 90s are about as good sounding as the prosumer R2R 1/4" 4-
tracks from the late 70s.
TheMilford
bump.
So, I'm also looking to get an open reel deck such as a TEAC 2340 or 3340s
to record a solo record on. I want something cheap and a sliver better
quality than the Tascam 4-track I've been using (414 mkII).
I used to have a TEAC 3340 and I remember it sounding fuller and bassier
than the Cassette 4-tracks I had used up 'til that point (Tascam 424, porta...
etc.) but with a little more noise. This machine was never calibrated but was
in excellent condition.
I have a hard time believing that with proper calibration and a clean quiet
signal path before the deck one wouldn't yield excellent results.
Has anybody else done any recent comparisons of cassette 4-track vs. 1/4"
consumer open reel 4-tracks?
What tape formulation is ideal for these decks?
What is the best way to avoid noise problems due to the unbalanced
architecture of these decks?
Any recent or old wisdom is appreciated.

Ginandtacos.com
Think of this as an analogy to being a listener deciding between CD and vynil.
If you only have $100 to spend, buy a damn CD player. It's going to sound
much, much better than a $100 turntable. Which will be a piece of shit.
It's not worth it to buy the turntable unless you're willing to make the
investment to do what is necessary to make it sound as good as (and then
better) than comparably priced CD players.
Any yahoo can go buy digital recording tools to make one's home computer
into a serviceable recording device, usually for < $500. To get an analog
system that sounds decent or better is going to be a much larger
investment. So only you can decide whether it's worth it. Do you have the
money to invest? If so, are you willing to invest it? There's little doubt that
analog provides a superior product. But to a young person starting out -
unless they happen to be independently wealthy - it makes far more sense
to go digital.
Endofanera
TheMilford wrote:
g&t,
Thanks for the advice... but I'm not exactly sure this answers my
question...
First off I appreciate your CDP vs. RP comparison, I do understand

that. I have a turntable worth about 4 times my CDP and I used to
work in a Hi-end Hi-fi shop.
I do like the feature of long term archiving with reel to reel tape. I
have quite a bit of unfinished 1/4" 4-track stuff from years ago that
may or may not be a part of this project... as well as some 1/4" 2-
track masters.
I would rather spend a few hundred bucks and some of my time to

acquire and calibrate a tape deck than to save up for a appropriate
computer, interface and software to do the same thing. One is a
format I am relatively familiar with and would only need on more
piece of gear the other would require me to learn a whole new
process as well as possible $1000+ worth of equipment.
My real concern is the argument above about the quality of 1/4" 4-

track consumer decks VS. the casette 4-track format and the
respective sound quality issues.
I think your memories are about right.
You wrote:
I used to have a TEAC 3340 and I remember it sounding fuller and
bassier than the Cassette 4-tracks I had used up 'til that point
(Tascam 424, porta... etc.) but with a little more noise. This machine
was never calibrated but was in excellent condition.
And I think you're right. As I recall, at 15 ips the TEAC did have a little better
bass response/reproduction (a little) and was noisier (actually more than a
little) than a latter-generation Portastudio.
Without getting into sound quality specifics, (the + and - of each deck),
that's more or less what I said.
Just before that, I wrote:

I had a 3340 years ago, and the sound quality at 15 ips, even when
the deck was perfectly aligned and well-maintained, wasnt
significantly better than my latter generation Tascam cassette 4-
track (a 424? 446? I can never remember the model numbers).
Then, a second later, I wrote:

So yeah, I'd say the cassette 4-tracks of the late 80s/mid 90s are
about as good sounding as the prosumer R2R 1/4" 4-tracks from the
late 70s.
That's all. The later portastudios are not significantly better. A 3340
(actually, I recall now that I had a 3440, but theyre basically the same deck)
is not significantly worse. Theyre about the same.
My 3440 did yield excellent results. So did my (and other folks') later (and
even earlier) portastudios that I used. But even taking my respective
recording skills at the time I owned each deck out of the picture, I dont think
anyone would have confused the fidelity of a recording from either deck
with something done on a 16 or 24-track pro deck running 2" tape.
I think you should get one. Theyre wicked cheap these days.
Rayj
As someone who was in your situation about 15 years ago, I hope you enjoy
the experience of making half-assed recordings with borrowed/semi-
broken gear as much as I have.
I found a Teac 40-4 at a local thrift store, paid Tascam like 70 bucks for a
photocopy of the original service manual, borrowed some electronic
equipment from my grandfather, and came out of it with a serviceable 4-
track recorder. It sounded great to me with my new Mackie 6-channel
mixer and a couple of AKG3000B's I used my student loans to buy. Real
drums sounded roomy and cool, without any compression (other than tape
compression). It was still pretty noisy, but boy did it sound better than
cassette 4-track and cheap Soundblaster A/D converters.
I think digital recording is a great way to affordably learn the processes

involved, which is what you are really looking for. Hard drive space is MUCH
cheaper than tape, and you can rapidly delete all evidence of your mistakes.
Once you genuinely understand those recording principles and processes,
you can go to a studio/guitar center/wherever and apply that knowledge to
higher quality gear. For me, this became a wildly satisfying, hopelessly
frustrating, and ultimately expensive experience.
I have now made a pile of reasonably cool 'experimental'- type recordings,

as well as many so-so recordings of what are usually so-so performances
by my own bands and friends who can't/shouldn't pay to record at real
studios. I like doing it a lot. It is a fun, expensive hobby. I love having piles of
clear, detailed documentation demonstrating how sloppy my playing can
be...
When my band cleans up, I'm gonna save to fly us to Chicago and record at
EA.
Danmohr
TheMilford wrote:
What is the best way to avoid noise problems due to the unbalanced
architecture of these decks?
Unless you live in a power station or a machine shop, noise induced during
the cable transmission is probably the least of your noise worries. Also, stick
with unbalanced gear throughout and you'll have far less wacky
interconnect issues to deal with (which can be hellish if you don't make
your own cables). I had/have a Tascam 38 and the M8 (?) board that it was
designed to work with and the two play really well together - better than
they play with other gear, that's for sure. It seems totally valid to match up
some key pieces of gear (board and tape machine) since they'd be designed
for each other and tested well under those circumstances. I can tell you that
having two pieces of gear now which were never designed to be within
spitting distance of each other (Neotek Series IIIc board and Tascam MS-16
tape machine), it can be quite shitty to go the other way. Your mileage may
vary.
Msmith4060
Hey you gotta start somewhere. I think that the issue here may be of
diminishing returns for what you spend on that make/model recorder. The
real thing is to be honest with yourself. I know when I started, ADATs and
2"s ruled the scene. I used tape, went digital, and I now use both. When I
went back to tape, people made fun of me. Whatever....If its something you
want to learn....Only one way. Jump in. Dont be afraid. As long as you are
cool with the learning curve(time money etc)and and you are having a good
time....fuck everyone else...
Awesome.
Matt
Abbey Road Mastering For Vinyl: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Run joe, run

I'm sorry to start a new topic about this coz I know that one already exists
but I couldn't find it.
I'm doing some records soon that are to be released exclusively on vinyl, for
an independent label. I have attended all my previous mastering sessions,
but never been there when a record is "cut". I have questions.
1). At the mastering sessions I have sat in on, the mastering engineer has
applied eq and compression etc, burnt a red label (?) cd which has been
then sent off to the cd duplicators/vinyl pressing company, and that's it. So,
I'm wondering, when the vinyl is cut (specifically at Abbey Road but
generally anywhere else, too), is further eq and compression applied?
If so, as these records will be exclusively on vinyl, is it still appropriate to go
through the "first" mastering stage, or would I be better just taking my mix
straight there, to the cut?
2). I read about the DMM thing. Does the quality of this depend heavily on
the engineer executing it? People were mentioning different Abbey Road
guys....
3). Ballpark - how much is it? I know I could get a quote from Abbey Road
and I know it depends on how many tracks etc, but it would be cool if some
of you guys could tell me what you paid, as I'd like to start convincing the
label about this....
As ever, any responses most welcome. Thanks dudes.
Cgarges
You can email them at their website (www.abbeyroad.com) and they will be
most helpful for your particular situation. I've never had them do a vinyl
master for me, so I'm not sure what their specific process is. I can say that
Chris Blair has some fantastic ears, is very fast, is very friendly, and does
really terrific work.
Benadrian
I may be wrong, but don't a lot of lathes use a digital delay to delay the
sound being cut for the time of one revolution so the cutting head knows
how far to advance the next groove when that sound, then coming from the
delay, is actually cut?
I think I read somewhere on here that DMM lathes have a 2nd playback head
for monitoring.
http://electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=190&highlight=preview+he
ad
I'm betting if you skimp on mastering costs, you get an unwanted, probably
unannounced AD -> DA process.
ben Adrian
Noah
while i was "mastering" a recording to half inch, someone said "the record
will probably end up digital, because they do that" and i said "i will certainly
not take resposibility for fucking up this thing."
there are definitely a lot of places that seem to make digital records. i have
certainly heard analog DMM records though, without a question, and that
seems like an important thing to find out before sending the master.
otherwise, why don't you just make a CD?
i just had a record mastered by acoustech onto lacquer, and i'm pretty sure
it's analog, otherwise i'll demand a full refund. in fact, any information on
acoustech's quality would be welcome.
-noah
tmidgett
Quote:
may be wrong, but don't a lot of lathes use a digital delay to delay
the sound being cut for the time of one revolution so the cutting
head knows how far to advance the next groove when that sound,
then coming from the delay, is actually cut?
you're right
this is the common way to do it
it's not quite like mastering vinyl from a cd, mainly b/c the delay is normally
a very good one--24bit with a high sampling rate. which just isn't going to
make much audible difference. i say this as someone who kind of hates cds
for what they've done to lps.
*abbey road*, however, can do an all-analog cut. we have had...let's

see...for sure two records cut this way. they sound so much better than the
cds, it makes me cry that we may never have another album on vinyl.
i have never compared an A/D->D/A vinyl master to the same thing done
all-analog, however
abbey road cuts to metal. they may do lacquers as well, but i don't know
why you'd want to use lacquers if you can do it to metal. some guys claim
the lacquer masters have rock and roll balls that the metal masters don't. i
think this means a) the lacquer masters are not as clean, and b) those
mastering guys can only do lacquer masters.
i think i can accept digital audio once you get into 24bit words. the higher
sampling rates probably make a difference, from 48kHz to 96kHz anyway.
but the 16bit word length used on CDs is totally absurd.
Noah
Quote:
i think i can accept digital audio once you get into 24bit words. the
higher sampling rates probably make a difference, from 48kHz to
96kHz anyway. but the 16bit word length used on CDs is totally
absurd.
it may sound decent in theory, but there will always be people (i'm one of
them) who will place a digital record in a certain part of their minds. such as:
"it's a record, but it's not REALLY a record"
or: "i wish this record sounded better"
records are cumbersome, and a lot of places will try to tell you that they do
it the only way, when really they don't. if i had the choice of doing a digital
DMM or an anolog laquer, i would choose the laquer without a question. if
you are going to do a record, do it correctly.
154
Noah wrote:
i just had a record mastered by acoustech onto lacquer, and i'm

pretty sure it's analog, otherwise i'll demand a full refund. in fact,
any information on acoustech's quality would be welcome.
-noah
well, you're probably gonna want your money back. i found their webpage
and saw that their signal chain is mostly digital. however, it'll probably
sound pretty amazing (based on RTI's typically high standards) so why worry?
edit: they also listed some sort of 'groove computer' under their cutting
devices, which i'm guessing means digital preview.
Noah
what the shit? kevin said it was analog. i'm calling him tomorrow
also, to elaborate, because your comment is flipping my shit, if there is no
one to do an analog record, we will dub cassettes. i am not going to sit
around and have people listen to a bunch of numbers. so that brings me to
the next question. where do bands get it done? there has to be a mastering
place that's not shitigal. and kevin gray is a hard guy to get in contact with.
i'm going to be on edge for days.
Goosman
So, if you can't tell that it was pure analogue, why get your knickers in a
twist?
n.c.
This reminds me of something I learned a long time ago, and I didn't believe
then, but kind of do nowWhen I was interning and thought (oh, it's got to
always be all analogue, always!) a dude was recording basic tracks to 2", but
then was doing overdubs on DA88s (so they could record some overdubs in
a cabin in the woods). He sort of aknowledged that this was fucked up, but
he said 'we're mixing the whole thing to 1/4" so that keep the digital stuff
from sounding too digital. As long as there's an analog link in the chain, it's
acceptable'. I still only patially agree with this, but I'd much rather listen to
an LP that was cut off a CD than listen to the CD.
My point is that if it's an LP, your playback medium is analog and you're
listening to analog sound. The lathe is not going to cut little 0s and 1s so the
issue is what's already been done to it.
If fidelity is the be all end all of your existence, kill yourself now because
you're going to chase that last hidden high for the rest of your days.
Ike
How does that new-ish SACD 'mastering' or sound figure into this?
I got the new Mission of Burma album, and I think it sounds great. A bit
more 'seperated', I'd say. More than what you ask? I guess more than some
other albums I've heard.
Things sort of pop in and out, and it's a pleasurable listen. And the songs just
simply rule.
Nick92675
noah and jet should get in a band together. hi jet!
so, do you have an issue with running your drum ambient mics through a
digital delay before they go to tape?
154
Noah wrote:
what the shit? kevin said it was analog. i'm calling him tomorrow
it might be (doubt it though unless he's doing something 'special' to

accomodate you).
this guy in Denver can do all analog mastering by special request (meaning
more $).. www.aardvarkmastering.com . i doubt it will sound as good as the
plates you're probably gonna have destroyed, but at least it won't be
corrupted by stair-stepping, cold, crappy digital gear such as Weiss or
Cranesong..
steve
154 wrote:
they also listed some sort of 'groove computer' under their cutting
devices, which i'm guessing means digital preview.
The azimuth computer is an analog drive amplifier matrix that moves the
cutter head to make room for each groove in succession. It is not a
mathematical computer.
Not to enter this debate, but if I were told that my master was being cut all-
analog, I would expect the mastering engineer to know what that meant,
and to not be lying to me. If it is important to you, you have to ask. Even
those places with the capability for all-analog mastering (sometimes called
"preview" cutting) don't do it as a matter of course. It's a service you would
need to ask for.
There are places that have really good mastering which is not directly from
the analog playback (John Golden, for example uses a 24-bit Weiss/
Harmonia Mundi transfer desk), yet still do good work. Abbey Road will often
cut from an equalized 24-bit Sonic System file if the masters are being cut
at a later date than the "mastering" session. Their systems are impeccable.
I don't believe it is possible to do good work digitally without equipment of

the highest caliber, and most places that offer mastering do not have it.
They will have a couple of nice computers and a couple of nice bits of
outboard, and the whole system will be built to that compromised standard.
I also don't believe it is possible to do consistently good work without many

years of experience, and most digital places are relative novices, compared
to vynil cutting rooms.
That said, these are discussions one should have with the mastering
engineer prior to the work being done.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Noah
i talked to kevin gray before the job and he said it would be all-analog, so i
didn't press him on it. i might have done well to be more insistant.
about the idea of softening sharpness after mastering: you can't analogize
sound. you can soften it, but you can't regain the qualities that make it good
in the first place. imagine playing a cd through speakers in a concert hall,
and recording it onto tape. the sound is analog, but you're further
distancing it from reality, and it is A) not necessary and B) an all-around
shitty thing to do. it just doesn't work.
n.c.
That's just it. When it stops being about music, and becomes about a label
or boasting rights, that 'no digital tools were used in the making of this
record' I think that's just shit. If it sounds good, it is good.
154
steve wrote:
154 wrote:
they also listed some sort of 'groove computer' under their
cutting devices, which i'm guessing means digital preview.
The azimuth computer is an analog drive amplifier matrix that

moves the cutter head to make room for each groove in succession.
It is not a mathematical computer.
Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to witness a traditional-style cutting

session one day as I find it fascinating. yes i'm a dork.
To throw another monkey in the wrench, I'd suggest that there are specific
instances when digital processing in the cutting stage might actually sound
(get this) BETTER than an all analog transfer.. instances where you might
need a very accurate digital multi-band compressor (such as de-essing
some of the tape hiss out of your analog cassette recording), or a look-
ahead limiter, or post-mix sequencing/complex cross-fading, whatever.
just pick the best engineer you can, trust his experience and tools to get you
the best sounding record possible (which might be all analog, might not)
and forget about what the process looks like on paper.
Noah
Quote:
That's just it. When it stops being about music, and becomes about a
label or boasting rights, that 'no digital tools were used in the
making of this record' I think that's just shit. If it sounds good, it is
good.
those stickers are very informative. i have one of them stuck to my door.
as for the cassette de-essing, when we put the cassette to half inch, we
tried both ways. they both sounded good, because this guy's equipment
was very good, but there was something very unfriendly about the digital. it
was similar, cause it was 196 something or other, but it didn't cause the
same effect. the random guitar noise was much more natural without
converting it. every so often i hear a record that was converted at some
point in the process. the difference is most audible in acoustic instruments,
such as guitar or piano, and drums.
Recording Drums: Whose Perspective? – Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Whose perspective
Drummer's perspective 63% [ 26 ]
In front of drums perspective 29% [ 12 ]
Anything else 7% [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 41
Max
Drummer's perspective - Hi-Hat left, floor tom right
- In front of drums perspective - Hi-Hat right, floor tom left
- Anything else - Kick drum left, snare right, mono drums, etc.
I'm not a drummer but I find myself panning my overhead and tom mics
more and more to create a drummer's perspective stereo image.
I just got used to it and have to adjust for a second whenever I hear a record
with In-front-of-the-kit stereo.
What's the word?
Steve
I figure the drums should sound normal to the drummer who played them.
In the same way stereo piano sounds "wrong" to me if the bass is on the
fight (opposite the way it would be if I were sitting at the piano) It usually
sounds more normal with the drums panned to fit the drummer's
perspective. It's the least we can do for them.
Which side what is on depends on the right-or-left- handedness of the

drummer. Today, for example, it's hi-hat on the right, as it's a lefty
drummer.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
A vs B
yeah, I always do it from the drummers perspective. It just feels right that
way
toomanyhelicopters
no question, drummer's perspective.
i would also submit that the "in front of drums perspective" is a bit of a false
one, since listening to a kit from out front, it doesn't have very much of a
stereo image to it in the first place. versus sitting behind a kit, it has a much
more spatial quality to it.
but regardless of that, hihat on the left, ride on the right. oh, and my guitar
more toward the left, and your guitar more toward the right. >
bdp
Weird.
I'm a drummer (right-handed playing crossed-over so that I hear my hi-hat

on my left) yet I love hearing and recording the drums from the audiences
point of view.
Like, always.... (unless I get particularly vehement request otherwise)
bdp
MTAR
I used to always do drummer's perspective. However, just recently our band
recorded an EP entirely live in the studio. When mixing we wanted to
represent the band as we sound live, so we mixed the drums from the
audience prespective. When mixing other bands' records I now just ask the
band and the drummer. To my initial surprise, most of the bands have
prefered audience perspective to drummer's perspective. I am ambi-
panoramorous, so Ill do whatever the band wants me to.
I disagree with the statement that when standing in front of a drum kit
there is no stereo correlation. Cymbals in particular, and depending on the
setup of the kit, toms also sound "stereo" to me. Obviously, it all depends on
how close you are standing to the kit, what the room sounds like etc. If you
are far enough away, even an orchestra won't sound "stereo" anymore.
mtar
_________________
Russian Recording
Push-Pull
Toomanyhelicopters
michaeltheangryrussian wrote:
I disagree with the statement that when standing in front of a drum
kit there is no stereo correlation. Cymbals in particular, and
depending on the setup of the kit, toms also sound "stereo" to me.
Obviously, it all depends on how close you are standing to the kit,
what the room sounds like etc. If you are far enough away, even an
orchestra won't sound "stereo" anymore.
think of it like this... the band is on a stage that's 20 feet wide. you're 25
feet away from them. the drum shells are essentially dead-center, the
guitars are on each side of the stage and are totally outside of the drumkit.
yes, the cymbals *might* have some sort of stereo image to them.
assuming a fairly reflective wall behind the stage, maybe that stereo image
becomes a little less distinct.
get yourself up closer to the stage and the situation becomes more
dramatic: the drums have a wider stereo image, though it's still pretty
narrow, and certainly very narrow compared to the stereo image the
drummer experiences. but now the guitars are spread even further apart, to
the point where a record that goes for this perspective would have the
guitars hard-panned. who likes hard-panned guitars for anything except a
slayer album?
how do you mix it then? with the drums panned very narrowly, roughly dead
center, and with the guitars hard-panned? i'm all for mixing to recreate an
actual real-world soundscape. but i'm also a big fan of mixing drums to the
drummer's perspective, which yields a drum image that the listener would
only experience if they were sitting immediately in front of the kick drum.
which is not a real-world perspective i'm a big fan of.
Jon
i love listening to records on headphones when the drummer does a roll and
you can hear the toms bounce around your head. it's magical...
nick92675
Jon wrote:
i love listening to records on headphones when the drummer does a
roll and you can hear the toms bounce around your head. it's
magical...
fill goddamnit - IT"S A FILL! a roll is what starts off on the star spangled
banner. a fill is what everyone air drums to on that phil collins song "air of
the night" or whatever.
i used to be really confused when bandmates would try and tell me "do one
of those cool rolls there..." and i was like, that's the worst idea i've ever
heard, because of course, they meant to say fill, and i was hearing roll....
your resident crabby drummer...
instant_zen
I have a story that I think demonstrates my opinion:
I was listening to Shellac At Action Park a few days ago with headphones on.
It got to "Crow," when I realized that it sounded rather peculiar. As it turns
out, the reason for this was that the high tom/hi-hat sounds were coming
from my right phone, and vice-versa.
This caused me to realize I had my headphones on backward.
So that's my stance: if it's not from the drummer's perspective, it just

sounds strange and unfitting. Although I will say that I like the sound better
when a snare is centered--I don't know if that's "standard protocol" or not,
but when it's panned slightly left, I can't say I really dig it.
Rigsby
I like the sound of quite a few records with the audience perspective but
when it comes to my own stuff it usually sounds the wrong way round so by
default it's pretty much always drummer's perspective.
brad lepik
Looking at the way the poll was conducted kind of indicates a
preconception. I know there were really on two main ways to record drums
presented, but you did mention from the drummers prespective first.
Trying asking the question again to yourself out loud. To me it seems

strange present from the audiences prespective first. Presenting the
drummer's perspective first seems just to flow out easier, more natural.
Anyway I am a drummer, but on almost all albums I have listened to it

seems to be recorded from the drummers perspective. Something seems
strange about having the higher rack toms in the right speaker.
The third option I have heard on lots of older albums, where the drums may
be on one side, mono, or perhaps kick on on side snare on the other. Some
Beatles albums have these third set ups. It may have had more to do with
available tape space and not neccessarily desired techniques.
Redline
Beatles "Taxman" perspective: All of the drums on the left side, with the
tambourine on the right side.
Naw, drummer's prospettiva
Goosman
My wife and I are both drummers and we both agree to record/mix from the
audience perspective.
That's my standard unless the band/musician/"producer" says otherwise.

Belta
Quote:
The third option I have heard on lots of older albums, where the
drums may be on one side, mono, or perhaps kick on on side snare
on the other. Some Beatles albums have these third set ups. It may
have had more to do with available tape space and not neccessarily
desired techniques.
the earlier beetles had a pan switch, not knob. hard right, hard left, center.
if they had a knob mabey the mix would be different.
drummers perspective
japmn
bring out the cross... I'll bear it.
"I LOVE MONO DRUMS"
FAT AND IN THE MIDDLE!!!
the japmn
bdp
Or... yeah, MONO!! I love mono drums; great phase coherence, no drum fills
starting somewhere on the west coast and ending somewhere in the east....
bdp
Sndo
Drummers Perspective (usually)
But a note on the audience perspective and perceived stereo width...
I stuck up drywall across the width of my basement to make isolation
booths and, of course, it did almost nothing to attenuate the sound of
someone playing on the other side. However, one thing I noticed that struck
me as incredibily odd was that I could still "see" the stereo image of the
drums through the wall... (the ride was on the left, and the hats were on the
right... etc...) it was spooky. I had assumed that by going through the wall
the stereo image would be nullified completely. But no.
Morze
i always do drummer's perspective for clients or anytime i play conventional
drumkits for someone else's record.
but for "my" own music:

i am a HUGE einsturzende neubauten fan- so all bets are are off!
Sndo
what's it mean to be an "einsturzende" fan?
Morze
50 gallon oil drum panned center.
large metal oven with kick pedal panned center.
plastic water-cooler jug panned 1 o'clock.
metal sheet or street signs panned around 3 or 9 o'clock.
tank shell "bell" at 11 o'clock.
metal bunkbed frame "bell" at 4 o'clock.
rattling metal chain hard left.
railroad spike "clave" panned hard right.
feild recordings of machine or faulty water heater noises in stereo or with
auto-panning effect.
power drill with self-panning stereo phaser.
etc. etc. etc.
you get the idea.
even with my normal drum kit- i once put all my toms into seprate auto-
pan effects of 3 different spx90's and hit them randomly throughout the
song.
i don't know if anyone would enjoy that but me- or even if it deserves the
title of "music"- but man, was it alot of fun!!!
losthighway
I always pan in an exaggerated version of audience perspective. Moreso
because people don't tend to do it, and that is reason enough when the
difference between 80% right and 80% left is mostly arbitrary. I can see
some drummers not liking the switch, but surprisingly it's never come up.
I did have a guitar player once insist I change his guitar on every song and
pan it hard right instead of left, because when he drives his car he can hear
the passenger side speaker better and wants to rock out more to his guitar
than the other player.......yeesh.
Mason
Drummer's perspective, exclusively. As a sometimes-drummer myself, I
suffer through mild cognitive dissonance whenever I hear hi-hats coming
through the right channel.
MrWarandieBoy
it depends on the way the drums are in the mix. if they're supposed to be
further back with a narrower stereo spread then i go with audience
perspective, but if they're supposed to be quite prominent in the mix with a
less roomy sound, then drummer's perspective. i find that anything other
than this sounds weird.
Frank Decent
This is probably a western thing, but I can't stand hearing the floor tom in
the left channel/ear. I always feel that the toms show roll from highest to
lowest pitch in the left to right direction. I tend to think of it like speech.
When you ask a question, you incorporate a rising inflection which makes
you sound of unsure. To me, a fill on the toms should sound like a
punctuatuion mark not a question mark. I associate this quality with moving
from left to right and that's probably from learning to read left to right. It's a
weird connection, I know but it makes the most sense to me.
Low End Recording / Mixing – Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Frank Decent
I did a search to not much avail. Maybe I suck at searching. Anyway, I have a
dumbass question:
How does one go about getting more low end out of the low end
instruments when recording? I listen to other records by real engineers and I
hear tons of low end from the bass, kick, even the toms. When I record
these things the low end is low, but not comparably low.
Now, obviously you need a dedicated low end mic to capture these
frequencies, however how does one squeeze more low end into a mix
without making these instruments too loud? Does it happen more in the
mastering stage? Is it a combination of mixing and mastering skills that i'll
never have?
Whenever I try and eq kick and bass with more low end, it gets too loud in
the mix so I lower the level of that instrument, which sets you back to
square one. I know there is something i'm not getting here. Please, help me.
Before I ask more dumb questions.
Zartoid
A few basics. Make sure the sound you are recording is the sound you are
hoping to hear i.e. the drum or bass is actually making the sound you
require. Then there is the labyrinth of permutations involving mic selection
and placement, only experience will help you there. If you are always relying
on boosting large amounts of bottom end with eq, then you may have the
wrong sound going in.
I think the low end you are asking about all happens at source. Do you have
more than one mic or pre to try this out ? The EQ relationship between kick
and bass is often a complimentary one, sometimes using more cut than
boost to make sure they are not competing for the same frequencies. A bit
of A/B wouldn't hurt, maybe choose a track where you like the bottom end
and put it through an analyzer taking a look at the basic shape of the low
end, where it rises and falls, then see if your bass and drums actually
contain these frequencies in amounts that will justify EQ boosting later on.
Otisroom
A Large diaphram dynamic mic will help with your low end. Do you have any
of these? If not try to get your hands on a Beyer TX-50 I got one used on
ebay a few months ago for $150. Other mics to try are Beyer M380, Shure
SM7, AKG D112 (not a fan).
Also your mic placement technique is important. Here's something from the
M380 thread I wrote about my current kick drum placement preference:
otisroom wrote:
I have an RE-20 as well. I know everybody has they're favorite kick
mic and I have used many configurations.
All kinds of large dynamics inside the drum almost up against the
beater with a fet47 outside the head (this tends to be kind of
standard around hollywood). I've built tunnels off the front of the
kick and placed mics at the end (bands dig this cause it looks
impressive and doubles as a couch fort). I've tried micing the shell.
Or the front head/beater side. PZM's laid in the bottom. Etc etc. All
of these are good tried and true methods.
But for the last six months I've really been smitten by 1 M380 inside
the kick somewhere between half way and 1/4 of the way in. With
the front side pointed right at the beater and (obviously) the back
facing the front head. With a small cut around 300hz and and small
boost in highs I get my all time favorite kick drum sound. Maybe it's
not for everyone but I really dig it.
To me it sound as good or better then having a close (slap/click) mic

and an outside (wump/low end) mic. Without using 2 mics and
having to deal with phase or tying up mic pre's etc.
Call me crazy. I'm going to buy a few of these things since they can't
be repaired anymore.
Bass guitar is it's own type of animal. It's hard to record bass and have it
sound the same as it does in the room in front of the amp. What I've been
doing mostly for a while now is micing the cab close with an LD dynamic
mic and splitting the signal after the guitar output into an avalon DI. Watch
for phase problems cause that will rob your low end blind.
Personally when I play/record bass I use an active pickup musicman sterling

with flats. Right into the avalon- into an LA3a compressor. No amp
(collective gasp). And it almost always works for me. But thats just personal
preference. Obviously I don't make people play through my rig. That would
be dickish.
dont drop bombs
I find that sometimes frequncies aren't quite where they would seem to be.
For instance, sometimes I get trebly guitars to stick out more and sound
more trebly by underscoring their inherant treble with some lo-mids or
even low end.
For the low end of a kick drum or a bass guitar, I like to put the lows where
they sound good on their own (without the rest of the mix), and then accent
them by placing the low-mids at about 2 o'clock, and then the hi-mids at
about 2:30 or 3 o'clock.
I'm not an ultra tech savvy person and this is just from my own personal
experience, but it could be worth taking a minute to try in the event that it
works for you.
Scott
with many mics (dynamic mics in general) you can get way more low end
than you need by using the proximity effect, where you put the mic so close
to the kick's shell or resonant head that the mic pics up a ridiculous amount
of low end.
if you don't want a ridiculous amount of low end, just a sensible amount,
move it just a little further away.
also, the room mic can add a lot bigness to the sound of the kick, toms, etc.
Frank Decent
Hey, thanks for the help. I'm going to try everything suggested, at least what
I can. I guess I just listen to anything put up against what i've done, and I
hear a much deeper bass across the entire mix. The bass in everything all
sounds like a lower frequency than I can reach with what i'm doing.
But anyway, thanks for the tips.

Dither During the Mastering Process – Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Happyandbored
I've often read that dither should only be applied once if possible.
However, it occured to me that while bouncing down in any app, bit

reduction is occuring. Eg, in Logic you are going from 32 bit float to 24 bit
fixed. Obviously, I dither down to 16 bit later post any mastering processes,
but I've always ensured dither is switched off when making the initial
bounce down to 24 bit.
So to summarise, my mixes are being truncated to 24 bit, before later being

dithered down to 16 bit. My brain tells me I should also be dithering to 24 bit
here too since bit reduction is occuring, but a lot of what I've read in the
past suggests this is bad and that multiple layers of dither 'muddy' the
sound. Since 24 bit is plenty resolution anyway, I've always figured it's best
not to take the 'risk'.
Of course, what's going on at the arse end of a 24 bit signal is not likely to be
making any particularly noticeable difference, so just using my ears here is
pointless. I'm just interested in which is in theory the least destructive
solution, regardless of whether it is actually detectable to the human ear: to
dither twice (once down to 24 bit and once down to 16 bit) or to truncate
down to 24 bit, dithering only once to 16 bit.
I understand a good deal about dither and bit depth, but there's a fair
amount of woo out there on this topic so it would be much appreciated if
anyone has a definitive answer on this.
Rodabod
I discussed dither not that long ago with a fairly knowledgeable engineer
who pointed out that at 24-bits, dither becomes less necessary since the
minimum noise level you could get out of a converter would sufficiently
"dither itself" as less dither is required at higher bit-depths due to the finer
resolution.
I might be so bold as to suggest that dither from 32-bit to 24-bit is

unnecessary, although I'd like to see proof as to whether this is true or not.
Quote:
I've often read that dither should only be applied once if possible.
True, or maybe "at least as possible" - when doing this particularly at lower
bit-rates, you'll increase noise and therefore lose s/n ratio.
Perhaps Bob Weston might have some thoughts on the subject if he's about.
Jeremy
At this point, all interfaces output (playback) at 24 bits. So even if you're
recording at 8 bit or 32 float, you're playing back at 24bit. Your forcing your
CPU to do a buttload more work than it needs to. This is why I always
suggest people to record at 24 bits, regardless of the apparent functionality
of 32 bit float.
Dither once, when you are converting to 16bit for audio CD.
Brian Madigan
Jeremy wrote:
Your forcing your CPU to do a buttload more work than it needs to.
A CPU isn't going to do any more work to process 32 bits per sample. Even
the oldest X86 had a 32 bit execution unit. Now most of them have lots of
parallel EUs in 32, 64, 128 bit pipelines. The only time more bits==more
work is when you have to serialize them over a wire.
Happyandbored
benversluis wrote:
If you haven't already, read "Mastering Audio" by Bob Katz. I had to
read this for my last class and it covers dithering very well.
Yes, excellent book.
On reflection, dithering any time there is bit reduction makes the most
sense, and I was just getting mixed up by (as opposed to in a dither over)
some poorly written mastering articles I'd read back in college years.
Although of course, multiple bit reductions should be avoided where
possible.
Pyramid Foam Between Double Windows? – Electrical Audio Forum

Questions
Winnebago
Watching the pics from the studio on this site I wonder why you put that
pyramid foam in between of the double-windows? Is there any special
reason? I know two opposite windows should have a different "weight" to
avoid building their own "resonating chamber". Does the foam give extra
help to that aspect?
Steve
The space between the two panes of glass is an air volume, just like a room,
and the resonances in it need to be damped.
MTAR
isn't that just that auralex absorption foam? that wont dampen much above
2 KHz, whch isn't getting through that glass anyway. I thought you guys put
it in there just to look nice...
skatingbasser
Below 2K?
MTAR
my bad, below. it wont dampen anything below 2K.
Kentucky Dimensions at EA? – Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Losthighway
Hi- I searched this and it has gone unanswered several times. Also, the link
to the room in the Studios section has great pictures but no dimensions.
I think the full answer to this would be outstanding because Kentucky is an
example of an attainable sized room for the average joe with great acoustics.
In other words, alot of us could build a Kentucky shaped/sized similar room,
but Center Field would require a mansion.
Gretz
I don't remember... but are there dimensions listed for the dead room of B...
i seem to remember them being roughly similar in size. maybe a bit deeper
for kentucky.
Otisroom
I don't think Steve wants to answer this question.
I should have brought a tape measure the last time I was there.
The dimensions are probably easy to guess but I think its the adobe bricks
that really make that room zing.
I have been mixing a record this week and some of the drum tracks were
done in kentucky. The room sounds so good I actually started searching
around for adobe manufacturers in my area. That shit really sounds good for
some reason.
Losthighway
He was so forth coming about all the other dimensions, I am shocked that it
is such a mystery. Perhaps there was some expensive alchemist
consultations that resulted in a metaphysical ratio...
They give you the stats on Center Field because none of us can afford the
room, but if everyone had a Kentucky there would be an uprising.......
Just kidding. Seriously, someone on here knows.
Otisroom
He's always been very generous about sharing info. So if this is the one bit
we don't get out of him then so be it.
If I was to guess I'd say the room was around 20 by 15 (maybe even smaller)
but it's the depth that's deceiving. It could be almost a 20 foot ceiling in
there counting the secret space beneath the floor.
Whatever it is... It is THE business as far as room on drums sounds go.
The metaphysical part is Steve himself. He's actually a 4th degree wizard I
hear.
Greg
I can't remember the dimension exactly 18-20' x 14-17' x 10-13'ceiling.
Now all you have to do is build a room out of adobe brick and glass (20-22'
high ceiling), suspend a concrete, mechanically isolated floor about 9' off
the real floor, then cover that in oak.
_________________
Greg Norman FG
Otisroom
I'll build myself a brick drum room someday. I'm closer to Arizona then you
guys so I might even use some adobe. I'll probably skip that 9 foot
mechanically isolated floor though.
Cgarges
otisroom wrote:
I'll probably skip that 9 foot mechanically isolated floor though.
I posted about this earlier, but there was some kind of error that didn't list
my post. To me, this is the coolest thing about this room and the studio in
general. Absolutely brilliant bass trapping. You could build a room that size,
but it wouldn't likely sound nearly as balanced without bass trapping that's
that effective.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
Otisroom
I agree that this is a crucial factor in the sound of Kentucky. But probably
not within my projected budget. I've built many other bass traps and will
have to find a way to trap my room differently when the time comes.
The Golden Age Of Recording – Electrical Audio Forum
Amateur Tools
Mastering engineer Steve Hoffman talks about the golden age of recording:
"I've spoken of the Golden Age Of Recording hundreds of times; all vacuum
tubes, small number of microphones, hardly any overdubbing, live groups
playing in the same space with no headphones or baffles on to pristine
Scotch 111 tape. Heck, some people bitch about what happened to this
sound all the time! Grumps, yes, but when you hear this sound you scratch
your head in wonderment that any engineer would want to change it. But,
change it they did the minute they could; more microphones, more cables,
no tubes, giant compression, etc. Such is life.
You know that in the 1960's it started changing to Solid State gear, more
channels, more isolation, more signal processing. So it goes.
You want to make a recording of your band that has the quality of a Buddy
Holly song? Get 4 Neumann microphones, feed through a small tube mixer
like an Ampex MX-35 onto an Ampex 350-2, live. Play it back. There you
have it.
As soon as the artists got a taste of the new "overdubbing" approach to
recording there was no going back. None at all.
So, many more channels, the need to keep the numerous mic preamps
quiet (use compression), the need to keep the 24 hissy tracks quiet (use the
Dolby System), isolated musicians to keep each instrument on its own track,
the need for headphones to hear everyone, solid state recording to keep it
cool in the studio and have less breakdowns, outboard devices to make the
sound "exciting", zealous engineers and producers who wanted total control
over the band's dynamics in post production and you have: The 70's! Turn it
to digital and you have: The 80's and beyond!
No one wanted to go back to the old way of grouping the musicians around
four microphones and recording everything live in one take, in a natural
space. It took the Audiophile Recording Style in the 1990s to figure out how
to do that again. And by that time Buddy was gone." - Steve Hoffman
Drums – Ambient/Room Micing: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Mason
I'm curious as to how you guys go about capturing that ever-so-crucial
ambient sound when it comes to drums -- the sounds that float around the
room and keep the mix from sounding so dead (as a simple direct mics-
and-overheads mix certainly will without it). What sort of tools and tricks do
you guys use when you go about doing this?
Dontfeartheringo
when you say "you guys," do you mean Electrical or anyone who feels like
chiming in?
Here's my $.02:
I run a pair of Cascade Fat Heads in the M/S configuration. I use the stereo
bar that they sent me with the mics. I set it about seven feet back from the
center of the bass drum, and six and a half feet off of the floor. I preamp
them with the M-Audio Octane, which happens to have channel 7 and 8 set
up for M/S mikes. The stereo spread there is adjustable, AND the matrix
apparently flips phase on one channel so you don't get cancellation. I do not
understand how that part of it works, but when I buss the side mics to pro
tools, I don't have to reverse polarity in the single band EQ inside pro tools
or at the pre amp.
the BEST sounding room mics I have ever heard were a pair of matched U47s
(surprise!) set about eight feet back at four and six o'clock from the bass
drum. I have never heard toms sound that nice.
Also, your room treatment is crucial to the point of actually being what we
should be discussing FIRST, then mics.
I have a room with a tile floor and an eight foot by eight foot carpeted drum
riser. The riser has some rock wool stuffed underneath to keep low freqs
under control.
I have sound traps in all of the corners- 30" by 48" frames with Owens
Corning 703 insulation inside. I have also mounted a couple of these on
every wall, offset from the wall by about three and a half inches. I built
these sound traps with plans I found here.
I didn't go crazy with the auralex yet, because I am pretty happy with the
room as it is now, but I am sure someone more competent could dial it in
for me. (Let me know when you need a vacation to a southern college town,
Otis...)
Omaroski
mine is a different home situation where i have the drum in one room and
the ambient mic in another room, not adjacent but with a hall and a
bathroom in between, so even if there is still no acoustic treatment in those
room there is natural reverb which i pick up using a microphone with the
highest output level sensitivity and the lowest self noise.
Rodabod
You need to experiment with trying mics in different places and seeing what
the effects are. It's good getting to know your room as well. Are there any
good sounding or bad sounding spots?
I like spaced pairs as they give nice depth, and can sometimes create a hole
in the middle of the stereo field where you can fit the other elements of the
drums.
Regarding tricks, I'm not sure if I'd call any trusted techniques tricks, but
quite a few people here seem to like the boundary/PZM method where you
place omnis on the ground pointing towards the drums. There were threads
regarding delaying room mics by several milliseconds too which offers a
couple of benefits including potentially increasing the perceived size of the
room and avoiding comb-filtering. I've tried it with cardioid condensers too
and it can be quite effective.
Benjaminwayne
i used to record in a wooden floored large open plan space with very high
ceilings (kinda like a church in fact.) i found that live or ambient sounding
drums sounded great in there with very little effort. i had success with using
just one mono overhead about 6 feet away from the kit and a couple of feet
above the cymbals, and also, when tracks allowed, i ran a pair of studio
projects, one parallel with the rim of the floor tom but a few feet away from
it and the other above the cymbal closest to the hi-hats. depending on what
kinda band i was recording (ie: if the drummer wasn't pounding away on the
hats/cymbals all the time) and the drummer had a dynamic playing style,
this technique worked quite well.
Recording Bass: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Xxalex
I’m looking for a little advice about recording bass for our next album. It's a
postrock type sound, that varies quite a lot: something along the lines of the
tortoise meets polvo. There are lots of delayed and ambient guitars that I'd
like a smooth low bass sound for and then there are bits of angular rock
where i'd like a more punchy sound.
(If it helps, you can listen to the title track from our last album here
(http://www.traceramc.co.uk/high/flux%20and%20form.mp3)
The set up is this.
Fender Mustang (new D'Addario strings) >> (pedals* big muff, akai headrush)
>> Ampeg SVT >> Ampeg 8x10
*pedals aren't being recorded yet (they'll be done separately)
Mics available are: D112 and AT4033.
I've taken the cloth off the front of the 8x10 and spent a day experimenting
with mic placement on this set up. I've been close miking the bottom 2 of
the upper 4 speakers.
Standing in the room while recording, the sound coming out of the amp is
bright and not boomy yet when I play it back the sound that's being
recorded is overpowering the rest of the mix considerably.
As I said before, I'm looking for a smooth sound where there is bass but the
notes and melodies that I'm playing can be clearly heard.
How can I make best use of the mics (placement) and how should I make
the amp sound in the room? Should I eq it with a lot more treble than usual
or should I record the sound that I'm getting and smooth it out with eq
during mixing?
How much of the bass sound that's recorded at electrical is the sound
recorded in the room and how much of it is affected by eq and compression
afterwards?
Hope you can help me,
Regards
Alex
Bob Weston
I've never used a DI for shellac or Polvo or 95% of the basses I've recorded.
I usually blend 2 close mics (maybe 6 inches away pointed straight on at the
center of the cone) when mixing.
Some combination of D112, Beyer 380, TGX50, 4033.
Probably a little compression.
Oh yeah, if you don't like the sound you're hearing in the control room, try
changing the EQ on the bass amp, not the console.
bob
InvalidInk
I know it is always best to try and get the absolute best sound out of your
equiptment before you put it to tape, but why are people so apprehensive
about using EQ on the console?
Bob Weston
Oh, I'll use the console eq. But why not get it right the first time?...make
some decisions as you go and don't keep putting all these decisions off until
you mix?
Also, ever wonder why the rough mixes often sound better and more
"rocking" than the "real" mixes? It's the console EQ.
Most inexpensive console eq adds phase shift. (I suppose the more the
console costs, the less phase shift?). If you eq a few channels you're fine.
But when you routinely go down the console, solo every track, and feel like
you need to add some eq to each track, the result is a mess.
Each individual channel, when soloed, sounds fine with the eq in. But sum
all 24 channels of phase shift together at the mix bus and no wonder it
never sounds as good as the rough mix.
bob
run joe, run

So that's why people always tell you to lay off the console eq.
shagboy
that only happens if you tracked everything at once, right?
Bob Weston
Nope. I'm not talking about relative phase shift between the same sound
sources showing up on multiple channels.
An ideal equalizer will only alter the amplitude of the signal at the desired
frequency. A real-life equalizer also alters the phase response as an
undesired by-product (or maybe desired if you happen to like that sound).
If you listen to a GML eq and a Mackie eq with the same settings and same
desired amplitude response (eq curve), you'll hear very different things
coming out the other end.
bob
Shagboy
that's interesting... what makes it sound worse? do good software EQs
change the phase as well? is this avoidable?
Bob Weston
At this point in my life, I don't think I can really explain it well. In 1988 when I
was fresh out of college with my EE I would have been able to. Maybe Tim
Midgett will speak up, being a recent EE graduate?
I'm told that the software EQ can be done without phase shift. But I'm sure
some software EQs add it in because it's a sound we're used to hearing. It
depends what you want to use the eq for: clinical/surgical/non-
invasive.....or sonic sculpting.
Lehabs
From what I've read, some software programs add more phase shift than
others. I think you are correct in that they try to emulate what their analog
counterparts do.
But, back to really good eq....GML, api, neve, pultec, etc.....
it's just as much about hitting the other circuitry in them as it is the eq
curves themselves. Stuff just sounds rockin when i put them through my api
560b, even when it's flat. Is it the op amp? The tranny? Who knows. It's that
"good gear mojo" workin'.
later,
cgc
A software Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filter will exhibit phase shift just
like it's analog counterpart. The high end Oxford, Cranesong and GML DSP
EQ uses a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter and these can be constructed
in a way that will not affect phase. I do a pretty poor job of explaining how
these filters work, but can provide both the equations and C code (possibly
even an Altivec FIR) if needed - audio DSP filter design is not my specialty.
LondonRoots
Hey guys,
I have done quite a few recordings at my Uni studio. I am doing a Music Tech
course and I have a reasonable and expanding understanding of the whole
process from capturing sound to the mix and production.
Its a pretty basic setup, Makie D(something) desk, 72 channels into a mac
with logic 7 pro. 2 x AKG C414s, 2 x Neumann M50, 2 x Oktava MK12,
SM57/58s, 2 x Rode NT1 1 x AKG D112.
I think I get the best sound from these microphones generally, but I have
never been happy with my bass guitar sound. I have used a Rode NT1 and
the AKG D112 to record it. The Rode amplifies certain low frequencies too
much, making some notes far louder than others, compression only slightly
rectifies this. The D112 doesnt define the sound enough, it lacks the punch
to get through the mix.
I am talking about light rock music generally, although I have an RnB band
to record in a couple of weeks. I really have got to nail the bass sound for
that.
With what I have, is it maybe best just to DI the bass?

What would be an ideal mic to record bass guitar?
What techniques do you guys use to record bass?
Is my problem something I could sort with EQ and compression? What might
you suggest? I'm particulally stuck about the EQ.
Thanks for your help,
Andy Hammond
Robot near failure

I have heard the D112 doesn't always work that great and I did not like the
rode on bass cabs either I'm not saying you have to have these 2 mic but I
use an re-20 right at the middle of the cone slightly compressed 3 to 1 4 to 1
tops and an at4033 on the edge of the cone slightly compressed very happy
with the bass tone.
Tmidgett
R&B--if they have old-school R&B bass sound, Beyer M380 has better low
end than any other mic I have heard. Beyer TGX50 is pretty much the same
thing
LondonRoots
Dam I love this site. Within 5 minutes there is some helpful replies. Thanks
guys.
I never thought of using two mics on a bass, now it is mentioned it doesn't

seem unreasonable.
Its great to hear what other people like to use, but unfortunately I don't
think I can afford to hire mics at the moment, and I am not charging for
recording bands atm. So keeping in mind the list of mics I mentioned at the
start, has anyone any suggestions to achieve the best sound available? Or
am I doomed to have whumfy bass :S
Andy
Robot near failure

I dont think your doomed, can you use one of those 414's on the edge of the
cone 4 to 1 compression and this might sound weird but try turning the d112
backwards in the center of the cone I'm not making promises but try it at
least then if not. Forwards and mix and blend with the 414 to desired taste.
Seaneldon
half direct/half amp
or
direct and then while in later stages of the recording, reamp it out to a killer
amp to get your "perfect" tone. i like reamping once to a clean bass amp
and once to a overdriven guitar amp.
btw: for reamping or just regular cab recording, i like electrovoice re20s,
at4047s, soundelux e47s, and c414s use a high headroom preamp.
Big John
or bass I usually use a dynamic mike, the type used for bass drums rated to
go down into the lower frequencies. I think your AKG is a dynamic and
although I do not own one I have sounded good when recorded with one. I
also use a LG Condenser some distance away 2 to 3 feet, and a DI. This
seems like over kill but by balancing the three I get the bottom end I like and
the warmth - color of the amp and the effects if any are used. The DI does
most of the work getting the very bottom frequencies and some attack as
well.
I think some of the frequencies on the bass amp take some distance to
develop or at least that is what I have been told (standing waves) so the DI
can capture this low end that is lost due to having to mike the amp fairly
closely due to bleed issues and it compensates for any loss of low end of the
bass passing through effects.
I usually do not play the bass amp at very loud volumes in recording studios.
I would use on stage and have smaller amps that capture my sound at lower
volumes as well my regular amp sound fine at lower volumes, during
recording so I don't know if your are, playing at stage volumes would -of
course- effect the recording and how what equipment you would use to
record it. Sometimes I have used a 2 - 15 cabinet and one speeker is miked
for the low end and the other for high with a different microphone. Many
times the mikes are blended to one or two tracks and the DI is on it's own
track.
I generaly do not use any compression on the bass. I sometimes use EQ

before the amp to get the best responce from the amplifyer and attempt to
have the bass sit well in the live band mix.
Scott
Well it's not one of the mics you have handy, but I've been pretty happy
with the SM7, on 15's and smaller speakers, too. And it's great for vocals.
And guitars.
Tds
I struggle to get a good (rock) bass tone with some of the same mics, so I'm
really interested in the responses to this, as much as being able to offer
advice. But based on my experience so far:
I actually found the DI out from my SVT was pretty passable once sitting in a
dense mix, but it did lack a bit of 'air' without a mic when exposed. The D112
is OK, but it does emphasise exactly the same frequencies as in the kick
drum if you also use it there, which can lead to a little bass build up.
Rode NT5 seemed surprisingly weighty and went low (the Oktava MK12
would be your closest equivalent, I think) and subjectively produced a very
realistic approximation of what I heard in the room - just a little 'sterile'.
Hard to explain! However for an R&B sound, rather than a slightly distorted
rock tone this might be OK.
I will definitely try with a AT4033 time next as I have access to one of these
- I have never found an application for that mic where I could live with its
colouration, perhaps this is it!
I know reamping has already been mentioned, but if you're nervous then
recording the DI direct from the instrument IN ADDITION to whatever else
you do is a good idea. Then you can always reamp if you're unhappy at
mixdown.
One other thing - when mixing two tracks of the same bass instrument
always try flipping the phase to see which gives the most 'solid' low end.
KilledByAlbany
Big John wrote:
I think some of the frequencies on the bass amp take some distance
to develop or at least that is what I have been told
I've found this to be the single most important thing about getting a good
bass sound in the studio. The lower the frequency, the longer the sound
wave takes to reach a pressure apex when travelling from the source. If you
have the room to do it, try taking the D112 and pulling it back from the
source a bit until you start to hear a little more of what you want. Then take
the NT5 and close mic the amp to get more of the "growl" and once you're
at the board, check your phase, and you can mix and match them to taste.
The RE-20 is also one of my first choices for bass. If you continue having the
same problems, be sure to keep an eye out for one. They are very
reasonably priced used. Plus they look like Darth Vader's cock. You can't
lose!
Bubbleboy
If you're using 2 mikes be VERY careful of phase, it can sound amazingly
weird on bass if you get it wrong. I've heard some engineers actually use it
positively to comb filter certain mids but this is seriously advanced and
dicey stuff.
The question I can't believe no one's asked so far is what bass and amp are
you using and how's the technique?
If the set up is poor you can use any mic you want and it'll still sound like
shit. If you have a great bass and a crappy amp just DI the bass, something
like a sansamp box is great for this but if you don't have one a regular DI box
coupled with an amp sim, (even a software one) can beat recording with a
crappy amp.
If the amp is good then pick just one mic. I don't know what kind of music
you're recording but if the bass is to be more of a feature then start with the
414, condensors tend to get more detail on the string sound. If you're
looking for it to "RAWK" then try the D112 again but maybe try driving the
amp or something (gain on the amp, lowish gain on a guitar drive pedal,
driving input on a tube compressor too hard etc) to get a bit of character
and definition on there, don't go too far or you'll loose those very qualities.
Oh, and EQ questions.
If you're not getting enough definition from the D112 look at the EQ.
100hz and below can make your bass sound deeper but in a rock recording
they're not the ones you want to be boosting, they take up too much energy
and don't add much in the way of clarity. Instead try boosting around 200hz
for warmth, 1khz for prescence and 2.5 for the sound of the strings.
These frequencies will sound nasty on there own but should help your bass
cut through.
Of course, the same applies for bass as for all instruments, don't reach for
the EQ automatically, try changing the amp sound, the amp, the bass etc
first.
good luck
Recording Cello & Strings: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Cagacazzi
I'm thinking about a flat small diaphragm mic (large or ribbons are too
expensive for me).
I think a flat mic will do it better than a bright mic with peaky high ends.
Something like Beyer MCE 94 or Sennheiser MKH 40.

Do you think looking the graphs is a good way to choose a mic?
And what do you think of these mics?
Thanks.
steve
Hey:
On Bob Weston's suggestion, I have used and liked the Audio Technica 4051
(at a distance of about 1m). I was surprized how nice it sounded, as I was
used to struggling a bit with 'cello.
The big problem with 'cello is the "wolf tone" that howls out differently on
each instrument. Try to match the mic's response to the register of the
instrument's loudest natural-key note.
The mic should not emphasize that register, if possible.

_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Bob Weston
I often record cello for the Rachel's using the $130 AT Pro37R
bob
Jet
i'm sure i could look in a book and find a couple methods which work alright
for micing a cello for simple home recording, but i was thinking that perhaps
there would at least be some different techniques that some of you would
know about.
i'm a guitarist, and so know nothing about other types of stringed

instruments. i haven't really had time to experiment with different set-ups
and see if i could happen upon something that works. the mics i would be
using would be an akg c1000s, and a rode nt-1, but if there would be better
choices in a low price range, perhaps someone could mention that, also?
and another thing, i forgot where i was told that i could find the book,
"Small Speaker Enclosures"? i've looked everywhere on the internet, but
can't find a single reference to it.
i appreciate anything anyone can share.
regards, jet.
Mnotaro
By using the large diaphragm as a close pick-up and the AKG as a distant
pick-up or vice versa, many sounds may be achieved. The more distant mic
will grab the tones as they interact with the room. The close mic will be
good for enriching the roomier sound by adding detail to the cello. Play with
the faders to find your liking.
An omni mic would be ideal for a room mic. The AKG is switchable between
cardioid and hypercardioid pick-up patterns. The hyper setting picks up
sound at the back of the mic to a certain extent. This might capture more of
the interactions taking place in the room kinda like the ideal omni.
Stereo pairs:
You must have two channels available to create the stereo image. Distance
from the source to the mics, the elevation, and the amount of angle you
point toward the source is something to tickle your fancy with.
Two pairs of cardioids can be place in an x-y arrangement, this is where the
diaphragms would create a 90 degree angle and be placed very close to one
another. One of them picks up more left and one more right. The sound
source is centered between them.
ORTF arrangements are similar. 110 degrees is the angle between

diaphragms and you space the mics 17cm, or something close, apart. This
can work really well in a larger setting. The center image may be weaker
than expected if you are within close quarters. It really comes down to
experimenting.
A split-pair omni setup uses two omni mics spaced several feet apart,
capsules parallel, and diaphragms pointing straight ahead. This is very good
for orchestras, but it may work well for a solo instrument. This will definitely
add some room action and if spaced too far apart the center image may
suffer. It can help to use a spot mic with this to add that extra gravy. Then
you need three channels.
Beefin',
Mike
Recording Clarinet: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Vetter
I will record a clarinet very soon, i've never do that before.
did i need a multi microphone set up or only one will do the job?
my first idea was to place a dynamic (M88) looking to the "horn" and a
small diaphragm condenser (MK012) looking at the finger plates or
mouthpiece....
and why not placing a stereo pair XY away in the room to add ambient
sound ....
It could be great If someone can give me some guide lines.
Steve
If you're not too close to the bell, any spot in the room where it sounds good
by ear should be okay. If you want to be able to hear the mechanical action
of the keys, keep the mic up off the floor. If you want a smoother sound,
leave the mic on the floor.
Clarinets are cool.

_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Arthur
Do you really mean "on the floor"? (like in "let it lay on the carpet")
Wouldn't there be some kind of pressure null or bell, or whatelse (never

actually tried it)?
Steve
When I put a mic on the floor (which is a lot), I just put it on the floor. Or a
piece of paper if the floor is dusty.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Greg
I like mic'ing the person chest or belly height 2 feet away with a dynamic
mic like an M-88 or 421. If you want more breathing noise, you could use a
small diaphragm condenser like an AKG 451 or AT 4051
_________________
Greg Norman FG
Recording Vibraphone/Xilophone: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Amos
Hi,
I will soon be recording one of these things for the first time, any micing
suggestions would be much appreiciated. This will be a location recording of
a jazz group with cello, bass and cornet in addition to the vibraphone.
thanks
-Amos
Steve
I normally use an overhead mic (or pair) at considerable height. Four or
more feet above the tone bars. I recently did a session where the stereo
movement and mallet sounds were most important, so I had mics closer to
the tone bars -- winging on either side -- facing in toward the center.
For quiet playing with a lot of room sound, I would use high-definition
condensers -- AT4051, C12, B&K or Earthworks.
For dark, mellow playing, or playing with a lot of mallet "clonk," I would use
4038s or Royers.
Good luck.
_________________
steve albini
Goosman
Depending on the condition of the vibraphone and the relative dynamics of
the song, you may want to have a small can of sewing machine oil or some
lithium grease handy.
Most vibraphones I've run into, much like most bass drum pedals, are quite
noisy and need a little TLC to coax them into recording well.
Vibraphone is such a fun instrument, I wish I had more come through the
door. Same goes for marimba...what a cool instrument.
Recording Studio Options: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
BMPI
Hi,
I've tried searching the forums but couldn't find any help - if this has been
asked already, I am sorry in advance.
So - My band is going to record an album in a studio, and we have several

options. The first is to record Drums+Bass+Guitar together in the same
room, which is the size of a small club. This will enable us to play the basic
tracks "live", and get the feeling of a band that is playing together. Obviously,
we can expect leakage of sound, i.e. Guitar track can be heard on the drums
Mic, etc.
The second option, is to place the equipment in different rooms, and record
using earphones. While this will probably give more clear and distinct sound,
it will probably be harder to play together, in sync, etc...
Any suggestions?
Thank you
Spoot
I think you'll get less bleed in a big room than you'd expect. Then again, I
also think you'll find it's easier to play in separate rooms than you'd expect.
Base your decision on the sound you'd like to get, rather than on where you
want to stand when you're recording.
Bleed (leakage) can be cool on a live-sounding rock record; but you're

removing some options when you record in one big room. If I was you, I'd do
some songs one way, and some songs the other way. Mix it up a little, the
record'll be more interesting.
run joe, run

I can't be of too much use, except to suggest these:
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4782&highlight=sepa
ration
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4873&highlight=sepe
rate+separate
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3126&highlight=seper
ate+separate
for starters. Other people will be able to help more.
Jeremy
Spoot is correct - you can also get away with facing amps away, putting
baffles up to get less bleed.
nick92675
you also have another option of having the amps separated in another room
from the drums and having the players standing in the same room as the
drummer, listening on headphones.
a disadvantage of this approach is if there's some gtr parts that are

feedbacky and you need to "play the amp" to do the part (and you can't
overdub this part for some reason). if not i think it works well, at least for
basics.
BMPI
First of all, thank you for answering my first quesiton.
Now for the second one...
If I didn't mention this before, we are a trio (drums,bass,guitar). For

distortion, I am using the EHX BigMuff PI - I love the fuzzy-low sound of the
BigMuff, but during recording and rehearsals, I noticed that it tends to get
hidden behind the sound of the band. I was told by the recording engineer,
that it is probably going to be hard to record it properly, and get a distinct
sound out of it...Any experience with such problems? Any suggestions on
better sounding distortions/fuzz that are more distinct and clear (I still want
to have that low bzzz sound...)?
Shagboy
why not double the signal from your guitar and put half into the fuzz and the
other half into a clean amp? that way you can get some attack into your
tone (how much exactly can be decided after tracking).
Dylan
Distortion has a law of diminishing returns - the more you add, the less you
can discern. Sure sounds good, though, right? Try backing off a little bit.
Most people tend to want to pile on distortion to get that dirty rock thing
going, when just a little overdrive will do it.
Other than that, shagboy has a good idea.
Steve
ot to oversimplify it, but if you like the way your guitar sounds, you can tell
your engineer to go fuck himself. It's his job to record it.
Now, if he tries real hard and you still don't like the sound when you hear it
played back, then okay, maybe you overdid it -- but only if it sounds better
when you turn the distortion down. If it sounds no better turning the Big
Muff Pi down, then recalibrate your expectations, and use what you
normally use, damn the consequences.
As for the all together or all apart thing, it's best if you can maintain
sightlines even if you're in seperate rooms -- open a door, look through
windows, etc. Otherwise, everybody's overdubbing live rather than playing
live.
good luck, and don't be afraid to ask questions here, there or anywhere.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
Jon
with reference to your guitar tone; i take it you are referring to your cool
guitar sound when playing by yourself. if you're finding the sound muddies
and becomes indistinct in rehearsals and gigs, then it's possibly due to the
fact that you're playing with other people who are playing around similar
frequencies. i.e. if you're looking for a low buzzy sound, and your bassist is
playing low end notes, then you're both around the same sonic area.
for distinction and clarity, i'd suggest (without meaning to come across like
one who is well practised in vainglory or hubris) you could try moving either
your or your bassist's playing position; i.e. if you're playing the low end of
the neck, get your bassist's finger's up to the top end.
just a thought.
BMPI
Hello,
Have you ever recorded a band, while everyone was playing in the same
room? If so - can you specify the name of the band/album? (I am asking of
course, in order to have a reference of how it may sound, and what to
expect).
Steve
Just finished the Electrelane album, which should be out on Too Pure not
too far into the future. Everybody was in the same room.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
BMPI
Hi,
What I meant to ask was:

Did you record a band, while all the amplifiers were in the same room. If so-
did you use any barriers between the amps, drums, etc?
Dlayphoto
Steve also recorded parts of Ballydowse's second album (I can't remember
the name) in a garage.
I sat in on some of the tracking...was very interesting to watch him at work.
I remember Nate was fiddling with the mic on his amp and Steve said
something like "I'll give you a dollar for every time you don't mess with it."
Documentation Of Sessions: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Mayfair
I have recently had to go back though a bunch of old tapes and tape boxes
from session over 10 years old. I was lucky enough to have recorded with
very good engineers that took a lot of time with getting great recordings and
also writing all pertinent information down about those recordings for
future reference. Though I have not had to use much of this written
information, I really appreciate it and loved going through it all.
So I guess my question is, what should an engineer document? Track listings

with times are good.... tones on a reel and length of tones are good....
instrument/track order from the board is handy if you will ever re-enter the
material....but also nice simple overhead drawings of the set-up with
general mic placement is nice to have and refer to. I know of some
engineers that take digital pics of their board and faders and of their
outboard gear and settings for future reference. They just include it as a
digital file in the folder of the session. Is this too much or is an extra five
minutes worth the time for this sort of comprehensive documentation?
Champion Rabbit
In this day and age, I can think of absolutely no excuse for not taking a quick
polaroid of your ST.
elisha wiesner
yes, write everything down. recently i was listening to a record i recorded
and loved the drum sound. i went and found the reels and looked at the
track sheets to see what i had done. there it all was. mic's mic pres, amps,
guitars etc... there was also a picture of the drum set up in the box. in the
pic i had an re-20 on the kick and on the track sheets i had written d-112. i
guess my over documenting plan had failed me. still, it is a very good idea to
write everything down.
Jet
mayfair,
i seem to be dispensing a lot of tech talk today and i apologise, but i have
been reading a lot of shit by john g. mcKnight and so i have some additional
things for your engineer's log. pardon me if i repeat some of the things
you've already said, it's just easier to make a complete list:
-track titles w/ complete running time of each track
-tape speed (in/s--american standard, of course)
-equilisation standard (NAB, AES, CCIR [europe]; IEC I, IEC II, DIN [german])
-alignment tones (Hz) shown in dB@VU
-reference fluxivity (nWb/m--nanoWebers per meter)
-note how your tape is packed, so you (or someone else) doesn't mindlessly
load the tape backwards
-also, make a note of what mics you used, and their positions. usually,
people will mic an instrument the same way each time, so notating
"treble/bass" is sometimes helpful. however, if you're having trouble with
mic placement, a particular signal, or something else, a little diagram may
be good for future reference. i wouldn't make pictures and drawings a habit,
though--after many sessions with similar set-ups, it seems a little
pointless.
-noting outboard effects, settings, and levels are also good. and of course, if
you decide not to use a track, note that also.
you will find your own shorthand as you are recording, and if you forget to
do something enough and have to kick yourself in the ass, you'll eventually
remember to do it. you will learn how to take better session notes through
trial and error.
if there's something i forgot, or don't know, sorry.
good luck,
jet.
Jordanosaur
When I interned/assisted at a local studio, I documented almost everything
including the level of coffee in the pot after the session closed. One of the
staff engineers was a little more intense about documentation than the
others, and would have all preamp/eq/compression settings committed to
paper during the tracking side of a session. When running tape, we would
document:
MRL used
Operating level
EQ standard
Test tones printed (1k, etc...)
I'm probably forgetting something else..
We were lucky to have a console that had snapshot capability, as I can't

imagine having too much fun documenting individual channel strips (much
respect to those who do).
Although some of the documentation we produced might not have been

used in a follow-up session, it was always good to have it around. We
definitely never ran into any hiccups during session recalls.
Other stuff we wrote down:
ALL outboard gear and settings including reamp levels

Thorough patch bay documentation
Mic placement (usually took pictures)
Mics used (would write on tracking sheets for tape)
As I am writing all of this, I am realizing the original question was relative to

what should be documented on the master tapes for future repro. I will
leave everything else because I am too lazy to erase it.
Jordan
Studio Preparation Tips: Electrical Audio Forum Questions
Steve
Christopher wrote:
Figure out what you want the track order of the songs to be for
whatever you're going to be doing with the recording (if it's for a
release), and record the songs in that order. You'll save time and
money on the mastering end (I guess this only really applies to the
analog process).
Ignore this suggestion. You save no time, and will probably waste a lot of
time doing this. Re-sequencing songs is a trivially easy task. It is a good idea
to know what order you want the songs to appear in, so they can be
assembled into that order eventually. But there is a better way to organize
the songs for efficiency:
Organize the songs into groups that have similar sounds, instrumentation
and equipment settings, and do all the song in a group at the same time,
then move on to another group. Here's an example:
"Bad Equestrians" John plays bass, Hymie plays the Gibson with the Big Muff,
Tsing-Tao uses the normal snare.
"Horse Ventriloquist" John plays bass, Hymie plays the strat with the other
amp, Tsing-Tao uses the piccolo snare.
"Bogarting the Curry Comb" John plays bass, Hymie plays the Gibson with
the Big Muff, Tsing-Tao uses the piccolo snare.
"Jockey Club Sandwich" John plays the bass, Hymie plays the strat with the
other amp, Tsing-Tao uses the normal snare.
"Saddle Soap" John plays bass, Hymie plays the Gibson with the Big Muff,
Tsing-Tao uses the normal snare.
"Soiled His Silks" John plays bass, Hymie plays the Gibson with the big muff,
Tsing-Tao uses the piccolo snare.
"Fuck Me, I'm Flying" John plays the bass, Hymie plays the strat with the
other amp, Tsing-Tao uses the normal snare.
The groupings would be:

Group one: "Bad Equestrians" & "Saddle Soap"
Group two: "Bogarting the Curry Comb" & "Soiled his Silks"
Group Three: "Horse Ventriloquist"
Group Four: "Jockey Club Sandwich" & "Fuck me, I'm Flying"
You could most efficiently record these by starting with group one, then
changing the snare drum, then group two, then changing the guitar amp,
then group three, then changing the snare, then group four. In this manner,
you can record each entire group in one go, and only make one change in
between groups.
It is absolutely critical to know what sounds you want to use for each song,
and a list like this will help organize your thoughts.
Christopher wrote:
Interesting. It was actually Mr. Weston that hinted at the efficiency

of doing this when my band recorded with him.
Don't most mastering houses charge studio time for sequencing and
such? Or is it so trivial as to end up being worth the minimal charge
so you can record the drummer's forty different snares in
comparable song clusters?
Re-sequencing itself is easy, but deciding on the sequence and spacing

takes thought and listening. Doing it at the mastering stage requires rounds
of reference- and approval copies to be mailed back and forth,
interpretations of instructions, etc. It is fraught with peril.
Do it now, while you're in the studio and listening, so it doesn't cost any
more and you can approve it. There is no excuse (No excuse!) for not
sequencing the album before you send it off for mastering. To do it at
mastering is more expensive and provides an opportunity for mistakes to be
made. If you sequence the record first, then you can listen to and approve
the sequence, and re-do it if necessary, without spending any more time or
money on the record. Doing all of that at mastering requires time and
money, both of which are worth saving.
_________________
steve albini
Electrical Audio
matthewbarnhart
toomanyhelicopters wrote:
i'm hoping to get in at Electrical as soon as possible, and was
planning on spending one day tracking the live music and overdubs,
a second day on finishing the overdubs, doing vocals, and putting
together super-rough mixes. then taking a CDR home, to mess with
order, and listen to it a ton and see if anything jumps out at me that
i though i was okay with but find i am not, etc... and then come back
for a 3rd day, for the actual mixing. is that a reasonable plan?
Bands do this pretty often at our place. Since you're in the same city as the
studio, I don't see why this would be much of a hassle.
Obviously, the more time you spend fixing parts on the "mixing" day, the
more pressed for time you'll be when you finally get around to mixing.
If you'll be punching-in a few notes here and there, make sure you have
reasonable notes on your equipment setup and the signal path used to
record it. As much as you think you'll remember these details, thousands of
other facts will crowd your brain and push out this stuff in the
days/weeks/months between tracking and mixing, meaning you'll spend
two hours of your "mixing" day trying to get something close to what you
had before.
If you can live with this possibility, I say, "go nuts".

Congleton
Do it now, while you're in the studio and listening, so it doesn't cost any
more and you can approve it. There is no excuse (No excuse!) for not
sequencing the album before you send it off for mastering. To do it at
mastering is more expensive and provides an opportunity for mistakes to be
made. If you sequence the record first, then you can listen to and approve
the sequence, and re-do it if necessary, without spending any more time or
money on the record. Doing all of that at mastering requires time and
money, both of which are worth saving.[/quote]
for years and years i am ashamed to say i didn't sequence albums at the end
of the mixing. it wasn't until steve himself asked me why i didn't do it that it
finally occurred to me that it was so obvious and that i would save the artist
so much time and money in the act of.
its all the small things.

Steve Albini Web Interview (Excerpt)
You're quite against people embelishing their records with

samples and stealing other people's ideas, yet in your
other capacity you work away at improving people's work
i.e. making something sound better than it is. How can you
reconcile the two?
My actual work ethic is based on making things sound

exactly as they are, with the intention of letting the artist's
technique and execution do the work. I never feel guilty
about making a record sound as good as it possibly can. I
don't really understand your question, in that you are
implying that stealing other people's ideas or sampling
someone else's actual record is a necessary part of
making a good record. That position is ludicrous.
Do you have some sort of quality control on who you accept work with, do
you have to like the band already? (Failure come to mind; your recording
them was, shall I say, a 'surprise' to me as they're less musically
outstanding than anyone else you've been involved with.)
You haven't heard 90 percent of what I record (no-name bands, many of

whom are just starting out), who make Failure sound like Stravinsky. I do
have criteria for accepting offers, and they are inclusive (e.g. if a session
satisfies any of the criteria, I can find reason enough to do the session):
If I really like the band as people
If I really like the music
If I would otherwise enjoy myself (technically or culturally interesting)
If a friend is involved in any capacity (label, whatever)
If the session enables another band to afford a session (doing three bands in
one go at a distant locale, for example, where no individual band could
afford to bring me out)
If the band, though seemingly unsuited to my techniques, have a genuine
interest in doing things this way, with an open ear for results.
You may notice that how much I get paid is not a criteria.
OK, then, Shellac - do you think you might be better served sometime by an
outside producer/engineer (for new ideas etc?) Not that I'm trying to imply
it's needed (oh goodness me no), just from your perspective as one who
spends a lot of time recording other bands, how might it look from the other
side of the fence?
With Bob (Weston) and me in the band, we pretty much have the bases
covered. Can you imagine how uncomfortable another engineer would be
working on our records? "Production" is rarely needed on any bands'
records, and certainly not on ours.
Ask a music scene micro celebrity: A compilation of forum questions posed
by Internet users at Steve Albini
“I have traveled in the music scene as a musician and recording engineer

for better than 25 years. I have worked on a couple thousand records,
some of them with famous rockstars, though most of them you're
probably never heard of. I know a lot about making records, recording
technology, touring, being in a rock band and the like. I own Electrical
Audio, a 2-studio recording complex in Chicago, Illinois, where I make
records every day.
I will answer any questions related to being in a touring/recording rock

band, working in the studio with musicians both great and famous,
making records,brushes with actual rock star celebrities, etc.
In NLHE, I am a prolific donator. I can hold my own in 7stud.
Any questions?”
PattdownManiac
You are Steve Albini? That is awesome. Of all the people you've worked with
what bands do you feel have the best musicianship.
Pattdown, the Jesus Lizard was easily the best group of musicians I've ever
worked with in terms of aggregate talent and ability, but I've worked with a
bunch of incredible musicians on individual instruments. I have been most
impressed by great drummers and great singers, because drumming and
singing are the two most difficult things to do well.
Drummers:
Jim White (Dirty Three, Nina Nastasia)
Rey Washam (Scratch Acid, Big Boys, Rapeman, Ministry)
Britt Walford (Slint, Breeders)
Martin Atkins (Public Image Ltd, Ministry, Pigface)
Glenn Kotche (Wilco, Edith Frost)
Bun E. Carlos (Cheap Trick)
Dave Grohl (Nirvana)
Singers:
Nina Nastasia
Robin Zander (Cheap Trick)
Kim Deal (Pixies, Breeders)
Most recently, I had my mind blown by Joanna Newsom's playing on the

harp. She is a wonder on that thing.
whale_hunter
Do you honestly feel like Cobain was a genius? Or just a hard worker guy
who hit the lotto?
Genius is a weird and inappropriate word, and hard work is underrated, but
Kurt Cobain had a distinct and personal take on the world, and generally,
when someone strikes a chord with his audience, that's what people
respond to.
There were a lot of bands the "sounded like Nirvana" at the time Nirvana
made it big, but none of them have had the same long-lasting influence. I
have to admit that I wasn't particularly a fan of Nirvana when I was asked
to work on In Utero, but during the course of making the record I came to
appreciate that they were genuine about their band and their music, that
Kurt was capable of sophisticated thinking, and that they and their music
were unique.
If you think of the other bajillion-sellers of the Nineties, not very many of
them have survived as significant influences today. I think there's a reason
beyond luck for that to be the case.
MikeyPatriot
My ladyfriend tells me that your original mix of In Utero was not green
lighted by their label, and they went with a different mix/track list. She
claims that your version is floating somewhere (she says a coworker has it
on his iPod) and she's wondering how she could get a hold of it?
There were only a couple of different mixes used on the final album.
Ultimately, the band made the decision about what versions they would use,
though they had to suffer a combination of their own insecurity and a
bunch of people at their label freaking out, which probably influenced their
decision. The version of the album in the stores is the version the band
wanted people to hear, and I respect that. Any "alternate version" floating
around out there is either totally bogus or a generations-removed copy of a
cassette dub, and not worth your attention.
MikeyPatriot
She also would like to know the rate you charge to record at your studio?
Whether you or someone else is the engineer.
Pricing is kinda complicated, depending on which studio is being used,

which engineer, whether there is an assistant required, lodgings, etc. There
is a session cost calculator on the rates page of the studio website. For
location recording at an outside studio, I charge my normal daily rate, $650
a day. I don't charge a royalty on any record I work on, something that has
caused some controversy within engineering circles.
I try to make myself as inexpensive as possible for the underground and

independent bands that are my closest peers and regular clientele. For big
label stuff that will require an open-ended schedule and a lot of
bureaucratic nonsense to get paid, I get paid a lot more.
Who were the worst musicians? Any guys that could barely play their
instruments?
Well, very few people who can't play at all find themselves in the studio
making a record. More common is a band whose expectations outstrip their
abilities, even if only by a little bit. If the band's aesthetic allows their record
to reflect their limitations, then it isn't much of a problem. Many great
records have gaffes and clinker notes on them -- listen closely to Led
Zeppelin or Crazy Horse records and you'll hear a bunch of clams. If a band
wants an album with no imperfections on it, but is unable to play
impeccably, then the meticulous process of piecing-together a record can
be exhausting. I am grateful that the bands I work with usually don't have
budgets at their disposal to make records like that, because it is torture.
Forgot to answer your actual question. Urge Overkill.

Georgia Avenue
This is the greatest thread in 2+2 history, not close.
Hi Mr. Albini sir,
Do you think downloading is killing the music industry or is it something else?

Is rock with guitars becoming like Jazz in the 70s? Do you think bands that
are severely derivative, like most garage rock bands, are inferior to bands
like Jesus Lizard who sound totally unique? Can you name drop some very
new or recent young bands that are carrying the torch for rock and roll? Do
you find your taste for heavy noisy stuff is diminishing as you get older
(mine is!) and your appreciation for quiet folksy stuff is growing?
Sorry for the barrage but im about to get on a plane to vegas. Feel free to
ignore...
Thanks!
Downloading and the culture of free music have affected the income of
record labels, but the street-level music scene (as defined by bands,
entrepreneurial independent record labels, studios like mine, etc.) is doing
great. Bands have an easier time than ever getting their music out into the
world, and bands don't even need a label to have an international following.
It's actually a great time to be in a band.
Can you name drop some some very new or recent young bands…
Dude, I hear them all the time. Just did a record for a band from Denton,
Texas called Record Hop, and they were terrific. Rock bands are everywhere,
and there are always a few good ones.
I have noticed that a bunch of people who were previously making really
intense, hard rocking music have gravitated toward making moody acoustic
music, and these audiences have overlapped. I still enjoy freakish noisy
music, if executed with authority, and I still enjoy acoustic music likewise.
oddjob
there have been many a time i hear an album the band sounds so good, and
then you see them live, and you're like, wtf is going on?
which band have you made the biggest improvement on their sound, in this
manner?
Well, sometimes a band sets out to make a record that doesn't really sound
like they do. To these bands the record is the public face of the band, and
the live shows are more of an obligation than an art form, and so they are
generally pretty disappointing live.
Other bands enjoy touring and express themselves onstage more than in
the studio. These bands see their records as a kind of still photo of their live
existence, and you can expect those bands' records to sound pretty much
like their live sets. My favorite bands were always like this: the Minutemen,
Wipers, Birthday Party, and my own band thinks this way, pretty much.
There are also the rare cases of bands who change from the second type to
the first,, and they have an obvious cutoff date after which they went from
awesome to awful. Aerosmith and ZZ Top are the most obvious examples.
To answer your immediate question, Urge Overkill.
PITTM
Vinyl or Digital?
Neither. I go straight for the vagina. You find them on women.
Tigermoth
Are there any bands around that you would like to work with?
Any swinging dick whose checks won't bounce.
Are you married?
You gay or something?
Not gay. Chicks listen to good music sometimes, too, you know.
Not straight ones in my experience, no they don't. You are either a lesbian, a
dude, or you don't really like good music. This is a fact proven with science
and charts.
Do you know if Arab on Radar have considered reforming? Did you ever do
anything with them?
Ah, you're from Providence. Okay. That explains everything. Forget what I
said about the lesbian thing. You were probably just experimenting in
college. But short hair looks good on skinny girls.
MikeyPatriot
In vein of another question above, what classic mainstream albums of the
past would you like to remix? I've always thought that a lot of Hendrix's
studio stuff could have been done better.
Well, mixing isn't the magic bullet it's purported to be. A recording is about
90 percent as good as it's ever going to be from the moment of the first
rough playback.
Most records that have survived scrutiny for a long time have some
qualities that we all associate with them, and presenting them in a new way
("better sound" or whatever) cheapens them a little, and in the case of ZZ
Top's '90s remixes, turns them straight to [censored].
I worked on a new version of Cheap Trick's In Color album (not a remix, but
a whole new recording), and although everyone involved liked it, it's never
seen the light of day, and I can't fault that decision.
About the only "classic" record that has ever been improved-on with a new
mix and master is the Who's Live at Leeds, and there is a additional album's
worth of excellent extra material added.
nyc999
what's the worst you have seen in regards to the band's experience? Have
you ever seen a band fall apart in the studio?
The worst scene is when a band has a bunch of unspoken or

passive/aggressive tension bubbling along in the background, but they've
kept their [censored] together long enough to get into the studio. Once the
session is winding down, in the last couple of days, the gloves start to come
off and little complaints can turn into real freak scenes. I once saw a
drummer quit a band while I was making him a cassette copy of the final
master, over an argument about whether or not the last song should fade
out a few seconds faster.
Obviously, that isn't why he quit. He quit because he couldn't stand being in
the band, but this argument happened at a point where he could use it as
cover. That's the sort of thing that I've seen happen.
Shit like overdoses and tantrums, that only happens with childish rockstars
of the type I seldom encounter.
please.muck
For your own listening pleasure, digital music (CDs) or analogue (vinyl)?
If I'm going to put on a record for pleasure, it will be a vinyl record, unless
I'm at work. Understand though that I listen to original masters all day every
day, and so I'm less likely than most people to want to throw on an album
when I knock-off at midnight or whatever.
Any thoughts on the new higher sample rate/bitrate SACD or DVDA releases?
Doesn't matter, since both formats are now dead, but I think a greater bit
depth (24 bits is plenty) grants a bigger quality improvement than
increasing the sample rate. The downloadable version of the new album
from my band (Shellac of North America) is available in compressed formats,
but also 16-bit or 24-bit 44.1kHz versions. We did it as an experiment to see
if anybody appreciates having it available.
I thought the Bob Dylan and Rolling Stones remasters sound great on regular
systems. Maybe SACD would be better.
No, I'm pretty sure they're still going to have Dylan and the Stones on them.
oddjob
who was the biggest pain in the ass to work with?
That would be Urge Overkill.

were there any bands you recorded that were so damn good, you wish you
were in their band?
Yeah, I wanted to be in the Jesus Lizard and Fugazi after about ten seconds.
In either case it would have made the band more lame though.
Quanah Parker
What do you think of the chopping and screwing mixes of hip hop music?
I have heard the DJ Skrew version of Big Moe's City of Syrup, and that record
is extraordinary and f'd up. Almost everything else I've heard like that has
been lame and typical, so I think that's the one good one right there.
Does this type of remix have any future in rock?
Oddly enough, some bands ask for specific Skrew-isms (super-low speed
vocal takes, brutal disruptive edits) and they seldom work very well. Similar
to when the 808 bass drum sample was all the rage, and usually just
sounded stupid and tacked-on.
PITTM
Can you tell us what your home audio system consists of? Be specific plz <3
Not all put together at the moment, but here's what I got:
VPI record cleaner (incredible, I recommend it)

Studer linear-tracking TT (to be replaced by a VPI JR)
Ortofon cartridge (to be replaced by a pair of bayonet headshells, one with a
Shure VR15X and one with a Sumiko Blue Point "nude" special)
Hagerman Bugle phono preamp
Marantz integrated amp (to be replaced by a home-made tube amp once I
get off my ass and finish it)
Custom Linnaeum-tweeter speakers with reflex bass cabinets. No model
number, but made by Linnaeum with Focal drivers.
manpower
Hey Steve,
Do you do any mastering work and how valuable is it to a recording? Do you
have a take on the so called 'loudness war'?
mastering is the last step before CDs or records are mass-produced. Lately
there has been a trend toward making records "loud" at this stage by
compressing and clipping the audio for a more aggressive sound. I am of the
opinion that the record shouldn't leave the studio until it is pretty close to
exactly what the band want, and consequently I prefer more judicious
mastering.
If a record needs aggressive mastering to "save" it, then aggressive

mastering isn't enough to save it. Given a choice between sound quality and
apparent loudness, I will side with sound quality every time.
oddjob
how many musicians have you nailed?
Had to do some research and cyphering. I think it's about a dozen.
Quanah Parker
Do you have any favorite "toys" you're really digging right now? (Musicial or
otherwise.)
Kevin from Electrical Guitar Company is making some incredible guitars

right now. Beautiful workmanship, they sound incredible, and he'll custom
make anything you ask for. There's a new low-power Orange guitar amp
called the Tiny Terror that is great for recording and is really versatile. I'm
still really into the David Josephson microphones, specifically the e22S
(which we had a hand in designing) and the C700 (awesome vocalist
microphone).
turnipmonster
how often do you know when a record you are making is going to be really
effing great?
Another very good question.
There is a sort of clinical distance I have to maintain as an engineer that

precludes forming an opinion about the music I'm working on. If I'm getting
wrapped up in the music like a fan, then I'm not paying proper attention to
the technical side, the way the equipment is behaving, etc.
I've used this analogy before, but I like it, so I'll use it again: While the
recording is underway, I'm like a gynecologist, and it would be inappropriate
for me to be getting turned-on by the vagina I'm working on at the moment.
I need to have a different relationship with the vagina.
Imagine for a moment that I did allow myself to harbor opinions about how
good a record was while I was making it. Two bands come into the studio,
one of which I really like, and one whose music I dislike. It wouldn't be fair
to that second band for me to let my distaste for their music affect the job I
did, and that would be inevitable.
Also, all records aren't being made (ought not to be made) to suit me alone.
My tastes are really fucked up, and if I tried to make records to suit myself,
rather than the band's tastes, I would make a lot of freakish records that
nobody liked and didn't suit the band.
So, in order to maintain a professional level of concentration on the task at

hand, and to allow the band to make a record that represents them
accurately, I try not to even think about whether or not I like the record.
Having said that, sometimes everybody can tell that a record is going to be
awesome anyway, and of the records I've worked on that ended up being
really great, the majority of them showed their greatness in the first couple
of hours of work.
If there is something unique and subtle about a band that makes them great,
then sometimes it takes longer exposure to become aware of it, but in
general everybody can tell right away.
any surprises, times you have thought the record sucked but heard it later
and thought it was great? how often in general do you hear the records
you've made after you're done?
I probably get to hear 10 percent of the records I work on after everything

wraps. Usually they sound about like I remember them, but I have often
been surprised that an opinion I held at the time of the session (the guitar is
too loud, the vocals are too quiet, this song is a turkey...) end up being
completely incorrect. For this reason I am not the least bit insistent when
the band and I disagree on a matter of taste. I know for sure that I am
fallible, and I know the band is more familiar with their own music than I am.
When in doubt, do it their way.
I did an album in the 90s for the band Bush, after they had had a couple of
big hits already. While we were working on their second album, they kept
pursuing a particular song that I thought was a the weakest and most
derivative of the whole set of songs we were working on. A complete dog.
Whenever they asked my opinion, I would admit that this particular song
struck me as disposable, and they should concentrate on other stuff.
In the end, they did a version they liked, which I still thought was a turkey,
and the song "Swallowed" was released as the first single from the album.
It was also their first Number One hit single. I apparently know nothing
about what makes for hit records.
Gavin Rossdale, singer of the band, forgave me enough to invite me to his

wedding to Gwen Stefani, where my girlfriend was able to pocket all kinds of
"Gwen&Gavin" monogrammed trinkets, none of which have yet made it to
eBay.
0evg0
What do you think about the commercialization or "selling out" done by

bands in the indie scene, such as licensing songs for movies, TV shows, and
corporate commercials?
This is a pretty big topic.
A band that willingly associates itself with some commercial enterprise is

attaching itself forever to that business and everything that business does.
If a band abdicates that decision to a third party, then the band is admitting
that its music doesn't mean enough as art to be protected from such
associations.
There is also a distinction to be made between music made for its own sake
(say for records) and music made for hire for commercial use, which seems
like a completely different kind of music to me. Companies choose to use
the first kind of music (let's call it "real" music) because the band, the
music and the audience have cultural significance that the advertiser wants
to co-opt and attach to a product or movie or whatever.
There are very few circumstances where using the first kind of music (let's
call it real music) as a cultural lubricant for commercial intercourse doesn't
creep me out a little bit, and I tend to think less of people who sell out their
art, their reputations and their audience this way.
rubbrband
Pro tools or logic? explain plz.
I don't use computers to make records. I use tape machines, like nature
intended. I use computers for correspondence, arguments, poker and porn.
Max Raker
Why do you think you have become famous (in a relative sense) for doing
something that ususally doesn't make a person a household name. How
much of this was your skill in engineering vs. luck. vs recording really good
bands.
Almost any competent engineer could have done what I have. I have been
incredibly lucky to be working in a music scene that spawned a huge
number of distinctive, talented bands, and I made myself available to them.
There is no doubt in my mind that I get some credit I didn't earn, for working
on records that were going to be incredible no matter who was in the chair
at the time.
There are a few things about my approach in the studio that I think have
made a positive contribution to the records I work on. I come from a band
background myself, so I'm sympathetic to bands, and I understand how
they work, both internally and in relation to the outside world. I know that
asking a band to do things differently in the studio than they would onstage
or in the practice room is bound to make them uncomfortable, and is not
going to make them play well, so I try to let them play as normally as
possible.
I also respect the decisions the band makes about their own music: What it
should sound like, how fast it should be, etc. Whenever I hear that a
producer made a band add a chorus or shorten a solo or tack-on a string
section, my blood boils a little.
I also pride myself on being a bargain. A lot of people in my position try to

maximize their income on every project, and eventually they price
themselves out of the scene where all the good music is, and end up doing a
few sessions a year for music that totally sucks. By keeping my rates
reasonable, I get to work with all the good bands, not just those who have
money and hype behind them at the moment.
The other thing I have is experience. I've made an assload of records, and
any problem that's ever going to come up in a session, I've probably already
figured out how to solve it or defend against it. I can work more efficiently
than a lot of engineers because I'm not guessing and I'm virtually never
stumped.
As percentage, I'd say my own contribution and tendencies are about ten
percent of the value of my job. Eighty percent is the band and their abilities
and ten percent is luck and market forces. That's a wild guess.
Who have you worked with that you felt had the best understanding of
recording?
Excellent question.
I think any band has a pretty good handle on things by their third album or
so, and they can start to anticipate the technical considerations. Bands with
recording engineers in them are a little quicker in that regard. Neurosis and
the New Year are probably the most studio-savvy bands I've worked with,
in that they often have pretty specific studio techniques in mind for
individual songs.
donfairplay
Do bands get a fee or residual for having their songs released on the major
online subscription services? (ex: Yahoo, Rhapsody, Napster)
There is some tiny royalty paid, but it's hardly going to be anybody's bread-
and-butter.
I'd like to think I'm supporting the bands, but I can't see how thousands of
bands can live off of my measly $6 a month subscription. As a band member
yourself, do you have an opinion on the subscription services versus, say,
pay-per-song itunes?
You are supporting the band by being a fan. Over the course of your life,
you'll have many opportunities to buy records, Tee shirts, concert tickets
and the like. Don't worry about your downloading/listening habits. The
bands are happy that anyone is listening at all, and they will make a little
money off you over time. They're glad they're in the game and that
someone is listening.
Max Raker
Was Phil Spector as innovative and important as Rolling Stone says he is?
Oh hells yeah. Most record producers are parasites on the careers of bands
and artists, but Phil Spector was actually the creator of everything on the
records he produced, regardless of whose name was on the credits. He was
also an extreme sex perv freak, gun nut and paranoid coke fiend. he was
about as high-roller as dudes like that can be, and it all drove him nuts.
Unique character.
charlatantric
Hey Steve,
Curious about your production on a couple Mono albums and GY!BE...
At the beginning of some songs (Ode, Yearning, and 09-15-00), the listener
can hear your voice saying, "You're on." I understand these were recorded
live, but I was curious what the purpose of leaving the command on those
songs served.
I didn't mix the Godspeed! record, so I don't know what decisions were
made there. With Mono, I think they started thinking of that as the
beginning of the song. In one case, I remember they asked me to overdub a
"you're rolling." I never pressed them for a specific reason and they never
gave me one.
jht
Mr Albini
I'm particularly fond of the Electrelane albums you worked on, I was
wondering how you found working with them and what you think of the
albums yourself.
I think Electrelane are an awesome band, with really ambitious ideas. Each
of the women is a unique character and I enjoyed working with them
tremendously. Verity is a fantastic musician with the capacity to hear
impossibly complex arrangements in her head, and I admire that.
Also, I was wondering what record producers you particularly admire

yourself.
I don't think too much of producers, honestly. There are some great
sounding albums out there (Highway to Hell, Back in Black, Zuma, Led
Zeppelin albums, Spiderland) but I attribute that to the bands themselves. If
you listen to the crap Mutt Lange has done since Back in Black, for example,
you can tell that giving the producer any credit for that album is going too
far.
turnipmonster
what's your relationship with the guitar and how has it changed over the
years? do you spend a lot of time playing for fun, or not so much?
Hardly ever. Once a month or so I'll get to play a little. More if the band is
rehearsing for a tour or writing songs. Still hardly any.
ua1176
with digital audio getting better as time goes on, is there gonna be a Pro
Tools rig at Electrical? do you ever do sessions at other studios where you
end up using Pro Tools?
We have digital sessions at Electrical pretty regularly. If a session comes in
that requires a Pro Tools rig, we strap one in, and we wouldn't be being
reasonable if we refused.
Personally, I have never used Pro Tools, and never worked from a computer
for any part of a recording session. I have never felt limited by this
arrangement, and there has never been a moment in a session where I have
had to say "we can't do that" because we were working on tape.
Since you're working primarily with 2''....have you ever run into a session
that needed an absurd amount of editing?
Yes. We have another appearance of Urge Overkill in this thread.
I've not worked much with tape in my time as an AE....is there ever a point
at which it becomes counterproductive to do a large amount of editing on
analog tape?
Well, you sort-of answered your own question there. A lot of editing means
that there's something terribly wrong with the recording, and you're going
through heroic steps to salvage it. I try never to let things get that far out of
whack.
It is counter-productive to try to turn crap into gold.
Since editing is relatively quicker in the digital domain, a lot of digital-only

engineers use editing as their default tool in every situation. I think that's
profoundly lazy, and the equivalent of trying to build a house with just a
hammer, pretending that everything is a nail. It is one of the earmarks of a
hack. You could say "fish" instead.
Since you're dealing with semi-long term sessions that (as far as i can tell)
have a definitive start date and end date....how do you deal with situations
where things take longer than planned?
I don't let them get that far out of hand. If need be, I'll work a long night, but
if I sense that there won't be enough time to finish at the current pace, then
I get the band to comprehend and either lighten the work load, schedule
more time (usually requires a bit of lead time) or get the band to work
quicker. Except in a few rare cases (acts of god, injury, illness, personal
tragedy etc.), I wouldn't impose on an upcoming session. I can't justify
letting a band's simple lack of preparedness interfere with another session.
In an absolute sense, the budget decides everything. If there's money

enough, then nothing is really a problem. If there isn't, then the band gets
to make the kind of record their budget allows, and at the pace the budget
dictates. If they can't deal with that, then they have bigger problems than
finishing their record.
But one way or another, I'm not going to send the band back to Belgium
without their record.
vibizoom
Also, if you were a musician of modest means, who had an appreciation for
analog recording, what type of multitracker would you use for home
recording?
If you want to build a studio, you can buy an excellent multitrack tape
machine for a grand or so, but they are inappropriate for just putzing
around. They're a commitment of time and money.
I'd just get a simple 4-track and see how you like it. If you do, then you can
move up to more sophisticated gear.
markoelreno
how do you keep your objectivity when it comes to your own performances
(and bandmates, whom you are close with)?
Making a record isn't an objective exercise like counting peaches in a basket.

Objectivity has no place in the creative part of the recording process. In the
technical side, yes. The equipment and the technique need to be
appropriate for the job, and most of the time that means operating
everything within its technically-correct specifications, and with two
engineers in the band, that part is pretty easy.
I am convinced that any decent art (including records) is made with a

measure of disregard for its audience. Good art is an almost entirely selfish
pursuit, in that the artist is doing something unique to him, and any outside
perspective (this "objective" one) would be ignorant and unable to judge it
completely. Having seen many bands go through the process, I am
convinced that making concessions to the imaginary audience (or any
"objective" considerations) almost always weakens the record.
Good records are made by freakishly-obsessed people, driven to do what

only they can do, and their thinking and processes are often "objectively"
wrong. Objective measures are at best a benchmark of mediocrity and
shouldn't be in consideration.
How in particular did you get those (string) sounds and was it any different
then just miking up, sans amp, an acoustic guitar or something like that?
Much of the string recording for the Low records was done in Minneapolis
by Tom Herbers, and I shouldn't get credit for it. Some of it I did, and yes, I
just put a microphone where it sounded good and pressed "record." Room
acoustics are critical for string ensemble recording, and I'm lucky that I get
to work in good-sounding rooms.
G Street
I liked some songs on Exit the Dragon by Urge Overkill a lot, do they suck
that bad?
Yeah, they do. You probably don't even like those songs you think you like.
0 Talbot 0
I think that the past 10 years give or take have seen really [censored] music.
Mostly just brainwashed junk where nobody seems to stand out.
Nothing ever stands out. You have to look for anything you might like.
Clearly you have given up looking.
Tell me what you think of this argument since you are one that has been in
the buisiness for the past while.
I think you're a defeatist and you are destined not to enjoy music. If you
wait for other people to thrust music under your nose, you'll be listening to
nothing but crap for a long while, because that's what gets thrust at us.
Music is not a spectator sport.
Greg P
How true is what you wrote in the problem with music today? Are most of
those pitfalls easier to avoid because of less expensive equipment? Just
curious.
It is certainly possible to avoid the mainstream industry altogether, but that

would have been my advice 15 years ago as well. It remains that if you get
involved with the mainstream music business, even today, you're screwed.
felix240
I grew up in the 80s listening to Pussy Galore, Big Black and Sonic Youth and
their ilk (the sst bands, the T&G bands, etc.). It seemed like all those bands
were fellow travelers, there was a legitimate scene. It seemed like, post-
Nirvana, a scene of that sort was no longer possible and a sort or "are you
with us or are you with them?" mentality sprung up. You and SY had some
public bad blood, as did many of the underground bands that comprised
that American underground 80s network. As a participant in this small
historical moment (now long dead), what happened?
You have summarized events pretty nicely. What happened was the overt
polarization of the underground into two camps, those who thought they
could follow in the footsteps of Sonic Youth and (more importantly) Nirvana,
and breach the barricades of popular culture, and those who thought such
aspirations were not just unlikely but ill-advised. Such mainstream
gamesmanship was unprofitable, and by removing bands and resources
from the underground was destructive to the underground culture, which
had been flourishing, and usually led to the demise of the bands who took
their shot.
An era of competitiveness ensued, with bands, clubs and labels trying hard
to get noticed by the big players in the conventional old-school music
business, and a veneer of professionalism interceded between people who
had previously dealt with each other as real people.
The whole thing creeped me out and destroyed a lot of bands. That there
were bands in the scene urging other bands on in this rat race seemed
almost treasonous.
That said, I have always gotten along with Sonic Youth, and I consider them
friends despite our differences in the culture wars, and they have been
specifically kind to me and my bands over the years.
dhattis333
1.Whats your opinion on this statement that Bob Dylan made last year:
"I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past
20 years, really," ... "You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious,
they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no
nothing, just like ... static."
Given that Bob probably isn't combing the mom-and-pop stores for
independent releases, I can't really fault his observation. And it's a nice turn
of phrase.
2.Who do you think your going to vote for in the upcoming presidential
election?
Anything the Democrats run out there, I'll vote for it. Broken piece of elk
antler, chalkboard eraser, whatever.
ZeTurd
How is it working with Neurosis? How much work is it recording their often
complex song arrangements? Listening to what's going on on most of their
records one would assume it's a very time consuming process.
Not particularly. Neurosis are pretty meticulous in having their act together
before they come into the studio, and Noah (their keyboard/electronics guy)
has a studio where they work on pre-production demos in detail.
3. Can you recommend music in a similar vein to Neurosis? (excluding the

obvious candidates such as Isis, Sparowes, Sum, Cult of Luna, etc.)
You may already be familiar with them, but obvious suggestions would be
Harvey Milk, Melvins, Pelican, Zeni Geva, Oxbow, Mono, Om, Sunn0))) and
Dazzling Killmen. You might also enjoy the power electronics/noise music
like Whitehouse, Japanese noise guitarist Keiji Haino, and early material
from Swans and Killing Joke.
4. Do you listen to a lot of metal? If you are, what kind of metal are you
generally listening to?
My standard answer for this is that I listen to the sort of metal that appeals
to non-metal guys like me. The bands mentioned above, Motorhead, High
on Fire, and the occasional black metal classic from Burzum, Immortal and
the like.
pivot
Let's say if i think im a pretty good producer, programmer and sound

designer (for a 26 year old) .. how would i be best to go about finding
management or someone to help me obtain and negotiate professional
work.
I do not have a manager, I have never needed one, and I don't recommend
them.
In this business, except for generic dollars-an-hour hack work (where you,
rather than somebody else, records 100 iterations of the word "stop" for a
talking traffic cop doll), an engineer doesn't find work, the work finds him.
People use you for a session because they specifically think you will do a
good job, and for them to think that, you need to develop a working
clientele who will say your name out loud.
I can only advise you in the manner that I eventually became a full-time
engineer. You should start by hanging out with people whose music you
understand, and who think like you do. Make yourself available to them,
and those people will let you help them make recordings.
First you work for free, then they cover your expenses, and eventually you
will become valuable to a peer group who also compose your client base.
Through word of mouth, your work will eventually become worth
something (in real money terms) to them, and they will pay you what they
can afford.
The time lapsed between the first free demos I recorded for bands and the
moment I could afford to quit my straight job and work in recording full-
time was about 8 years. I don't see how I could have done it faster.
You can also just wait for somebody to throw gigs at your feet. Good luck
with that.
MikeyPatriot
G7 Welcoming Committee in Canada recently decided to stop pressing music

onto a physical disc and release everything strictly as digital downloads. Do
you think that this will catch on and become the norm for independent
labels?
This then puts the label on exactly the same terms as a novice band with
nothing but a demo and a Myspace page. If I were a band faced with the
choice of a label who would sell nothing but downloads and selling those
self-same downloads myself (and keeping all the money), I'd have no use
for the label.
TopTop
How would you feel about working with Nickelback? What would you do to
improve upon their already amazing sound?
Man, don't mess with the formula.

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4258547)
Andy B
You are aware that I'm a tuba player. One thing that I cannot stand is when
some sound guy wants to stick a microphone in my bell. The sound of a
tuba is the sound it makes as it fills a room. Judging from your comments on
recording strings, I'm guessing you appreciate where I'm coming from.
Apparently, you've recorded at least one tuba player. How do you mike a
tuba?
Attributes of individual instruments can make them easier or more difficult

to record accurately. Tuba has about four bummer characteristics, making
it a bigger bitch than almost anything short of a temperemental soprano:
1) Low fundamental frequencies correspond to long acoustic wavelengths.
These need a large acoustic space to avoid self-cancellation or booming
("wolf" tones). A low E natural is about 40 feet long, and cannot be properly
resolved without either a very good bass trap or a large acoustic space, and
both bass traps and empty space require real estate.
2) Extremely wide frequency response. Simultaneous with the low

fundamental frequencies are a blistering array of higher partials, harmonics
and violent transients typical to horns. Picking this stuff up requires a
microphone and signal path that can comfortably pass (phase-linear)
components in the 30kHz range. That's where the "fraap!" resides.
Appropriate microphones are somewhat esoteric, and don't necessarily
have a lot of other utility, so investing in microphones appropriate for horn
recording is often a marginally -EV business decision.
3)The instrument is physically large, and sound radiates not just from the
bell of the horn, but also from the body, and an isolated pickup pattern is
not very accurate, so it needs to be recorded from a distance. A distant mic
will by necessity be exposed to every other sound in the room, so it
becomes not just a "tuba" mic, and the penalty for trying to record a tuba is
losing control of every other sound in the session.
4) Tuba players are weird.
So how do I record tuba? In a big room, with a ribbon mic (specifically an

STC 4038 or a Royer 122) not too close to the bell, through a wide-
bandwidth mic preamp (GML most recently) and a separate distant
microphone to pick up the room sound.
How do you really feel about Urge Overkill?
Pretty much like everybody else.
Georgia Avenue
...something Henry Rollins said on his show... about bands selling out their
music to commercials. His claim: Who cares? Let good musician make a few
bucks being appreciated now that they are respected instead of dismissed
and ignored.
Precisely the answer you'd expect from the Voice of GM Trucks. It's an
argument that holds absolutely no water.
To say that an artist with a legion of devoted fans and a culturally-

significant body of work is being "dismissed and ignored" is ridiculous prima
facie and doesn't really need further debunking. What he's talking about is
money. Whenever anybody starts justifying taking money with language
derived from some other consideration, he's actually talking about the
money.
I cannot fault anybody for taking money for their work, especially in dire
circumstances (people often do degrading things for money, especially in
dire circumstances), but it is ludicrous to suggest that as a fan (a participant
in the celebration that made the song "Lust for Life" a valuable commodity
in the first place) I shouldn't notice that it has happened, and that it
shouldn't change the meaning of the song in my estimation. Of course I will,
and of course it does. Previously, "Lust for Life" had been an ode to
decadence, written and performed in a frenzy of cocaine, heroin bingeing
and buggery. It has now become a mormon-worthy family-fun cruise jingle.
Of course it has changed.
Do artists really have some kinda responsibility to their audiences...even

though, as you say, the best records are made without giving a crap what
the public thinks?
No, they owe us nothing. That also means that my enthusiasm for artists
isn't bulletproof, and I owe them no allegiance either. If they become
something I cannot get behind, then they are likely to lose me as a fan.
I want Iggy to be as rich and popular as Justin Timberlake
Rich, okay, but what benefit is it to the world to have douchebags and Justin
Timberlake fans listening to Iggy Pop? Not everything is for everybody, and I
don't think everything is universally improved if you lay it on with a ladle.
mikebarr
Do you have any tips on capturing a good rock snare? I don't have decent
dynamic mic's (only sm57 and 58)and seem to always overload any
condesor that I put near it.
Looks like it's time to buy a microphone or two.
Readily-available modestly-priced mics that work well on snare:

Sennheiser 421, Beyer M201, Shure KSM141. Start there.
arbuthnot
What's your motto?
It's easier to apologize afterwards than get permission first.
What does every girl really want?
Another pair of shoes, someone to call a whore and a reason to cry.
(Anonymous Poster)
A friend recently suggested that perhaps bands should just accept that
there is a new paradigm. People are going to copy their music, and the way
that they're going to make their money is from touring, merchandise, etc.
You made a comment that suggested to me that you might agree with this.
Care to comment?
My long experience with bands and musicians has taught me that they
understand their place in the world pretty well. They also understand that
music is (always has been) free to consume. If you play your radio, it costs
nothing to listen. If you walk by an open window while someone is playing
an album, it costs nothing. If you stand outside a club and listen, it costs
nothing. Music is free. Musicians often sing and play informally (get this!)
just for fun.
Records, concert tickets and the use of music in commerce -- those things
cost money.
The primary relationship that drives all parts of the music business is the
relationship between a band and its audience. Record retailers, labels,
producers, managers, lawyers, promoters and other parasitic professionals
all subsist on whatever money they can siphon off of this fundamental
relationship. Mechanical and broadcast royalties (the royalties supposedly
"lost" through file sharing) are the part of this transaction that is least
efficient in getting money to the artist because most of it is siphoned-off by
the rest of the music industry. Of a $15 sale, the average band stuck on a
major label may not receive a single penny, and amortized over the life of a
release may receive (after all the other players take their rake) a buck or so.
I should note that entrepreneurial independent labels that operate on a

profit-sharing model can be an order of magnitude more efficient, and that
one of the efficiencies is the lack of promotional outlay required because
fan file sharing does the promotion for free
In short, these "lost" royalties are a huge part of the revenue stream of the
institutional part of the mainstream music business, but a miniscule part of
the income of a band.
Almost universally, bands and musicians are happy anyone is interested in

their music enough to become a fan, and they know there are many
opportunities to do some business with such a person that may or may not
involve selling him a particular record.
They also recognize that a download by someone unwilling to buy a record

is not a "lost sale," because that person has made it clear that he is
unwilling to buy a record. You haven't lost a sale, you've made a fan for free.
Fans eventually want to buy records, concert tickets and other things.
A single sale = a small bet.

A lifetime fan = a huge pot.
NozeCandy
How much money would it take for you to work on the next Fergie album?
We discussed rates earlier.
whale_hunter
I think Private Dancer is a great song. Do you see a problem with that?
Do you ever get a song stuck in your head? It happens to most people. Some
little ditty or the memorable part of a hit song or a carpet company jingle,
you try to go to sleep and there it is, doot-doot-doo-ing away in the back
of your mind. Super annoying.
Have you also noticed how the song "Private Dancer" by Tina Turner never
ever gets stuck in your head, no matter how many times you've been
forced to hear it? That's because "Private Dancer" is so formless and
hideous that there isn't even enough of a tune there to get stuck.
"Private Dancer" is the absolute zenith of the art of 80s schlock. There's a
sort of synthetic rhythm, and some schmeer of digital drama provided by
the Yamaha DX7 keyboard, but no actual music. On top of it all, a creaking,
tuneless yowl of a vocal, rattling up from the guts of a parchment-skinned
old woman trying to sexy at you. Hideous.
So, "Private Dancer" makes the perfect palate-cleanser. Whenever you

have a song stuck in your head, force yourself to mentally trudge through
the song "Private Dancer," at least as much as you can remember. It also
helps to imagine the video of a once-stunning, now-cartoonish Tina Turner,
the last of the pain pills and red wine finally down her throat, heaving her
clattering bones around the soundstage trying to sexy.
Run that through there for twenty seconds, and it's better than Drano. It
clears-out whatever was stuck and leaves on its own, leaving no trace
behind.
FF_Woodycooks
A - Billy Corgan. Huge ahole right? Like tremendously?
I have had limited dealings with Billy Corgan, and everything I personally
dealt with him on, he was totally reasonable and unpretentious. He was also
very generous with his time in regards to some charity stuff he was asked to
do, and I applaud him for that.
Many people have passed judgment on him based on some public

statements and presumptions about how he managed the membership of
his bands. Even a micro celebrity like myself is occasionally asked to make
statements for public consumption, so I know that things said in haste or
without consideration can come back to haunt you. Also, not having been in
his bands, I'm not prepared to say what he should or shouldn't have done
with the members, and who "counts" as a "real" band member.
I always heard he was kind of reviled by the 'real underground' Chicago

bands for being a sellout...
The first part is true, but not necessarily because of the second part. You
are asking about historical perspectives, and I happened to be around while
this was underway, so maybe I can shed some light.
In Chicago in the late 1980s, there began to develop a kind of budding

professionalism that struck us in the punk/underground scene as
distasteful: Bands with managers, publicists and other agents were
encroaching on a self-made scene that had previously been by, for and
about the bands themselves.
The Smashing Pumpkins personified this creeping professionalism, having a

management relationship with a creepy local music business player who
was also responsible for booking the biggest venue in town. As a result, any
decent touring band that came through town would have the Smashing
Pumpkins added to the bill as a support act. This was rightfully seen as an
imposition, and patrons learned to arrive at the Metro an hour later than
usual in order to miss them. It isn't overstating things to say they were
something of a joke in Chicago -- a band imposed on an existing audience
by the music business rather than a band building its natural audience
through accretion.
Additionally, early on they were associated with the exceptional band the
Poster Children, through some shows and a shared label. The Poster
Children (and other bands from the same downstate scene, like Hum) were
an obvious and direct influence on the Smashing Pumpkins' sound. For
anyone familiar with both, it is hard to see how the a lesser derivation of the
Poster Children's sound could be hailed as some kind of revolutionary
genius, except by rock critics and music business people unaware of
anything at the street level.
In some of those public statements I mentioned earlier, Billy Corgan has

derided the underground scene of the day, saying it was clique-ish and
insular, and that he wanted to rebel against it by going through
conventional rock star channels to become a conventional rock star. Well,
bully for that kind of thinking, I guess, if you think being a retrograde
reactionary and joining the suffocating mainstream culture and business is
some kind of rebellion, and if you think the penthouse of the managers and
lawyers is somehow more open and inviting than the open field of the DIY
scene.
For those of us involved daily in bucking that system, it was gross.
239
Do you need a cranked tube amp to get a good overdriven amp tone on to
tape? Any tips for miking 1x12 combo amps, multiple mics?
A good rule of thumb is that if you want the sound of a certain amplifier,
then you ought to use that amplifier to record. Trying to fool Mother Nature
is seldom a realistic goal. There isn't a single standard for what makes a
good guitar sound -- it's all relative to the kind of music being played and
the techniques in play. But if you aren't happy with the sound of your
amplifier, you shouldn't record it and hope that some magic happens to
make you like it on tape. If you are happy with the sound as-is, then you
need to get better at capturing that sound, and that takes experience.
What would your advice be for a 34 year old singer songwriter who just
wants to get his music recorded for himself more than for release? Hire
musicians and go to the cheapest studio possible? Try to do it at home?
Recording is a strange objective. I have always seen playing the music as the
goal, and recording as a document of the playing. To that end, I would
suggest trying to get a band together (even as a pastime) and get
comfortable playing the songs. Recording it with this band should then be a
pretty straightforward exercise, and you can certainly do it in the practice
room. If you just want to make demos of the songs without putting a band
together, then you'll either need to pay or cajole musicians into playing
them, or you can do everything yourself as overdubs.
It seems that a lot of "indie music" rejects pop type melodies, what is your
take on music that's easy to listen to in that sense, too obvious to be good?
You are apparently ignorant of the enormous number of indie pop bands
out there who strive for nothing more than obvious, memorable melodies.
There are thousands of such bands. If you mean the ugly end of the
spectrum, okay, there are people like me who have no taste for pop music,
and don't pretend to understand it.
What's your guitar rig (guitar, pedalboard, amps, etc)?
It's posted on guitargeek, (http://guitargeek.com/rigview/446/) and is

pretty accurate. There is no external A/B box, but otherwise, they got it
right.
Max Raker
If your only goal was to sell records, how big of a rock star do you think you
could have been? Billy Corgan big? Much bigger? Which rock star would you
place as the upper bound on how famous you could have become?
You realize that I have worked on records that have sold many millions of
copies, right? I've made a reasonable living for 20 years doing only things
that I thought were within the bounds of my ethics. I'm not just guessing
when I say it is possible to survive and flourish without "selling out." Along
the way, I have been offered things that would have earned me literally
millions of dollars, and I decided that my peace of mind was worth more
than that, so I didn't do them.
The most obvious case is that I am paid a flat fee for my work as an
engineer, rather than paid out of a band's royalty. This has directly
benefited the bands I work with (and consequently cost me) several million
dollars. Despite which, I have never gone hungry, built a nice business and
been able to release records and tour the world pretty much at will. Not
selling out hasn't hindered me in the slightest.
I mention this not to make note of any accomplishments of mine (a

necessity, but one that took me several pages of discussion to relent to),
but to show you that the world is not divided into rock stars on one hand
and miserable bar bands on the other. There is a comfortable independent
realm that is inhabited by thousands of bands like mine, and selling out is
neither an objective or necessarily any real improvement in conditions for
them.
There is an apocryphal story about Ahmet Ertegun approaching Ian MacKaye
of Fugazi in an attempt to get him to sign with Atlantic. He says something
like, "I can offer you your own label and a million dollars." To which Ian
replies, "I already have my own label and a million dollars."
If you mean could I have been a rock star in the manner Billy Corgan, well
no, probably not. I'm not a very good singer, I'm nothing special to look at,
and the music I make doesn't appeal to a large audience.
Max Raker
Also, I believe you charge bands like Bush and Nirvana more than if I or
some other random dudes wanted to record with you. Why do you think this
is ethical?
Big label sessions demand more administrative attention, take more time to
organize in advance, and are often open-ended, in that I may find myself
working much longer than anticipated on such a session, and most
importantly, it is bastard hard to get a major label to pay its bills, and I want
to be compensated for that nuisance. I have to cover the cost of lost work,
often there is travel and associated living costs, sometimes I even need to
hire someone temporarily either to cover my ass back home or keep up
with the session I'm on. Additionally, big label sessions often have some
prick demanding changes and revisions long-distance, and that is much
more time consuming than working with just the band in the studio.
Working on big label projects can be a royal pain in the ass and cost money
to execute. I want all that covered, and I want to make a profit, so I charge
them more. Still, I charge them less than most people in my position, and I
am undeniably a bargain.
FF_Woodycooks
So most underground bands would turn down a big record deal and national
promotion so they can continue to work the local scene for free beer, and
finally retire to a carpet cleaning business or whatnot?
So much you do not understand. So many words it will take to teach you.
Okay.
I don't suggest that most bands would turn down big deals. Most would take
them and be worse off eventually. Luckily, most bands are not offered deals,
and so don't have to make such choices, and the question is therefore moot.
Of those bands who are offered deals with big record labels, many of them
(not a majority, but enough to prove my point) are already comfortable on
independent labels that serve them well, and they see no need to move to a
more bureaucratic situation that works less efficiently and cares less about
them specifically. Not all bands think this way, but quite a few (especially
those who have been paying attention and can do their own math) do.
National and even international promotion and touring is available to bands

of no stature and no resources through the extremely efficient fan-and-
band network that has supplanted the mainstream outlets for independent
bands.
If you're talking about payola, okay, that single example of the incredibly
inefficient music business is only available to big label acts. Whoop de doo.
If you're not satisfied with selling records and concert tickets, and getting
played on enthusiastic independent/college/internet/satellite stations, but
also insist on getting played on am and morning zoo fm radio, then you
have no choice.
Independent bands tour the world and play in front of crowds in the many
thousands. To suggest that they will be playing "Proud Mary" in local
taverns forever is to display utter ignorance of the music economy. Some of
these bands can command fees better than $10,000 a night, and a few can
get a multiple of that. Hardly beer money.
As for the carpet-cleaning business, where do you think major-label artists

end-up once their advance has been spent? In the palaces of the old rock
star gated retirement community?
No, they end up getting jobs, just like everybody else. Where's the shame in
embracing that reality instead of deluding yourself about it?
I mean you make a nice living, you have a skilled techincal profession, I am
speaking more of band members that have nothing else to lean on. Does
'keeping it real' trump all?
If you will starve unless you become a rock star, then you have bigger
problems than whether or not you are a rock star.
Yes but its because you already have money/millions and are happy.
Do you think I dropped into the world that way? Do you think I did not have
my share of $8 an hour jobs? I am older than you, probably, so the figure
was more like $5, but you get the idea.
Would you believe me if I told you that not compromising my principles is

what got me whatever money and success I have enjoyed in excess of that
$5 an hour?
If not, I'm sorry, but you will never understand. If you believe me, then the
rest of your curiosity should satisfy itself, QED.
Hi, I was more just making an argument to understand why bands like SP
are reviled as 'sellouts'...
And I tried to explain (in a couple hundred words you chose to ignore) that
selling out has nothing to do with success, and is not why people disliked
the Smashing Pumpkins in the first place.
just because they were good enough and good at the game, and didn't mind
making a nice living.
It is a ridiculous straw man (and a common one among apologists for

mainstream culture) that independent-minded people are against success,
and that we see something inherently wrong with making money, being
well-liked, etc. I will say it again here (and for the 10,000th time in my life
in identical discussions with people who are misrepresenting this position):
Nobody thinks success is a bad thing, nobody thinks less of a band just
because they are successful, and nobody faults a band for wanting to make
money. All of those things are embraced by the independent/underground
culture. My band is reasonably popular. My bands have all turned a healthy
profit. My bands' tours are all profitable. My bands have all sold a lot of
records. I am glad it is so, and I have never wished that it was otherwise.
What is rejected is the bulldozer of corporate intrusion, the enforced group-

think of the mass culture and the herd-of-sheep mentality that makes it
possible. When someone embraces all those things, we are within our rights
to notice and form an opinion of that embrace, and the person performing it.
I cannot say it any more clearly: Nobody has a problem with success. We
have a problem with an oppressive, monolithic culture being thrust on us at
every juncture, and those who would help it along using the excuse that
they "just want to be successful."
I am totally fine and understand just doin it for fun and enjoyment, I don't
think those are the people that take it seriously enough to produce
something fantastic that reaches a ton of people.
You are apparently ignorant of the careers of the many independent bands
who have made "fantastic" records that have changed lives. How many
people is a "ton?" Is a million enough? I can name you a dozen independent
bands who have reached that many people and more.
Is it wrong to seek commercial success if you think you're good enough and
palatable enough for broad consumption?
The way you pose the question makes the answer obvious: No, of course
not. That's also not what anybody is complaining about. "Seeking success"
can be done without joining forces with the most destructive elements of
the business and culture, and that's what you're excusing by reducing the
discussion to a simpleton's level; "they just want to be successful." This is in
keeping with the way the outfit excuses torching a restaurant and
threatening the family of the proprietor, "it's just business."
matt0009
Hello Steve.
In a Joanna Newsom article from the January issue of Performer magazine it

states:
'...She went and recorded with Steve Albini, famed producer of neo-folk
geniuses Jawbreaker and Cheap Trick. Well, he has also with Newsom's
tourmate Smog. "I had always heard that Steve Albini was the best at
accurately recording acoustic instruments and making them sound like
exactly what they are," she explains. He helped her create the "rough and
stark and exposed and grounded" sound she says she was looking for - and
invented some unorthodox ways of micing the harp, which shall henceforth
remain a mystery. "I don't think I should talk about them because I kind of
feel like they're his intellectual property," she says.'
Now speaking to the man himself, is this mystery technique something

you'd be willing to expand upon a little bit? Does it involve a multitude of
intricately arranged microphones or something along those lines?
Thanks.
I have no secrets in the studio. Everything I do is either learned from

someone else, in the prior published literature or figured-out from core
principles known to pretty much everybody in the game.
In the case of Joanna Newsom's harp, I used close mics, a mono area mic
and an ambient mic.
The close mics were four Crown GLM100s attached to the the body of the
resonator box, evenly spaced along the length of the harp. I needed four to
get even coverage without hot spots, and these mics are small and light
enough that they wouldn't interfere with the sound or playing. Taped in
place with a little square of gaffer tape, they didn't need stands or other
hardware. These mics were recorded discretely (one to a tape track) but
could easily have been sub-mixed to stereo.
The area mic was either a Sony C500 or a Neumann U47. We tried both, and
I don't recall which was eventually chosen. It was about head-high and
about a yard away, directly in front of the harp.
We tried a C24 stereo mic in that position (or a Neumann SM2, I don't
remember) but I don't think those survived the audition.
The ambient mic was an AKG C12A in omni, resting on the floor as a
boundary mic about 12 feet away in a hard-sided room.
That's it.
60Vauban
Have you listened to Brian Eno's work (personal and collaborative) and
wondered how creative he would be if his digital "toys" were taken away?
Eno has answered this question for us. The records he made before he had
access to samplers and digital editing are all unique, timeless and fantastic.
Since then, meh.
Is there any sound or effect created using Protools that you simply can't
recreate in an analog environment?
Not with a little effort, no.
Or perhaps is that just not the point, that the music should be transmitted in
its purest form from the studio experience to the commercial release.
I just think most bands ought to be respected as they exist in nature, and I
don't have a strong enough ego to presume that I can "improve" a band by
making them change to suit me, or using software to determine the
parameters of their weaknesses.
felix240
Similarly, how do you regard artists whose idiosyncratic recording style is

essential to their musical expression? I think of Jandek, for one, where the
hiss and tin are actually as much music as the voice/gtr/whatever. Or Royal
Trux, who used effects with a kind of historical and theoretical
sophistication...
Those people make records they do (and have what value they have)
precisely because a producer didn't make them change their idiosyncrasies.
Bands ought to be allowed to make the record they want to make, without
anybody shoe-horning them into a prescribed aesthetic.
I mean, isn't recording as straight up documentation kind of like a painter

limiting himself to portraiture?
No. A recording engineer isn't a painter. A recording engineer works (or
ought to work) under the direction of his client, not ask the client to work to
his direction. If a band wants a sound abstracted from reality, fine, but that
abstraction ought to be their idea.
Isn't any tool useful in the right hands?
In the abstract, sure. But when the things a tool makes easier (editing and
manipulation, or, say, automatic machine gun fire) are so subject to
disfiguring abuse, there are precious few "right" hands. The tool itself may
not be the problem, but having it in use is almost always worse than not.
killideas
Recording the Godspeed record where there any particular challenges

recording a group that big (or perhaps they were pared down for recording?).
They have a reputation for being this quiet shadowy group. True? I've always
assumed this was a rep that came from not talking to the media etc so
media just makes something up. Also any particular reason you didn't mix
the record? Was the final project much of a departure from what left your
studio? How long did the record take to make? thnx.
The Godspeed! sessions were done in two chunks, totalling about three
weeks, and were taxing, but inspiring in a couple of weird ways.
The collective aspect of the band is something I'm familiar with and
comfortable with, so that wasn't a problem, other than occasionally having
to get everybody together and discuss different options at a little more
length than usual. It intruded more when trying to decide where the
smokers were going to smoke than any recording consideration.
Anybody who has been in even a three-piece band knows how difficult it
can be to keep the peace, and I was impressed at the lengths these guys
went to to make sure everyone in the band was heard.
The formal elements of the band and the music have their own inherent
problems. The band had nine members: two drummers, three electric
guitarists, two bassists, a 'cello, violin, various mallet percussion
instruments, a music box and a penny whistle. Their music often has
crescendos that begin very quiet (ppp) and are eventually hard rock loud
(ffff). This mix of loud and quiet sounds, acoustic and electric instruments
and a lot of people makes even the physical setup in the studio difficult. We
had to try several arrangements of chairs and rooms, often moving
everything involved in the session before everyone was comfortable.
The next problem was recording both the very quiet and very loud sounds
accurately. Ordinarily, small adjustments can be made in mixing to
compensate for louder and quieter parts, but this was an extreme case,
with an active dynamic range of better than 28dB. The conventional or hack
approach to a problem of wide dynamic range is to use compressors to
restrict the top-end of the dynamic range, but I have never liked the
artificial sound quality imparted by this method.
The "clamping" action of the compressor is noticeable, and it sacrifices

detail at the highest point of the dynamic, when the music is reaching its
biggest moments. This would be a particularly inappropriate choice for a
band like Godspeed! Still, I needed to be able to ride the gain on as many as
a dozen microphones in a smooth, repeatable fashion, so I used the channel
grouping feature of our console to create sub-masters for each of the
instruments, and I rode the gain on the individual instruments, keeping
them at a reasonable level throughout the course of songs as long as ten
minutes.
Several of the pieces were meant to flow seamlessly from one to the next,
but could not be performed this way because of instrument changes or
other reasons, so I needed to be able to knit together several chunks
recorded separately while maintaining the illusion that they were performed
at once. In most cases there was a transitional moment, where piece "A"
ended and piece "B" started, so these transitional moments were scripted
into each piece, so there would be a range of editing options. In once case,
there was a gradual guitar crescendo, so the edit needed to observe that
dynamic and avoid creating a jarring change. This part of the session
organization took more thought and preparation than I was expecting, but
eventually it all worked out.
There were some additional musicians recorded for a couple of parts, in

particular a string section comprising several double-basses, but the
original session was still set-up and couldn't be disturbed, so during this
period the band were occupying both studios.
As the session progressed, individual players needed to add overdubs, and

we would concentrate on one person until finished, and then move on to
the next player. This part of the session involved some very long days for me,
and it seemed like the band were eating and sleeping in shifts while I
worked every minute.
Eventually, the record was finished and mixed, and the band went on their
way. I wasn't party to the discussions after they left, but with such a
complex project, it isn't surprising that there were things the band were
dissatisfied with over time, and they decided to mix the album themselves
(there was some additional recording done as well) at the studio they
normally used in Montreal, with an engineer (Howard Bilerman) who is a
friend and an important part of their extended family. That they were
eventually happy enough to release the record is good enough for me.
Any other complications involved boiled down to me not speaking French

very well, the US border crossings being a bastard, and Canadians being
weird in general.
ec3to1
Shellac records somehow make it to the CD format with their dynamic

range still intact, which is great, but I've heard other albums that you
recorded (High On Fire is a good example) that are completely obliterated
with peak limiting. How much control do you and the rest of the band have
over the mastering of your own records? And how much control, if any, do
you have over the mastering of your recordings of other bands?
It's pretty rare that I have any influence on the mastering of records I record.
I always give my recommendations, but what happens to the record after it
leaves here is the business of the band and the label. I didn't think the High
on Fire record fared too badly though.
buhce
Although you seem quite anti-digital, in respect to recording sound,or

maybe just more so, music.Do you think that if you were in the same
position today as you were when you first thought about recording your
own music, you'd have embraced the technology - un-willingly or
otherwise.Or do you think you would have still sought after, the more
expensive,more cumbersome,more second hand (and harder to get fix with
a steeper learning curve,especially these days) alternative, of analogue?
I think I would have done whatever everybody else was doing. I don't think
the advantages of analog recording are obvious to people who don't work
with it everyday, and who haven't seen digital recording technologies
consistently fail to solve their fundamental problems.
Does that mean you have never been apart of a "layered" recording
before,where the band records not only separatly but to a click track?
I have. That's how I know it's a drag.
And if not, why not, and does it mean you would agree to be at the helm of
such a recording if a band expressed the desire to record in such a way ?
I'll do whatever the band wants to do. I haven't had good results using the
piecemeal technique you describe so I don't generally advocate it, but if
somebody wants to do it, then whatever, it's his funeral.
ICallHimGamblor
"WHEN IN FIVE YEARS, THIS REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENT IN THE ADVANCEMENT

OF FIDELITY IS OBSOLETE AND UNPLAYABLE ON ANY 'MODERN' EQUIPMENT,
REMEMBER: IN 1971, THE 8-TRACK TAPE WAS THE STATE OF THE ART." --
Steve Albini about CDs, 1987.
Have you changed your opinion about digital or the media now that twenty
years have elapsed?
I was off by a little, but right in principle. Do you own an Ipod? That's not a
CD player, is it.
Vinyl records will still be in current manufacture after CDs are a dimming
memory. Vinyl sales have been trending up, as have electronic sales
(downloads), while CD sales have been in decline.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but as I recall, your argument was
that digital recordings were fragile and unrecoverable, thus analog was the
preferred format. CDs are still by far the dominant format in an admitted
failing industry and the public moving to ipods doesn't exactly support your
point, right?
This argument is two decades old, so I am sorry if I misremembered your

original point....
The way I understand it, vinyl sales are only trending up for 7 inches, not cds,
more for 'trend' value than media shift. And since when does the trends and
whims of the public make a compelling argument for you? Your point was
that the media would be unplayable.
Sincerely looking forward to your response...
Cds have a per-unit lifespan of 20 years or so, if you're lucky. Many fail in as
little as 5 years. Other than physically breaking or gouging it, there's no
reason a vinyl record won't last several hundred years. Purely-digital data
(downloads and other sound files) are infinitely more fragile, since they
exist only resident on a drive (which is itself vulnerable to failure) and
dependent on software to make any sound at all, and that software is
beholden to the software maker for all its functionality, and that software is
beholden to the computer industry as a whole. This is more of a problem
with proprietary file formats for professional use, but it is true nonetheless.
I have been through this particular debate almost as often as the major
label vs independent label debate, and I don't have the energy to recite all
the point-by-point discussions, but if you do archive searches at
prosoundweb and rec.audio.pro and the Ampexlist at recordist.com you'll
find several thousand words from me on the topic.
Once you're up at the front of the boat, we can discuss what's ahead.
Regarding sales, CD's only real advantage (not perceived, but real) over vinyl
is convenience, and that is how they won their market share. Ipods et al
trump that step in convenience by a mile, and so I expect that CDs will lose
the convenience-first battle to downloads. That will be the end of them.
pointfive
during your many years in the music business, I'm sure you've been made
countless offers that would require you to compromise your values in order
to accept. Have there been any you were particularly tempted by? Were
there any you seriously considered accepting? (Or did accept?) Share as
many details as you like.
The common stuff, offers of management, major label deals for bands I've
been in, that sort of thing, I've never been tempted by. It's obvious to me
that I handle my affairs better than anybody else could, I get all the work I
need, and my bands have not been limited in any aspirations. Getting more
involved with the mainstream showbusiness industry would be a step
backwards.
While Shellac was a new band, we played a few European festivals and were
disgusted by the whole scene. The promoters were offering a mixed slate of
bands, some of whom they were obligated to have because of backroom
deals with agencies and labels, some of which were flavor-of-the-month
crap, and the rest were just generic light entertainment, where any old
band will do. The bands were using these non-critical (but lucrative) gigs as
a kind of subsidy, the fans were not being treated well, and the whole thing
was a grotesque abstraction of the legitimate band-fan relationship. After a
couple of those, we decided that we would be unavailable for festival gigs.
A few years later, we were asked to play All Tomrrow's Parties, under the
pretext that "this festival is different." We declined. The promoter and the
curating band who nominated us asked again, with a very generous offer.
We explained that we didn't care about the money, we just didn't play
festival gigs out of principle. That led to a conversation about the festival,
and we were persuaded to play.
As it turns out, this festival was different. It was curated by a band, so all
the acts were being vouched-for, the patrons got a weekend ticket
including a little apartment (rather than a space in a field for a tent) with a
private kitchen and bathroom, and the shows were in proper indoor venues
rather than in tents exposed to the weather.
For the first time in history, someone said, "but this one is different," and it
actually was different. Not only that, but its success as a festival fostered a
whole trend in curated, civilized festivals, and now some of the curated
festivals are quite good.
Also, any tips for recording violin? Any special considerations to take into
account when recording electric violin vs. acoustic?
Electric violin I treat like any electric instrument -- make sure the band is
happy with the sound coming out of the amplifier and record that sound as
clearly as possible.
Acoustic violin is a rough one. Microphone choice is pretty important. There

is a ton of energy in the very high frequencies, and any peaking in the mic
high frequency response can make the violin sound shrill or thin. The holy
grail for violin recording is a mic with a smooth and phase-accurate high
frequency response (not necessarily flat, but without irregular peaks and
notches). A couple of mics come close, good ribbon mics like the Coles/STC
4038 and the Royer R121, and measurement-caliber omni condensers like
the DPA 4000 series, the Earthworks mics and the Josephson 617. The only
directional condenser mics I have found to sound good on violin have been
Schoeps 221b and a Russian mic, the Lomo 19a18, which has been fitted
with a new diaphragm by David Josephson.
buhce
But you must use compressors for some things, though surely.
Bass guitar, 2-3 dB, Bass drum, 3-6dB (usually a peak limiter), vocals 6-
8dB (occasionally more in extreme cases), occasionally snare drum 2-3 dB
(again a peak limiter). That's about it. Anything more than that and there's
some problem that ought to be solved another way.
squashed
I hate to be disagreeable...
I hear this all the time. I guess I bring it out in people.
- (vinyl) has very high noise floor. This is okay for rock/casual room
listening, but as more and more people uses high quality headphones,
creating their own digital music and exploring different texture and music
style, the noise is very noticeable. Plus, over time, vinyl's grove also collect
dust. Wear and tear.
I guess I disagree. A properly maintained record should not be objectionably

noisy. If the sound of the silences between the songs is the most important
part of the record for you, then I guess you shouldn't listen to vinyl records.
- dynamic range. digital is better long term. Beyond current CD limitation,

digital really only limited by actual players ability to come closer to
theoritical limit of electronics. music file will simply carry more and more
information for more accurate sound representation. We haven't even
begun exploring the possibility of high fidelity consumer electronics. Vinyl
however is pretty much it.
Again, you're talking about the sound quality at the noise floor, which is not
where I do the majority of my listening.
I'm going to skip over the points I concede regarding cost and convenience.
Of course manufacturing nothing is less expensive than manufacturing
something.
- A digital file is infinitely reproducible. All current CD/.wav are reproducible

and it is not locked. Popular lossy compression (.mp3) patent will expire in
2010. I am sure it won't go away anytime soon. Then there are more than
enough lossless compression available online including Open source (FLAC).
So all in all, the idea that a digital file will become unreadable is bunk,
because the "data" itself is reproducible. It only take one person in the world
to post a raw .wav file online and that file is immortal. As cost of storage and
bandwith plummet, this will be truer. The best audio codec has yet to be
written. DRM/closed standard will die, as it is rejected by user.
That digital data are reproducible in no way ensures that they will be copied,
and the nature of digital files is they inevitably will disappear unless they are
perpetually copied and migrated onto new storage media as the old ones
become obsolete (a regimen that absolutely no one is undertaking). Analog
recordings just sit on a shelf until you need to play them, and then they play
just like always.
I can give you a short (incomplete) list of digital audio formats that are now
unrecoverable, despite that they could have been migrated onto other
formats: DAT, ADAT, ADAM, DTRS, DCC, 1610 (also 1630), F1 (also 601-901),
DBX, JVC Soundstream, Mitsubishi X80, X850, ProDigi, DASH, 3M... You get
the idea. What would you do if you found a nine-track tape of some SD1
files, or a U-matic tape with Soundstream data? You sure wouldn't be able
to play them.
On the other hand, if you bring me any (yes, any) analog audio recording
made in the last 100 years, I'll be able to play it. The more obscure formats
might require me to jerry-rig a player, but I'll be able to do it. Anything.
Soundmats, anything.
Total sale of LP is hardly worth arguing in term of mass entertainment

medium. It's undetectable compared to recorded download transaction
every day. The situation wont' change anytime soon. I might as well believe
in second coming rather than waiting for LP's return. So discussing LP will
be forever tied to hardcore audiophile.
Serious hi-fi listeners and their equipment are a billion-dollar+ industry (or
so said a friend of mine who ran a hi-fi magazine). Independent labels sell a
modest but valuable percentage in vinyl, and there are vinyl specialty labels
that sell nothing but. A new disc-cutting lab opened in Chicago a month ago,
and they have had regular work. Vinyl records are not going away any time
soon. They are not a mass market item, but then neither is anything of
superlative quality.
A silly elitism. Palm reading and mystics sort of elitism.
I'm sorry you don't like vinyl records, but you're talking like an idiot here.
A little bit like discussing hand made 1934 Bugatti vs. 2007 Honda accord.
Yeah the Bugatti won '34 grand Prix, but I need something that can survive
NJ turnpike.
I wouldn't suggest that vinyl records are a good replacement for

convenience-listening items like Ipods. A wedge isn't a universal
replacement for a putter either, but it has its place.
squashed
From music fan point of view, naive one mind you:
big picture wise, one only needs to convert once to a Hardrive with some
standard format, and keep data specification as a note. Plus, data
storage/digital locker service is a dime a dozen these days.
at practical level, you pretty much take home the argument. It's not
possible to save people from every stupidities/freak accident. If a person
doesn't have the foresight and not transfering their digital data into most
common/most reliable/cheap medium/not controled by single
corporation. ... well. ... The music is owned by the guy who control the
mechanism plus hand of time. That's pretty much true for any medium. It's
only a question if a person is comfortable rigging an analog reader or write a
digital hack.
So if I find any random digital maste" from who knows where, as a music
fan I pretty much look at it like I find a moon rock. If I am curious enough, I
might then google and find a studio that still has said equipment so I can
read it. Not an elegant solution I am sure.
The very point of "digital" is to be able to precisely extract out information

and seperate it from the medium later. If a person doesn't take advantage
of this feature and wishing a medium will last forever. Well, ... I mean.
Whaddya gonna do?. In that case, record in the best analog devices.
" DAT, ADAT, ADAM, DTRS, DCC, 1610 (also 1630), F1 (also 601-901), DBX, JVC
Soundstream, Mitsubishi X80, X850, ProDigi, DASH, 3M... You get the idea.
What would you do if you found a nine-track tape of some SD1 files, or a U-
matic tape with Soundstream data? You sure wouldn't be able to play
them."
As exercise, if hypothetically I find a master in those standard, can I get a

service to shove it into a HD today?
F1
http://www.audiotubes.com/prorates.htm
X850
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep05/articles/fxcopyroom.htm
DBX
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/dbx700recorder86.html
nine-track tape
http://www.chicorporation.com/ninetrack/drives/index.html
SD-1
http://www.youngmonkey.ca/nose/audio_tech/synth/Ensoniq-
DiskFormats.html
PS. very clever Steve. yer not probing me trying to figure out if I am a
programmer or a studio engineer are ya? :P
PPS. I am surprise there is no "general" catalog, on the net describing

various recording specification and where people can go to get the data out.
I bet there are plenty of desperate people wanting to know that.
"On the other hand, if you bring me any (yes, any) analog audio recording
made in the last 100 years, I'll be able to play it."
be carefull what you wish for, you might have to eat your short. :P
(but then again, you might call my bluff and ask me to bring in a holographic
disc containing analog sound recording.)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060050339.html
A hologram recording method includes generating a signal beam with data

formed by superimposing pattern data, the pattern data representing a
pattern in which a large number of plural kinds of pixels having different
tone values are arranged in a two-dimensional manner, on an image data of
respective pixels represented by tone values corresponding to density, and
recording a hologram by irradiating a converted beam formed by Fourier
transformation of the generated signal beam with a lens and a reference
beam to an optical recording medium.
Squashed, you will doubtless appreciate that I don't want to rely on hiring
someone off the internet to make a copy of old masters for me, and in what
an awkward position this would put the rights owner. A couple of years ago,
some original Led Zeppelin master tapes made their way out onto the
internet via a "simple" copy someone wanted to make.
Additionally, playing a digital master is not necessarily the simple process

you imagine. The Mitsubishi X-series tape machines, for example, have
mechanical head alignment adjustments, which tend to drift more and
more over time. Mitsubishi did not supply alignment tapes or instructions
(as they were considered intellectual property), and it did not allow them to
be made by a secondary source. For this reason, if you find a working X-
series machine, it is unlikely to play back any master tape not recorded on it.
I only know this because I was peripherally involved in another studio trying
to play an X80 tape about 8 years ago. It proved to be impossible on the two
machines they found in Chicago and three more in Nashville -- including
the one it was supposedly recorded on.
Eventually they used a commercially-pressed vinyl record for the re-issue

master.
I tell this story because it demonstrates that the digital nature of the data is
meaningless, because the data are still resident on a medium (there are
another couple of pages I could fill about the volatility of digital media, but
this is far enough afield for the moment), and that medium is subject to the
failures of time, the playback device, penetration of the technology and
(increasingly) intellectual property protections. The story would be the
same if the data were on one of the many proprietary removable tape
systems or any other format long since discarded by the computer industry.
Analog recordings are much more robust, and playback devices are
ubiquitous, non-proprietary and not particularly difficult to make, if it
comes to that. Analog recordings require no additional attention to last
centuries. Longevity is built-in.
If you want to continue the sport of trying to find "solutions" to my

reservations about digital recording, be my guest. It is clearly entertaining
you, and it might be entertaining for others. You are unlikely to come up
with anything that hasn't occurred to me in the last 20 years that I have
been working on the problem myself, but it can't hurt anything.
The Problem With Music
By Steve Albini
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always
end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about
four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny,
decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of
them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a
faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a
contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the
contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making
everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to
swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and
they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive
simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and
dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and
there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says
"Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please.
Backstroke". And he does of course.
Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a
high-profile point man, an "A & R" rep who can present a comfortable face
to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire."
because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that
they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case,
though not openly. These guys are universally young [about the same age as
the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious
underground rock credibility flag they can wave.
Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin,
former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and
Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike
Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and
other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to
staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well. There are several
reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to
is that the scout will be "hip to the current musical "scene." A more
important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think
is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll
experiences. The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the
band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better
to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be
calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience
with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping.
When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he
probably even believes it. When he sits down with the band for the first time,
over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when
they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their
side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast. By
now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum.
There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged
ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling
everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A & R guy, the band will say to
themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all!
He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was
hired.
These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present
the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some
terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has
been agreed on. The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little
memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once
the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label.
If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign,
all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign
the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength. These
letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the
deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The
band cannot sign to another laborer or even put out its own material unless
they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no
mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either
eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.
One of my favorite bands was held hostage for the better part of two years
by a slick young "He's not like a label guy at all," A & R rep, on the basis of
such a deal memo. He had failed to come through on any of his promises
[something he did with similar effect to another well-known band], and so
the band wanted out. Another label expressed interest, but when the A & R
man was asked to release the band, he said he would need money or points,
or possibly both, before he would consider it. The new label was afraid the
price would be too dear, and they said no thanks. On the cusp of making
their signature album, an excellent band, humiliated, broke up from the
stress and the many months of inactivity. There's this band. They're pretty
ordinary, but they're also pretty good, so they've attracted some attention.
They're signed to a moderate-sized "independent" label owned by a
distribution company, and they have another two albums owed to the label.
They're a little ambitious. They'd like to get signed by a major label so they
can have some security you know, get some good equipment, tour in a
proper tour bus -- nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work.
To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he
can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut, sure, but
it's only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it's money well spent.
Anyways, it doesn't cost them anything if it doesn't work. 15% of nothing
isn't much! One day an A & R scout calls them, says he's 'been following
them for a while now, and when their manager mentioned them to him, it
just "clicked." Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of
working out a deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time. They meet the guy,
and y'know what -- he's not what they expected from a label guy. He's
young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all their
favorite bands. He's like one of them. He tells them he wants to go to bat for
them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything is possible
with the right attitude.
They conclude the evening by taking home a copy of a deal memo they
wrote out and signed on the spot. The A & R guy was full of great ideas, even
talked about using a name producer. Butch Vig is out of the question-he
wants 100 g's and three points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000
plus three points. Even that's a little steep, so maybe they'll go with that guy
who used to be in David Letterman's band. He only wants three points. Or
they can have just anybody record it (like Warton Tiers, maybe-- cost you 5
or 7 grand] and have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points.
It was a lot to think about. Well, they like this guy and they trust him.
Besides, they already signed the deal memo. He must have been serious
about wanting them to sign. They break the news to their current label, and
the label manager says he wants them to succeed, so they have his blessing.
He will need to be compensated, of course, for the remaining albums left on
their contract, but he'll work it out with the label himself.
Sub Pop made millions from selling off Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn't done
bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and 60 grand for the Poster Children--
without having to sell a single additional record. It'll be something modest.
The new label doesn't mind, so long as it's recoupable out of royalties. Well,
they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected. They
figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer--one
who says he's experienced in entertainment law and he hammers out a few
bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's seen a lot of
contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They'll be great royalty: 13% [less a
1O% packaging deduction]. Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting
12% less 10? Whatever. The old label only wants 50 grand, an no points. Hell,
Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go. They're signed for four years,
with options on each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That's a lot of
money in any man's English. The first year's advance alone is $250,000.
Just think about it, a quarter million, just for being in a rock band! Their
manager thinks it's a great deal, especially the large advance. Besides, he
knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they get signed,
and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they'll be making that
money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody
really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that
contract over too. Hell, it's free money. Their booking agent is excited about
the band signing to a major. He says they can maybe average $1,000 or
$2,000 a night from now on. That's enough to justify a five week tour, and
with tour support, they can use a proper crew, buy some good equipment
and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty expensive, but if you figure in the
price of a hotel room for everybody In the band and crew, they're actually
about the same cost. Some bands like Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab use
buses on their tours even when they're getting paid only a couple hundred
bucks a night, and this tour should earn at least a grand or two every night.
It'll be worth it. The band will be more comfortable and will play better.
The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to
pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! ridiculous! There's a gold mine here!
The lawyer Should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe.
They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks
thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo. They decided to go with the
producer who used to be in Letterman's band. He had these technicians
come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He
had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old "vintage" microphones. Boy, were
they "warm." He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the
equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch
of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded
very "punchy," yet "warm." All that hard work paid off. With the help of a
video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies!
Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are: These figures are
representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no
need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life
examples more than abound. income is bold and underlined, expenses are
not.
Advance: $ 250,000
Manager's cut: $ 37,500
Legal fees: $ 10,000
Recording Budget: $ 150,000
Producer's advance: $ 50,000
Studio fee: $ 52,500
Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000
Recording tape: $ 8,000
Equipment rental: $ 5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000
Catering: $ 3,000
Mastering: $ 10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping $ 2,000
tapes, misc. expenses:
Video budget: $ 30,000
Cameras: $ 8,000
Crew: $ 5,000
Processing and transfers: $ 3,000
Off-line: $ 2,000
On-line editing: $ 3,000
Catering: $ 1,000
Stage and construction: $ 3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000
Director's fee: $ 3,000
Album Artwork: $ 5,000
Promotional photo shoot and $ 2,000
duplication:
Band fund: $ 15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000
New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs $ 4,000
[2]:
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
Bus: $ 25,000
Crew [3]: $ 7,500
Food and per diems: $ 7,875
Fuel: $ 3,000
Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
Wardrobe: $ 1,000
Promotion: $ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000
Agent's cut: $ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of
retail]:
$ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points: [3% less
$50,000
advance]:
$ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous $ 50,000
label:
Net royalty: $ -14,000
Record company income:
Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000

=
$1,625,000 gross
income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and @ $2.20 per
distribution: record: $
550,000
Gross profit: $ 7l0,000
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got

paid at the end of the game.
Record company: $ 710,000

Producer: $ 90,000
Manager: $ 51,000
Studio: $ 52,500
Previous label: $ 50,000
Agent: $ 7,500
Lawyer: $ 12,000
Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25
The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music
industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on
royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they
would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The
next album will be about the same, except that the record company will
insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never
"recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour
will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already
been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties
from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to
count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably
already this fucked.
Comments on “The Problem With Music” at “Signal vs Noise” blog
Related: The Problem With Music (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html)

is a famous rant about the economics of the music industry that Albini
wrote years ago. It’s a bit dated now but there’s still plenty of meat there to
chew on, especially the math breakdown at the end that reveals how a band
can sell 250k records and still wind up broke.
There’s a lesson in the essay for anyone who’s counting on being
“discovered” as their path to glory. When you pin your dreams on being
lifted up by a major label (or, say, a VC if you’re a tech company), beware of
the catch that often lurks in the fine print.
13 comments so far
Daniel Holter 21 Jan 08
What a GREAT point, comparing major labels to VCs… I wish more people in
the music business understood that!
Often times, for both tech companies and bands, Majors/VCs have been
needed to launch worldwide. But what an exciting time to be alive –
launching worldwide is within anyone’s grasp if you have something worth
talking about and utilize all of the tools available.
clifyt 21 Jan 08
The only problem with his rant is that he bases it on the idea that musicians
should do absolutely no negotiation beforehand, nor take any part in the
marketing and direction of their product other than showing up and giving
the label a product.
I’ve known way too many musicians willing to sell their soul for a
contract…as if these aren’t a dime a dozen. Most of the successful
musicians I’ve known have also been extremely interested in the business
side of their product. I personally made far more as a minor / behind the
scenes guy in the music industry than I ever have as a researcher /
educator…I also had a great lawyer that didn’t work for the labels. I knew
several other minor guys that were pulling in far more than majors. The
majors I knew that made the most money in the industry are known as
divas or jerks…but in real life are decent people with actual values and care
about how people treat them. They speak up when their label rep wants to
fly out to Aspen to catch a show to see ‘how things are going’ (i.e., a free
vacation for said rep because it comes out of the artists pocket) and says
Why Don’t You Just See The Show When We Hit LA. They’ve read the
contracts (it isn’t like they are written in a foreign language) and know
exactly what they are responsible for and what the label is.
I really get pissed when I see this rant shown as the reason the industry
doesn’t work when it should be taken as a rant as to why musicians should
understand it is called the music INDUSTRY for a reason.
beto 21 Jan 08
As an enthusiast of high performance audio, I’m pleased to see you picking

up on someone who knows the trade. One thing that irks me about the
“everything for free” mentality that pervades the Internet is the severe
underappreciation of the work that professionals like Albini and others like
Steve Hoffman, Doug Sax and others have brought to the realm of recorded
sound. In this age where it’s becoming so fashionable to “stick it to the
man” and go the do-it-yourself route, given the technology and tools we
have to our disposal today and the news of doom and gloom surrounding
the music industry, I always wonder if the role of the recording engineer
isn’t a career in jeopardy. Which for me is akin to someone ditching a
graphic designer in favor of MS Publisher or the 13-year old nephew with
Photoshop. You message will equally come across, but it won’t create the
same impression on your end target.
Then again, I think that everything the music industry is blamed and guilty
for these days has little to do with the art of recording in itself. I’m sure Mr.
Albini is well aware of this. It will be interesting to see how the producer’s
role redefines itself in an age where marketing-driven, megabuck pop acts
will become the exception rather than the rule to follow.
sudara 21 Jan 08
@beto
I mix my own music, give my music away and just dedicated a huge chunk
of the last few months to launching a non-commercial web app for DIY
musicians to freely host and deliver their music. (http://alonetone.com/)
It is an interesting perspective to worry about the recording engineer’s job.

Technology has moved fast- I now have the technical ability to create a
recording that can compete with the best. Do I have the ears? Probably not.
But my priority is getting my music out there. As labels and the ‘industry’
are not particularly helpful (unless you want to be an aggressive business
person), bypassing the recording engineer becomes defacto truth. I don’t
have $100/hr. I have only music that I want to make and share with others.
In my eyes, the recording engineer’s role will simply have to shift to

accommodate ‘the new industry’ – after all, their paycheck comes (directly
and/or indirectly) from the musician, and the average musician (NOT the
top 5%, but the other 95%) is currently having a pretty tough time knowing
who to turn to for work/support/contract/distribution at the moment.
Exciting!
Nick 21 Jan 08
For me, starting a web app company is so the new “starting a band to get
signed.” I used to chase that dream, and now I chase this new one. In
reading Getting Real, did see some lessons that I could apply directly to
music production. And it is possibly those mistakes that kept me from
successes in the music business. And now I have gone back to music
production with the “embracing constraints” and “less s more” philosophy,
only using a few pieces of gear, and having fewer multi-tracks in the mix
this time around. But the opportunity to self-promote and fill niches is so
much better now.
Is taking VC for your web app company like getting singed to a major label in
a bad deal? Possibly. I am reminded of Aaron Schwartz rant after Reddit was
purchased and they moved him to the Wired office. I am thinking that we all
do not want to be in that situation, just like we don’t want to be the band in
Albini’s example.
Nathan Bowers 21 Jan 08
I posted about this (http://nathanbowers.com/2008/01/07/implosion-its-

not-just-for-record-labels-anymore/) in my blog recently, citing the
difference in results between 37signals’ “traditional” book and the self
published Getting Real.
Music, books, and software no longer require large amounts of capital to

produce and distribute. VCs, record labels, book publishers, and other
gatekeepers are mostly obsolete, they just don’t know it yet.
I can think of a few cases where you’d need help from gatekeepers: you’re a
capital intensive biotech startup, you’re a no talent singer or writer who
needs a lot of marketing, you’re trying to make a blockbuster movie, or
you’re a software company with no business model besides “get millions of
eyeballs and then figure out a business model”.
Dave 21 Jan 08
I feel that some posts miss the point on Steve Albini’s Problem with Music
essay.
I don’t think he’s arguing against traditional methods of craft – recording in

a studio, using an engineer, printing a book.
Instead, he’s arguing against leaving decisions to others.
DIY isn’t just opening GarageBand, making a song, and distributing it as an

MP3 . In fact, those, like Albini, dedicated to the craft of making quality
recordings, might shun this approach. It’s just as DIY to research studios and
find one that fits your band’s musical stylings. Even if you’re not doing the
recording, you’ve made all the decisions and put up all the capital. You’re
not indebted to anyone.
It’s paying middle-men to make decisions for you that The Problem with
Music rants against. There’s nothing wrong with writing a book and finding a
small craft letterpress publisher to make copies. The same way the
audiophile musician winces at MP3 quality, an author who loves his work
might bemoan PDFs.
steve albini 21 Jan 08
As the owner of Electrical Audio, I’m enormously flattered to have our

website noticed here. You’re very kind.
Regarding the essay, my point in writing it was to show how the

institutionalized music business did not have the bands’ best interest as
even a tertiary consideration. The music industry considers the bands raw
material, like a bucket of sand, and does not care what happens to it in the
process of generating income. In that light, most bands are better off on
their own, where they have control of all the decisions that affect them and,
more importantly, get to keep all the money.
I sometimes hear the criticism that bands can mitigate these effects
through negotiation (I’ve read such criticism in comments here), but this
ignores another point of the article, that the result of negotiation is a
contract, and contracts provide no protection for the weaker/poorer party
signatory to it.
Contractual protections are only enforceable by the application of money,

lawyers, courts and time, and record companies have such an advantage in
all these areas that they may simply ignore their obligations to bands, while
stringently enforcing the bands’ obligations. Such a contract is essentially
worthless to the band that signs it, but remains an important coercive tool
for the record company. I’m sure you can see parallels in the software and
web worlds, but the disparity was most obvious to me when watching my
peers navigate the music scene.
So that’s it. A contract is meaningless unless you have the wherewithal to

enforce it, and can endure the time (sometimes years) it takes a dispute to
wind its way through the courts (during which time you will be earning
nothing).
For this reason I don’t use contracts in any professional dealings, and I am
convinced this is the best way to maintain transparent and amicable
relationships.
That may be a more interesting topic for discussion than our studio, but
thanks again for noticing our website. I’m sure it will tickle the fellow who
designed it.
Gibbo 22 Jan 08
That was a very well written article Steve, I’m going to link to it on my site
today. As Dave commented above ” he’s arguing against leaving decisions to
others” which is what it really comes down to. You DO leave a lot of
decisions to others as they are expected to know more about these issues
than you do. The problem then occurs when the “others” you’ve left the
decisions to don’t have your best interest at heart. In the example given in
Steve’s article, the Band’s manager should have been the one acting
genuinely in the best interest of the band. Unfortunately this almost never
happens through either inexperience, greed or neglect.
The internet is levelling the playing field to a large extent these days. Bands
have many more alternatives than just getting signed to a record company.
The recent Radiohead situation

(http://www.improveyourmusic.com/online-busking-is-it-really-worth-
it/) shows well what can be achieved when you are willing to accept a larger
slice of a much smaller pie.
Record companies have been far too greedy for far too long and maybe it’s
time for a bit of “karma” to kick in.
clifyt 22 Jan 08
Steve—I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m just saying from a little guy’s
perspective I’ve always been treated right by the labels.
OF COURSE they are going to ask for everything…and yes, when you are
talking about something that is going to entail years and years of accounting,
you need a contract.
From what I hear, you charge on a per project / hourly basis and that is it.
I’ve done the same for some work and it has been hit or miss…on smaller
projects where I believe in the project but know the artist can’t pay I HAVE
to rely on royalties…for the label stuff…I try to go the hourly rate even if it is
creative work simply because I can look at it as done and never think about
it again (and my contacts know this is how I do things, so there isn’t a
question…if they get too uppity, I never hear a word because my manager
knows I’d rather be sitting in a lab doing research).
But again, I’ve know a LOT of musicians that have negotiated their contracts
and had things taken care of before they signed and not a single problem. It
is almost entirely the folks that sign the first damn thing in front of their
face that have a problem…I know with my own company, the first contract I
put in front of someone’s face is WAAAAY in my favor…I expect it will change
once they read it and we have to negotiate. It isn’t greedy…it is business and
I expect others that I deal with to treat a business as such.
Then again, I’m just a lowly peon and have always been…I’m not in the
industry any more other than running a smallish soundware company and
occasionally helping out friends or former co-workers (I guess this is what
you call them) when they have something I’m actually interested in…all I
know is that I made more money in my time in LA than I have the entire
time in academia. Honestly, I find the fact that I make so little as a
researcher and educating others kids to be far more problematic to society
than musicians that can’t even find the time to read the document that is
taking control of their creative soul for the next seven years…I have no pity
for those illiterate through ambivalence out there.
—clif
J 22 Jan 08
“I know with my own company, the first contract I put in front of someone’s
face is WAAAAY in my favor…I expect it will change once they read it and we
have to negotiate.”
Clifyt, do you not see that you’re exactly the aspect of the music industry
that Albini was ranting about? When you submit that imbalanced contract,
you know full well that the negotiations may make it more equitable but
your intention is always for the end product to be more in your favor. Why
should musicians even bother dealing with a situation where the deck is
stacked against them?
steve albini 23 Jan 08
Clifyt: You said, “and yes, when you are talking about something that is
going to entail years and years of accounting, you need a contract.” No,
honestly you don’t. My band doesn’t use contracts for anything and we do
quite well. In addition, we spend nothing on lawyers, which is quite a
savings.
clifyt 23 Jan 08
Ok Steve, you have me beat. As I’ve said, I’ve always been a little guy in the
industry and never anything else. The contracts I’ve ever signed have all
simply been an articulation of what I needed and what the other guys
needed. Always been fair for me. On my end, I’ve never had anyone sign
something that wasn’t fair (even when I presented a contract to someone
else and they were ready to sign without looking I MADE them
negotiate…because there are things they want and things I want and it HAS
to be equitable).
Maybe it is the state of law and misgivings from everyone that no one sees
these as common sense. I’ve lost friends over businesses I’ve had on
handshakes. I’ve also lost friends over contracts but it was written down as
to what was expected.
Luckily for me, my current lawyer is a talented drummer up in Chitown and

the only thing I ever have to do to repay him is to help with his writing or get
his Logic Rig running smoothly. My point to all of this is that I’ve never been
screwed, and the friends that understood the industry for what it is have
never been screwed either (and they are much bigger than I’ll ever
be…probably another reason I got out…I knew I’d never be anything but
supporting cast for folks like them :-)
Nothing but respect for you and your work, but I’m just seeing another side
of things…
- clif
ANNEX A
Electrical Audio Recording Equipment List: Microphones
AKG C-12
Type: tube condenser

Quantity: 2
• Soft High-frequency rise

• Good general-use vocal
microphone
• Remote pattern-select box
• These have original PVC
membranes (later models
used mylar)
• Ancestor of the AKG C-414
• Similar capsule and
electronics to ELAM 251
Similar to: AKG C-24, AKG C-414,

Lomo 19A-9, Capitol Omni, Lomo
19A-18
AKG C-24
Type: tube condenser stereo
Quantity: 2
Stereo version of AKG C-12.
• Mylar diaphragms
• Top capsule rotates 180
degrees each side of lower
capsule
• Electrical Audio power
supply with internal pattern
select
Good choice for piano, acoustic

ensembles, drum overhead or any
stereo area recording
Similar to: AKG C12, Calrec

Soundfield, Neumann SM2
AKG C-414B-ULS
Type: condenser
Quantity: 4
These are teflon-capsule vintage 1986. Nothing special about them. Still quite
versatile. Bright, slightly hard sound. Good for drums, overheads, acoustic
instuments, amplifiers, ambient recordings.
Similar to: AT 4033, Josephson C609, AKG C12 (right, who are we kidding), Shure
KSM 44
AKG C-451E
Type: condenser
Quantity: 10
General purpose condenser mic with

a wide variety of capsules and
accessories. We don't have all of
them, but we have these:
Capsules-
• CK1 (cardioid) Good for drums,

acoustic instuments,
overheads, amplifiers
• CK2 (omni) Good for ambient
recording, overheads, piano
• CK4 (bi-directional) Large
diaphragm, similar to AKG C-
414
• CK22 (diffussed field omni)
Good for something, I guess
• CK28 (cardioid) Older design,
nice sound on drums and
acoustic instruments -- some
sensitivity to humidity
Accessories -
• -20dB Pad - Very useful for

drums and loud amplifiers
• Swivel Joint - Allows capsule
to be rotated up to 90 degrees
-- indispensable for drums
Similar to: AKG C60, AKG C61, AKG

C28, Altec 195, Altec 175, Altec 201,
Audio Technica 4051, Shure KSM 141,
Josephson C609/C606
AKG C-60
Quantity: 4
General purpose small

diaphragm mic. Can use CK
series capsules & accesories.
Amplifier uses AC701k tube, very
high headroom - can be used
on drums, amplifiers, acoustic
instruments. Ours have the
AC701k tube. Some versions
used nuvistors.
AKG c28
Quantity: 1
Electronically very similar to a c12, but with a c60 / 451 - style threaded capsule
mount. Can take any of the AKG threaded capsules. Sound is very similar to the
c60, with slightly more noise.
AKG D-112E
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 2
The standard kick drum microphone. Can take

high SPL before clipping. Midrange notch can
be useful on aggressive vocals and guitar
cabinets. Not very similar in sound quality to
earlier AKG D12.
Similar to: Sennheiser 421, EV RE-20

Altec 150
Quantity: 6
Nickname: "coke bottle". The 150 works well as close mic for string bass, violin, other acoustic
instruments, and room ambience. It typically has the omni capsules 21D and 21A. The 29A cardioid
capsule will fit and make sound, but is very dark.
Similar to: Altec 175, Altec 201, Schoeps 221b, Capps mic
Altec 165/175
Quantity: 4
Nickname: "lipstick". Excellent snare drum mic. Also good for close mic on acoustic string instruments
like banjo, guitar, mandolin. Can take very high signal level. Some system noise may make it
unsuitable for very quiet recordings. Model # 175 indicates the mic is set for using the 29A, or
29B (cardioid) capsules. Model #165 means it is set for 21D, 21A (omni) capsules. These mics are a
slim cylinder, and should only be used in mic clips made for them for reasons of stability. We have
some crappy plastic Altec ones and some spiffy aluminum ones made for us by Kristina Bozic. We
have modified some Altec 165s to be used as 175s so they can use the 29A/B capsules. The
modification involves the addition of 1 resistor in the microphone cable, and does not affect the
sound. Really, it doesn't. Okay, retro snob, you try running a studio for a while. Shut up already.
Similar to: Altec 195, 201, 150, AKG C28, C60, C451
Altec 195
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
FET descendant of the Altec 165/175. Can use the same capsules. Sound quality is similar, with slightly
less headroom. Note: This mic uses a standard 3-pin XLR connector, but must be used with external
Altec PSU, not phantom power.
Similar to: Altec 201, Altec 175, Altec 165, AKG 451
Altec 201
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Discrete solid-state head amplifier has variable gain, from -15 to +15dB. Omnidirectional capsule does
not interchange with other Altec mics. Works on phantom power, unlike Altec 195.
Similar to: AKG 451, Altec 150, Altec 195, Altec 175
Altec 639A
Type: ribbon+dynamic
Quantity: 2
Nickname: "Birdcage"
Combination omnidirectional dynamic capsule (similar to Altec

"salt shaker" mic) in lower part of housing and long
bidirectional ribbon in upper part. Screwdriver switch on rear
of mic has 3 positions: "D" ("dynamic" or omnidynamic
capsule), "R" (ribbon element only), and "C" ("cardioid" - both
elements mixed). Often used on string bass and for crooning
vocals.
Similar to: STC 4033

Audio Technica 4033
Type: condenser
Quantity: 8
General purpose large diaphragm condenser mic. Good bass response and
clear, slightly brittle top. Often used on bass guitar amplifiers. We have a lot
of them.
Similar to: AKG C414, VTL CR3A, Josephson C606

Audio Technica 4051
Type: condenser
Quantity: 4
Wide-bandwidth general purpose small condenser mic most useful on acoustic string and percussion
instuments. Good as area mic for choir or ensemble playing. Excellent over a piano. Output level
probably too high for trapset close-mic, good as overhead or for hand percussion.
Similar to: Earthworks Z30X, Josephson C606, AKG C451, Altec 201
Audio Technica Pro-37R

Type: condenser
Quantity: 1
Bright, hard-edged sound. Good for bright acoustic instruments like mandolin, ukelele and banjo. Can
take reasonably high levels (e.g. guitar amps) but may overload on snare drum. Fine on hi-hat,
metallic percussion.
Similar to: AT 4051, AKG 451

Beyer M130
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 2
Dual-ribbon element allows for a physically

smaller ribbon mic with more high-frequency
content than traditional long ribbons. This mic is
bidirectional. Can handle moderate-to-high SPL.
Useful on guitar amps, violin, acoustic ensembles.
Can be used as part of an M-S pair.
Similar to: Beyer M160, Beyer M500, RCA 74-Jr.
Beyer M160
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 8
Hyper-cardioid dual-ribbon microphone useful on acoustic string instruments,

amplifiers, drum overheads. Brighter than most ribbon mics.
Similar to: Beyer M500, Beyer M130, RCA BK5A

Beyer M201
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 5
Hypercardioid dynamic mic, can handle very high SPL. Useful for snare drum,
freak high-SPL situations where you still need good midrange clarity. If the SM57
were a microphone, it would sound like this.
Similar to: Sennheiser 421, Shure SM57, Sennheiser 441, Beyer M88
Beyer M380
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 2
An oddity. A bidirectional dynamic (moving coil)

microphone. This mic has a bass proximity boost you
can curdle milk with. Frequency response in the high-
end is a bit rolled off, but the low-end goes well
below 20Hz, with considerable headroom. The output
level at close quarters can be high enough to drive
line-level devices without a preamp. Excellent on
bass guitar amplifiers, string bass, also useful for
taming the transient edge of metallic percussion like
glockenspiel, xylophone, struck bells, other
metallophones.
Beyer M500
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 6
Single ribbon in the same family as Beyer M160, but cardioid and voiced for vocal
clarity (has presence peak around 8-10kHz). This voicing may accentuate
sibilance, but is also useful for intelligibility of mumblers.
Similar to: Beyer M160, RCA BK5A
Beyer M88
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 4
Versatile hypercardioid dynamic mic. Pronounced proximity boost make this a

good choice for vocals, bass guitar amps, bass drum. Slightly more prone to
overload than Beyer 201.
Similar to: Beyer 201, EV RE-20

Calrec Soundfield
Type: condenser stereo
Quantity: 2
Unique, four capsule microphone. Used with

dedicated matrix box, allows stereo image to
be manipulated while monitoring in stereo.
Image width, vertical angle, 360 degree pan
and forward/backward (from the control room
position) can all be manipulated. In addition to
pattern shape, the spatial manipulation this
system makes possible is unique and very
powerful. But that aspect aside, this is also a
very detailed microphone that can withstand
high sound pressure. Useful for drum kit,
ensembles, acoustic instrument, area and
ambient recording. If the four capsule outputs
are recorded separately ("B-Format"), then
the depth, width and positioning can be
adjusted after recording. The system is slightly
noisy, which can be a problem with very quiet
sources.
Note: Each mic body is calibrated to a specific

matrix amplifier (they
share a serial number) and they should only be
operated with their proper mates. There is one
set in each studio, and dedicated Soundfield
wiring on all mic panels.
Similar to: Josephson C700

Coles/STC 4033
Type: ribbon+dynamic
Quantity: 2
Similar in design and features to Altec

439A, but with generally better
implementation and sound quality.
Bidirectional ribbon mic mounted over an
omnidirectional dynamic mic, output
switchable between the two or in
combination. In combination, a roughly-
cardioid pattern shape is synthesized,
though the pattern varies wildly with
frequency. An excellent mic for double-
bass, crooning vocalists.
Similar to: STC 4038, Altec 639A

Coles/STC 4038
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 10
Classic bidirectional ribbon mic.

Designed to be a general-purpose high
quality mic for use by the BBC, this mic
is the gold standard of this type.
Versatile, it can be used on guitar
cabinets, horns, brass, drum overheads
(takes additive HF EQ very well) and
bowed strings. We have a shitload of
these, some made by Coles
Electroacoustics, some by Standard
Telephones and Cables (STC). Be aware
that different versions have different
ouput impedances (30, 150, 200, 300
ohms) marked on the medallion on the
body. This can affect the level and tonal
balance of mics used as pairs. If you
hear a 4038 distorting when used on a
guitar amp, move it farther away from
the speaker. If it still distorts, then it's
the wrong mic for that guitar. You have
to give up every now and again.
Similar to: Royer R121, Royer R122, RCA

77DX, RCA 44DX, RCA BK11
Crown GLM-100
Type: condenser
Quantity: 4
Tiny lavelier microphone. Can take moderate

levels and will fit anywhere you can imagine
it. We have omni and cardioid versions.
Slightly larger than a paper match.
Earthworks QTC-1
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Low-noise version of the earthworks design. Electret

mic with flat, wide frequencly reponse useful for
problem sounds and ambient/area mic.
Similar to: Earthworks TC30K, TC40K, Stapes Mic,

Normophone MK2
Earthworks TC30K
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Flat, wide frequency and phase response. Not the

quetest mic ever, but sounds good and transparent.
Similar to: Earthworks TC40K, QTC1, Stapes mic,

Normophone MK2
Earthworks TC40K
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Flat frequency and phase response to 40kHz. A little bit

noisy, but nice-sounding as ambient, area or soloist
mic.
Similar to: Earthworks TC30K, QTC1, Stapes mic,

Normophone MK2
Earthworks Z30X
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Cardiod version of Earthworks mic. As close to "neutral"

as they come. Can be used anywhere.
Similar to: Shure KSM141, AT 4051
EV PL-20
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 3
This is an EV RE-20 with a different color grey finish. Good

announcer mic, often used on bass guitar, bass drum, vocal.
Similar to: Shure SM7, Beyer M88, Sennheiser 421

Gefell UM-70
Type: condenser
Quantity: 1
Multipattern condenser mic using Gefell/Neumann K47 capsule. Ours is transformer

output. Good sounding capsule and electronics, but cannot withstand extreme SPL. Body
can also use any capsules made for Neumann 582 series as an alternative to the standard
1-inch capsule.
Similar to: Neumann 563, Neumann 582

Josephson 700A
Type: condenser
Quantity: 1
Dual capsule condenser mic with

independent outputs. Both capsules are
fixed position. Upper capsule is a small
(1/2") pressure (omni) microphone, lower
capsule is a 1" bidirecitonal capsule. In
use, the two capsules are bussed together
and a synthesized pattern of any shape is
made by balancing the two capsules in
any ratio. This can also be used to balance
the sound qualities of the two capsules.
Primarily used for voice, it can be used as
an M-S stereo ambient mic or for other
timbre-critical uses (string soloists,
ensemble area mic, etc.) See
Josephson.com for more information.
Not really similar to anything else.

Josephson C-42
Type: condenser
Quantity: 4
Exceptionally crisp, detailed mics. Bright mics. Bright without stridency, with a dry,
precise sound. We have two types of capsules, "Flat" and "Smooth". The "Smooth"
capsules are slightly darker, though with a similar crisp sound, as impossible as that
sounds. We also have a pair of head amplifiers (bodies) that have 20dB less output for use
on very loud sound sources, like amplifiers and drums. More information from the
Josephson website.
Josephson e22s/606/609
Type: condenser
Quantity: 12
Designed specifically for use on drums, this mic can

take a beating physically as well as standing up to
high SPL. The 606/609 designation is for the head
amplifier. The 609 uses a Lundahl output
transformer, the 606 is transformerless. Both can use
the KA22S (side-address) or KA22 (cardioid) capsules.
The e22s is the same as the 609/KA22s combination.
Excellent general purpose condenser for drums,
amplifiers, plectrum acoustic instruments, voices.
See Josephson.com for more information.
Similar to: AKG C414, Gefell UM70, AKG 451
Since this mic is not similar in design to any of these

mics listed, David Josephson suggested we explain
just exactly what the hell we mean by "similar": It
means that either regarding sound quality or
application, you could substitute one for the other
and not be too far off. It could imply a similarity in
construction or design, but this is predicated on a
similar utility or sound quality.
Lomo 19a-13
Quantity: 2
Nickname: "The
Paddle"
Russian large-
diameter cardioid
condenser mic.
Excellent bass
response and
midrange sound
quality very similar
to Neumann
U47/48.
Similar to:
Neumann U48,
Lomo 19a-9
Lomo 19a-18
Quantity: 2
1-inch capsule in unusual end-firing arrangement. Excellent HF extension and

clarity without brittleness makes this mic ideal for violin, acoustic guitar, piano
and drum overheads. Similar to: AKG C12, Schoeps 221b
Lomo 19a-19
Quantity: 2
Nickname: "Flashlight"
Crisp, bright mic good for maintaining

edge and presence through dense
instrumentation.
Similar to: Lomo 19a-18, AT Pro 37R
Lomo 19a-4
Quantity: 2
Vented cardioid/omni small-diaphragm

microphone. In "cardioid" mode, the capsule is only
slightly more directional than "omni" mode, with
the pattern most evident at mid-to-high
frequencies.
Similar to: Schoeps 221b, Shure KSM141, AKG C60

Lomo 19a-9
Quantity: 2
Nickname: "Art Deco"
Large-diaphragm cardioid,
similar in sound quality to
Neumann U67 slightly brighter.
Excellent vocal microphone,
also used on guitar amplifiers,
drum overheads. Slightly
noisy.
Similar to: Neumann U67, AKG

C12, Lomo 19a-13
Neumann 563
Quantity: 4
Nicknames: "Little Hitler,"

"Lollypop"
Triode tube mic with

interchangeable capsules. M7
capsule is the cardioid
forerunner of the U47 capsule,
N55k capsule is a bright,
large-diaphragm omni
capsule. Useful as vocal and
instrument mic with M7,
acoustic guitar, drum
overhead or ambient mic with
N55k capsule. We have
Neumann "kassette"
powersupplies and modern
regulated power supplies,
which have less noise and
more headroom. Some people
prefer one or the other.
Similar to: Neumann U48,

Neumann 582, Gefell UM70,
Neumann U67
Neumann 582
Quantity: 7
Electronically very similar to

Neumann 563. This takes an
assortment of small
diaphragm capsules. We have:
6 x M70 (cardioid)
2 x M94 (cardioid)
2 x M62 (cardioid)
3 x M93 (omni)
1 x M58 (omni)
NB: A few of our 582's are

fitted with fixed capsules, and
can't be changed.
Can use same power supplies

as Neumann 563. Not the
lowest noise floor in the
cabinet, but not normally a
problem.
-10dB pads mount between

capsule and body for high-SPL
situations.
Similar to: Neumann 563, AKG

C28, Gefell UM70
Neumann SM-2
Quantity: 2
Dual nickel-diaphragm capsules

(used also in Neumann KM56) with
individually-selectable patterns.
Often used as a mid-side
microphone, useful as acoustic
instrument and ensemble mic. Also
good for drum overhead, piano or
other stereo use. Has a bright,
peaked response that can
accentuate detail. Top capsule
rotates through 180 degrees.
Similar to: AKG C24

Neumann U48
Quantity: 1
Famous as a vocal microphone, the

U48 is also useful as an instrument
and area microphone. The U48
differs from the U47 in that its two
patterns are cardioid and figure-
eight, while the U47 offers cardioid
and omni. Please do not whack this
microphone around while under
power, as the VF14 tube inside is
rare and expensive and we don't
want to have to replace it.
Similar to: Neumann 563, Lomo

19a13
Neumann U67
Quantity: 1
Standard large-diaphragm, multipattern mic. Slightly

brighter than Neumann U48 or 563.
Similar to: Neumann 563
Normaphone N4 Christmas Ed
Type: condenser
Quantity: 1
Christmas Edition, so named because it was

made as a gift to the studio in the annual spirit
of giving care, chestnuts roasting on an open
fire and the introduction of a new version of
playstation.
This is an electret microphone, transformer

balanced, and phantom powered. It has a
cardioid pic-up pattern and no low end. She
may not look like much, but she's got it where
it mumble mumble mumble.
Similar to: Normaphone N1, Stapes mic,

Earthworks ZX30
Normaphone NVT 4.0
Quantity: 1
This is a Shure Beta Green 4.0 mic with a Greg Norman designed vacuum tube output stage
using a plate-loaded 5703 tube. It can use any power supply for Neumann CMV 582 or CMV
563, Although it works best with a regulated supply. Very bright, zingy sound. Zingy.
Similar to: Lomo 19a-18, AKG C60/61
RCA 44DX
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 1
Rich, dark microphone that

sounds exceptional on
deep voices and
instruments, including
string bass, organ and
Johnny Cash.
Similar to: RCA BK11, RCA

77, STC 4038
RCA 74-JR
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 4
Humble ribbon mic that has some interesting

sound qualities. Slightly hard high-frequency
sound quality can accentuate detail and
texture of reed instuments, horns and electric
guitars. Can handle moderate-to-high SPL.
Similar to: RCA BK5, Beyer M130, Beyer M500
RCA 77-DX
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 1
Classic ribbon mic for voice, horns, strings. Has

a mellow sound that blends well with complex
arrangements and can be useful in combatting
sibilance. Can be switched to omnidirectional
pattern by closing louver on rear of grille.
Similar to: STC 4038, RCA 44DX, Royer R121

RCA BK-1
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 2
Omnidirectional dynamic mic. Can be used where a close mic is necessary on a loud
source (guitar cabinet for example) but where pattern-induced proximity effect needs to
be avoided. Can also be useful as an ambient mic where wide frequency response and
fine detail are not needed. Okay, it's a dumb-sounding dynamic mic that has occasional
uses.
Similar to: Shure SM57
RCA BK-11
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 4
Late-stage ribbon mic with a neutral sound

quality and moderate SPL capability. Can be
useful in making thin or brittle acoustic
instruments sound fuller. Has internal three-
position low-frequency roll-off switch.
Similar to: STC 4038, RCA 77DX, Royer R121

RCA BK-5A
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 2
Ribbon mic with baffles that induce a cardioid

polar response. Crisp, slightly aggressive HF
response makes this a good choice for guitar
cabinets, some vocalists. Has internal bass roll-
off switch.
Similar to: RCA 74-JR, Beyer M160, Beyer M500

Royer R121
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 1
Modern ribbon mic based on the Bang and Olufsen/dynaco/Speiden design. Can
handle much higher SPL than archaic designs. The rear pattern has a slight treble tilt
compared to the front, which may make it preferable in some situations. Excellent on
guitar cabinets, horns, harsh voices, drum overheads. Takes additive HF EQ very well.
Sound quality similar to STC 4038, but with less proximity effect (bass boost) and
higher SPL capability. Similar to: STC 4038, RCA 74, RCA BK11
Royer R122
Type: ribbon
Quantity: 2
Active version of the Royer R121. Internal

phantom-powered head
amplifier/buffer gives higher output and
makes this more useful on quiet sound
sources like acoustic string instruments,
piano, voice. Conventional "passive"
ribbon mics can be "tuned" by varying
the load impedance the mic sees (the
input impedance of the mic preamp),
varying the sound quality by choosing
different preamps. This mic does not
exhipit this trait, as it is isolated by its
buffer amplifier. This can be either good
or bad, depending on your expectation.
Similar to: STC 4038, Royer 121

Royer SF-12
Type: ribbon stereo
Quantity: 1
Stereo version of the Royer design,

descended from the Speiden mic. Slightly
lower output level and headroom than
the R121, but very similar sound quality.
Exceptional as a drum overhead or piano
mic. Like most ribbon mics, it has a
gradual HF roll-off, but has a useable
response to well over 20kHz.
Similar to: Royer 121, Royer 122

Schoeps M221
Quantity: 6
Exceptional acoustic instrument and ensemble mic. Pattern can be switched acoustically
between cardioid and omni. Excellent sound quality, but has appreciable noise when used
with high gain.
Similar to: Neumann 582, AKG C60, Shure KSM141, AKG C28, AKG C61
Sennheiser 441
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 3
Bright hypercardioid dynamic mic that can handle very high SPL. Has variable bass roll-off.
Similar to: Sennheiser 421, Sennheiser 409

Sennheiser MD-409
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 1
Hypercardioid dynamic mic,

useful for guitar cabinets,
drums and vocals when
pretending to be in Pink
Floyd. Sometimes called a
"Hi-Fi" SM57, whatever that
means.
Similar to: Sennheiser 421,

Sennheiser 441, Shure SM57,
Beyer M201
Sennheiser MD-421
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 4
Versatile, general-purpose
dynamic mic. Often used on
bass drums, toms, snare,
bass guitar, electric guitar,
vocals, horns. Can handle
extreme SPL. Has high-pass
filter variable from flat ("M"
for music) to strong hi-pass
("S" for speech).
Similar to: Sennheiser M409,

Sennheiser 441, Beyer M201
Shure KSM 141
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Versatile small-diaphragm condenser. Acoustic pattern can change from cardioid

to omni (don't use in-between settings). Can handle high SPL, and has internal -
10 and -25 dB pads, making it useful on snare drum, electric instruments and
dynamite. This particular one is a prototype.
Similar to: Josephson C606, AKG C451, Schoeps 221B
Shure KSM-44
Type: condenser
Quantity: 1
Versatile , neutral mic with very low

noise floor. Suspension mount is
bulky and cumbersome, but not
usually necessary. This
particular one is a prototype.
Similar to: AKG C414, Gefell UM70,

Audio Technica 4033
Shure SM-57
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 2
Piece of shit dynamic mic some people are inexplicably crazy about, so we bought
one. Sounds equivalently good on everything from snare drum to electric guitar.
Unfortunately, not a very high standard of "Good." If you need to record something
and there's no microphone available, this will do, I guess.
Similar to: Shure SM58, Beyer M201
Shure SM-58
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 1
The vocalist's SM57. Serves them

right. Excellent for holding onto
and spitting into. We keep the
windscreen clean so it doesn't
smell like bad breath.
Similar to: Shure SM57, Beyer M88

Shure SM-7
Type: dynamic
Quantity: 2
High quality
dynamic vocal
mic. Windscreen
removes for extra
orwellian
futurism.
Similar to: EV RE-

20, Beyer M88
Shure SM98
Type: condenser
Quantity: 4
Small cardioid condenser mic with nifty

drum and stand-mounting gooseneck
hardware. Can handle very high SPL
and will fit almost anywhere. Hardware
can be used to mount on frame of
drums, rims, stands, brim of cowboy
hat, collarbone...
Similar to: AKG C451, Crown GLM-100

Sony C-17B
Small diaphragm condenser microphone. Quantity: 1
Sony C37p
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Rich, smooth-sounding
mic with good high-
frequency response and
moderate-to-high SPL
capability. Often used on
guitar cabinets, voice, and
particularly on snare drum
when low-frequency
thickness must be
combined with a dry,
bright high-end.
Similar to: Sony C48p,

Josephson C609
Sony C-38
Type: condenser
Large diaphragm, phantom powered, condenser microphone. Quantity: 1
Cardioid to Omni polar pattern pot, and Hi-Cut pot.
Sony C48p
Type: condenser
Quantity: 1
Exceptionally well-
designed microphone that
sounds good on almost
everything. Low noise,
extended, crisp high-end
with smooth bass
response. Has internal
compartment for 9V
battery, not necessary for
normal phantom power
use, but allows for use
without external power.
Can handle high SPL easily.
Similar to: Sony C37p, AKG

C414
Stapes mic
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Electret Omni mic with
nice construction and a
tiny profile, sound quality
is very similar to other
mics of this type -- It's
principle attribute is its
small size, at no cost to
utility or sound.
Similar to: Normaphone N1,

N5, Earthworks TC30k
Telefunken SM-2
Quantity: 1
Telefunken-branded version of Neumann SM2. Other

than the logo plate, which does look more badass,
they are identical.
Similar to Neumann SM2, AKG C12

VTL CR-3A
Type: condenser
Quantity: 2
Looks like a dime-a-dozen

Chinese guitar store mic, but
with VTL (Manley)
electronics and strenuous
capsule QC, it is an
altogether different mic.
Bright, clear high-end with
plenty of headroom. Useful
for guitar cabinets, crisp
vocal and acoustic
instruments.
Similar to AKG C414, Audio

Technica 4033, Sony C48p
ANNEX B
Electrical Audio Recording Equipment List: Outboard Gear
AKG BX 20
Type: effect
Quantity: 1
High quality spring reverb.

Control/drive amplifier is in control
room so decay can be adjusted by
ear. 2-in 2-out stereo, can be
chained for more decay time and
diffusion.
Alesis Microverb
Type: effect
Quantity: 2
Semi-pro reverb with predictable default settings. Not particularly quiet or flexible,
but sounds good on electric instruments.
Allison Gain Brain & Kepex

Type: Dynamic Signal Processor
Quantity: 1
We have two types of Allison modules, the Gain Brain (a flexible and good sounding
peak-responding limiter/compressor) and the Kepex (an early key-able
gate/expander). The Kepex units are passable, but the Gain Brains are really special.
Logarithmic-knee ratio automatically tracks difficult program material.
Altec 436C
Quantity: 2
This is a heavily modified Altec 436. We have added an output attenuator, speed
control (which controls both attack and release time constants), threshold
adjustment and release speed control. After all that, we found out it sounds best
when working slowly and modestly. Not a general-purpose compressor, but nice on
crooning vocalists and other slowly-modulating sounds.
Altec 9063B
Type: EQ
Quantity: 1
This is a passive eq much like the Pultec EQ1A3 with LC/RC filters. It has an insertion
loss of about 9dB (you can compensate with a line amp down the road). I got this and
a broadcast limiter for $10 at Maxwell Street Market in the 1980's.
Ampex 351
Type: mic pre
Quantity: 8
These used to be the audio electronics for Ampex 351 series recorders. Steve heard
the 351's mic preamp at some point and liked it. Next thing we did was get 10 of them
for just that use. We started reconditioning them in 1996. This really pissed-off some
Ampex collector snobs. We completely stripped the circuit boards of all electronics
unrelated to the mic’ pre (bias, record amps, etc.). Then we replaced all the resistors,
caps, tube sockets and defective wiring in the preamp path with premium
components.
We gave it these options -
• polarity reverse switch

• phantom power (from external power supply)
• -20 dB pad (Gold plated Grayhill switch located where "input" switch was)
• Daven output attenuator (in/out switchable)
• meter defeat
They have a lot of gain and are quiet. You can use ribbon mics with them on quiet
acoustic passages with no problem. There is a bit of color to them. At roughly 15kHz
there is a 1 to 1.5dB rise in response. From 10 Hz to 14kHz, and 17kHz to 35kHz the
response is flat. The output atenuator is a great feature in that it allows you to
overdrive the preamp for a desired effect and maintain a usable output level. If you
like having an extremely high output for some reason, you can kill the meter, keeping
the needle from pinning all day (meter defeat switch).
They are used mostly on bass, guitar, vocals, and strings. There are 6 of these in
Studio B, and 2 in Studio A.
This is a link to the 351 forum topic.

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=498
Ampex MX-35
Type: mic pre
Quantity: 2
We have two of these 4 channel 2-bus mic/line pres in Studio B. We built a control
box for these which puts phantom power, phase reverse, and a -20dB pad before the
mixer's input. They have a classic early 1960s sound reminiscent of early Motown and
Beach Boys recordings. They don't have a lot of headroom, and the frequency
response isn't perfect, but so what. When used with transformerless condenser
microphones with low output impedance (less than 100 ohms) you may need to use
the pad switch to properly terminate the input transformer and prevent distortion.
Ashly Paragate
Quantity: 2
These are extremely good gates. If used right, they sound completely natural. There is
a two channel unit in Studio B, and a four channel unit in Studio A.
Brooke Sirens Systems DPR402
Quantity: 1
Flexible limiter/compressor with about a million configurations, including

compressor/limiter, dynamic de-esser, frequency domain de-esser, compressor with
separate peak limit, compressor with additional de-esser module, stereo or mono.
Clean, "technical" sound. Click here for more info.
http://www.bss.co.uk/products/dynamics/dpr-402/index.html
dbx 150
This is a dbx noise reduction unit, which has several Type: Dynamic Signal Processor
non-obvious uses. The compression and expansion Quantity: 1
units are independant, and can be used for special
effects, or in tandem as a compander to clean-up a
noisy signal chain.
dbx 160X
Quantity: 1
Standard, old reliable compressor. Excellent metering.
dbx 172
Quantity: 1
Comprehensive parametric gate with key input and side chain EQ. There is a
"Transient Capture Mode" which delays the audio 300 uS -- This can screw with you
if you are unprepared for it. All other modes are normal.
dbx 263x
Quantity: 1
This is a vastly underrated piece of equipment. It is a handy de-esser with tunable

frequency control. We've found it can take the edge off hi-hat bleed in your snare
mic, or attenuate hiss during quiet passages.
Drawmer DS201
This is a dual gate. For more info click here. Type: Dynamic Signal Processor
http://www.drawmer.com/ds201.htm Quantity: 1
Echoplate prototype
Type: effect
Quantity: 1
This is the original prototype for Jim Cunningham's Echoplate plate reverbs. Built in 1969, he had
continually upgraded it as he made improvements in the design. For the last few years it had
been in his garage. Rob Bochnik made a nice new case for it from MDF, and isolated the box from
the basement floor with rubber feet and stiff foam. The decay time damping is controlled by a
mechanical linkage to the control room. This plate has new input and output electronics. You
can control the gain, tonal quality and reverb time from the control room via the mechanical
remote control and remote electronics package. Mono in / stereo out.
Electrical Audio Custom Rack
Type: mic pre + EQ
Quantity: 1
This is a custom audio rack we built for homemade preamps, eqs, and anything else
we come up with. This is a list of modules housed in the rack so far.
UREI 509 Eq (Same as 509 stereo eq)
Our first module was an eq. Each channel was an old Universal Audio console module
that we got a hold of (thanks to Fletcher). It is a Neve style switched gain, switched
frequency, LC/RC filter. We use it as a passive filter with a make-up gain amp (John
Hardy 990 Op Amp). It is a dead simple eq that has 2 bands (bass and treble), with 4
selectable frequencies each. The 990 op amp keeps it quiet. So far it has been handy
in adding top end to ribbon mics, and bottom end to kick drum mics.
HBSM2R Mic Preamp
This is a mic preamp module that features-
• Jensen JT-16 input transformer

• John Hardy 990 op amp
• 3dB per step 16 position gain switch
• polarity reverse (relay)
• -20dB pad (relay)
• Phantom power (switched)
• intense peak indication
• Output transformer
• 60dB max gain
We're planning plenty more options, but with all the stupid broken ebay mics Steve
throws on my table, it might take a while.
Electrical Audio MS Matrix
Type: effect
Quantity: 2
The M-S Matrix eliminates the need for eating up console channels to decode mid-side
signals. Typically you would use one channel for the mid signal (panned center), and
two for the side (one panned left, the other panned right, with the polarity reversed).
The need to have both side channels precisely set to the same gain makes it impossible
to adjust the stereo width of the decoding easily. Our Matrix makes that simple to tweak
with just one knob (Side). This unit can also be used to create sum-and-difference
signals if needed.
How to Use
For basic stereo recording, position the Mid microphone in front of, and facing the
subject. This microphone can be omnidirectional or directional. If directional, make sure
that it points to the center of the desired stereo field. Position the Side microphone as
close as possible to the Mid microphone, making them a “coincident pair”. The Side
microphone must have a bi-directional (figure-8) pattern. The front of that
microphone (phase-positive) should be pointed 90° to the "left". You can choose, for
example, whether this will be the performer-perspective left or the audience-
perspective left at this point. Some microphones provide two identical capsules in a
single housing (AKG c-24, Neumann SM-69, SM-2, SM-23…). These microphones are
ideal, but not necessary M-S choices.
Connect the M-S microphones to pre-amplifiers, as you normally would. Send the pre-
amplifier outs to the Matrix inputs. If using a console, you may use the Mid-Side Matrix
on the channel inserts. Be aware of the relative position of the channel equalizers with
respect to the insert point if you intend to equalize the signal. The Mid and Side gain
should start off at the “0dB” mark, and the output trims should be set to unity gain (12
o’clock). You can then use the output trim pots to balance out the Left/Right levels. If
you wish to adjust the stereo width, lower the Side gain for a more mono image, or raise
it for a wider stereo image. You can tell if you have too much Side signal if you mono
your monitor and the apparent volume drops. It is important that the levels coming
from your preamp are roughly at professional nominal level (+4dBu). If the decoder is to
be plugged into -10dBV equipment, use the output trims to lower the signal.
Some tips for using the M-S decoder (Steve):
If the stereo signal needs to be equalized, there are a number of choices available with
an M-S signal. The output of the matrix may be equalized with any stereo equalizer, of
course, but there are other options as well. If the signal needs to be brighter, for
example, but the stereo width is unduly exaggerated by using a stereo equalizer (in the
case of a percussion table or drum kit recording, for example, where cymbals or other
instruments may be on opposite sides of the stereo field), then the Mid signal can be
equalized (with the equalizer in-line ahead of the matrix input) instead of the stereo
output. This will make the center portion of the image brighter, while leaving the far
edges of the L-R image less affected.
To widen the stereo image in the treble range without making the center information
brighter or generally widening the stereo image (on another drum kit recording, where
the signal is too narrow, but the bass drum is at an appropriate volume and sounds good
centered), the Side signal can be equalized instead.
If using compression on a stereo signal, compressing the Mid and Side components prior
to matrixing will ensure perfect stereo tracking. This allows the use of two mono
compressors if no stereo unit is available, and ameliorates the slight differences
between channels in stereo units.
It is also possible to dynamically widen or narrow the stereo image. To widen the image
with increasing volume, compress or limit only the center channel. This can increase the
impact of a dramatic dynamic entrance, for example, or provide a dynamic widening
effect in time with the music. To dynamically narrow the stereo image, use a limiter on
the Side signal. This can prevent signals at the extreme edges of the stereo field from
becoming distracting when they appear suddenly, or lessen a momentary left-right
imbalance.
If a limiter with fast attack and slow release is used on the side signal, the gradual
widening of the stereo image on long-decaying sounds (piano, ambient acoustic
instruments, drums and cymbals, etc.) can be achieved. This is a unique effect, and
difficult to achieve in any other way.
The Mid-Side Matrix Decoder has approximately 18dB of total gain available, and in
certain situations can allow the microphones to be used as input sources without pre-
amplification. For example, the outputs of an AKG C24 stereo microphone, or any similar
active (powered) microphone, can be patched directly into the Mid and Side inputs. In
front of loud sounds (drum kit, for example), the gain of the Mid-Side Matrix Decoder
can be enough for proper recording levels. This method avoids several potential noise
and fault sources. The input impedance of the Mid-Side Matrix Decoder is 50k Ohms,
and should not affect any normal microphone output (nominal output impedance of
500 Ohms or less).
Electrical/Urei 509
Type: EQ
This is a two channel equalizer with true bypass. Each channel was an Quantity: 1
old Universal Audio console module that we got a hold of (thanks to
Fletcher). It is a Neve style switched gain, switched frequency, LC/RC
filter. We use it as a passive filter with a make-up gain amp (John Hardy
990 Op Amp). It is a dead simple eq that has 2 bands (bass and treble),
with 4 selectable frequencies each. The 990 op amp keeps it quiet. So
far it has been handy in adding top end to ribbon mics, and bottom end to
kick drum mics.
Eventide H3000S
Type: effect
Quantity: 2
We have two of these. One in each studio. They are used quite a bit as just a standard
delay. But overall, these are quite intuitive and can be set up quickly. Stereo in /
stereo out. Be careful not to use any of the special effect patches with stupid names.
To date, no one has ever used one, and if we could get rid of them we would have.
Eventide Instant Flanger

Type: effect
Quantity: 1
Easy to use and quick to set up flanger. We have one of these in studio B. Can also be
used as a non-modulated analog delay of up to 18 ms. Driving the VCD with an
external oscilltor will give you an FM ring modulator.
Eventide Instant Phaser
Type: effect
Quantity: 1
Easy to use and quick to set up phaser. We have one of these in studio B.
Eventide Omnipressor
Quantity: 1
Flexible dynamic device with a characteristic biting sound. Good for aggressive vocals,
bass guitar. It has gate and expander modes, but in practice, it is almost always used
as a low-ratio compressor.
FMR Audio RNC 1773

Quantity: 4
FMR Audio makes this great bang for the buck utility stereo compressor. It has a
"Super Nice" feature which is like the soft knee response of a dbx compressor. Very
clean, with a true bypass function for before and after comparison.
GML 8200
Type: EQ
Quantity: 1
Five bands of fully parametric EQ per channel. Lots of precision, high resolution. Built by they guy
who invented fully parametric EQs. http://www.massenburg.com/cgi-bin/ml/mod8200.html
GML 8400
Type: mic pre
Quantity: 1
Four channel microphone amplifier. It is extremely clean

with 70dB gain. The phantom power switch has been moved
to the front for convenience.
http://www.massenburg.com/cgi-bin/ml/mod8304.html
GML 8500
Quantity: 2
This thing is capable of doing any type of limiting or compression you can think of. It can
be doing a lot of work without sounding like it. The metering is great, with a real time
display of amplfier gain as it's working. We always have a quick reference sheet
with the terms and aplications handy. Some more info from George at GML.
http://www.massenburg.com/cgi-bin/ml/mod8900
Intersound IVP
Type: EQ
Quantity: 2
This is a guitar preamp/EQ that has blistery sounding distortion unlike any other. The EQ
section is really extreme, and is great for a filtery effect.
John Hardy M2
Type: mic pre
Quantity: 1
Four channel mic pre. It has the output transformers, and 20 Ohm mic switch option.
You can read more about it here. http://www.imjohn.com/JohnHardy/M-2details.htm
Klark Technik DN 780

Type: effect
Quantity: 2
This is a pretty sophisticated delay/reverb unit that is pretty easy to set up.
Lexicon PCM 70
Type: effect
Quantity: 2
One of the easiest to use digital delays and reverb units.

Lexicon PCM 80
Type: effect
Quantity: 1
We got this thing thinking it would be as simple to use as Lexicon's other devices, like the PCM 60,
PCM 70, Primetime, PCM 41, etc. Boy were we wrong. If you know how to use this thing, or even
what all the bizarre parameter names mean and what all the "hidden" settings mean, well you
sure have a lot of time on your hands. Me, I can only figure out how to use the tap tempo display,
but even that doesn't work too well. Supposedly, if you spend a few hours on it, you can find a
goddamn simple delay in there, or maybe even a reverb that doesn't sound like the Borg
assimilating Enya, but I've never been able to. Does anybody want to buy this thing? Seriously,
everytime I try to get a simple thing like a stereo delay, I end up lost in a maze, with something
horrible coming out of the speakers. Where's my Cup o'Noodles? Hey, I'm talking here... anyway...
Lexicon PrimeTime
Type: effect
Quantity: 1
Simple but comprehensive delay processor. It uses bucket-brigade memory, so bandwidth

shrinks as delay time multiplies, but it sounds great for all its intended uses -- doubling, stereo
echo, flanging, chorus etc. If you select a delay time that is a prime number of milliseconds, a
little indicator light comes on, and this is supposed to be really cool.
MXR Delay System II
Type: effect
Quantity: 1
Crude but easy-to-use digital delay from the bucket-brigade era. The nicest thing about it is the
numerical display of delay time, which tracks even when the delay is modulating. Maximum
delay time is 3344 ms (at 4kHz bandwidth). Maximum delay with 16kHz bandwidth is 808 ms.
Metering is very crude, but there is a compander which prevents most overloads.
Manley Electro-Optical
Quantity: 2
Gentle-sounding compressor modeled after Urei LA-2A, but much less aggressive
sounding. Excellent for vocals, bass guitar. Controls are symetrically laid-out (the
gain knobs are on the inside, reduction knobs on the outside) which is confusing
until you get used to it. The "STEREO/LINK" switch should be in the "LINK" position
(up) for stereo, and in the "STEREO" (down) position for for dual-mono. Oh, and
the "BYPASS" switch leaves the unity-gain output amplifier in the circuit. It sounds
good though. Take a look at what they say.
http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/elop99.html
MXR Pitch Transposer

Type: effect
Quantity: 1
We call this "The Satanizer". The knobs which set the different pitch transposition
values are capacitively touch-sensitive. This allows you to practically "play" this
effect. The results can be quite surprising if you've never experienced this device
before. There is a control voltage input for modulation of selected harmony.
Neve 3115
Type: mic pre + EQ
Quantity: 1
Mic/line amp
with EQ.
Neve B002
6 channel class A mic preamp/mixer with individual, and 3 bus outputs Type: mic pre
(all outputs are transformer balanced). Same design as the 1073 (preamp Quantity: 1
module only). There is no eq section. It is mounted in our custom rack
which supplies switchable phantom power and polarity reverse.
NTI EQ-3
Type: EQ
Quantity: 2
This is a remarkable, high quality equalizer. Don't be fooled by the Peavey styling. The NTI
uses a non-resonant topology, so phase shift is minimized. It is a bandpass mixer,
meaning you can raise or lower a specific band without creating resonance, ringing or
additional phase shift. Exceptional for equalizing stereo sources without distorting the
stereo image. Also good for equalizing one mic of a multi-mic recording without causing
additional phase interference. Relay bypass. The positioning of the knobs for "flat" setting
is counter-intuitive, so please ask someone if you don't think you're getting the results
you expect from it. It's a bit like the RPN on HP calculators -- once you learn how it
works, it makes sense, but until then, it just seems like the machine is screwing with you.
Orange County Stressor
Quantity: 1
This is a unique piece of equipment. It is 1/2 equalizer, and 1/2 compressor/expander. The
eq module is 4 band and fully parametric. It can be switched before, after, or in the
sidechain of the compressor. The compressor/expander module has the ability to be used
as a gate and compressor at the same time. It isn't the cleanest compressor, but sounds
good on drums and bass..
PAIA vocoder
Type: effect
Bob Weston built this from a kit a while ago. It's a vocoder. Plan to Quantity: 1
spend all day getting "The Sound".
Pultec EQP1A3
Type: EQ
Quantity: 1
Vintage EQ that everyone is familiar with. The make-up amplifier is an API 2520 op amp.
Quad Eight PMR 16

Type: effect
Quantity: 1
Early eighties digital effects box. The thing has the most ridiculous sounding reverb. I
can't describe, you just have to try it out. When doves cry, they cry digital reverb.
Quantec QRS XL
Type: effect
Quantity: 1
Excellent room simulator. Probably the most realistic digital reverb. If your intention is
to add "natural" ambience to something, you can do no better.
Skibbe 59C
Modern LA-2A copy built by former Electrical Audio
Quantity: 2
employee Bill Skibbe. We have two, and some sweet
day, when Bill gets off his ass, we'll have two more.
Sytek MPX-4
Type: mic pre
Quantity: 4
This pre-amp is manufactured by former Neotek designer Mike Stoica. It's a mix of discrete
transistor and monolithic op-amp topology. These preamps are quiet, clean, distortion-free
amps good for all sorts of uses. They work well with ribbon mics used in quiet scenarios.
t.c. electronic TC 2290

Type: effect
Quantity: 1
Excellent, wide-band digital delay with sampling and modulation. click here for their website.
http://www.tcelectronic.com/products.asp?page=intro&id=48&category=1
TimeLine MicroLynx
Type: synchronizer
Quantity: 1
This is used for

synchronizing the
multitracks to each other
and anything else. It has
the extra "machine 3"
controller. This means it
will control up to three
tape machines. Why would
you ever do that?
Really, I’m asking.
Urei 1176 LN
Quantity: 2
Both of our 1176s are modified by Bob Alach for less noise, better linearity, and more
headroom. Some 1176 units invert polarity, both of ours are non-inverting.
Urei LA-12
Quantity: 1
This is the same circuit as Urei LA-22 , but without the equalizer and frequency-
selective functions.
Urei LA-22
Quantity: 1
Versatile and transparent limiter/compressor with several advantages. The gain

reduction cell can be controlled by a peak detector and a variable detector at the
same time in varying amounts, according to the front panel settings. There is also an
equalizer that can be internally tied to the compression circuit for band specific
dynamic notching. There is an upward expander mode which can also work as a
dynamic boost filter. The equalizer output is available as a discrete output, and is
functional in all modes. To use this equalizer for frequency-dependent ducking
(conventional side-chain limiting), you must patch the equalizer output to the side-
chain input, and set the compressor mode to "wide band."
Urei LA-4
Quantity: 4
We have 4 of these, 2 are stock, 2 have been modified by Bob Alach of Alactronics. The
Alactronics ones sound cleaner, and are flatter with wider bandwidth, but some
people are touchy about any modifications to familar gear, so we have stock ones as
well.
Valley Dynamite
Quantity: 1
This is a good all-around utility dynamics processor. It has the virtue of simple
controls that you can quickly navigate. It can be used as a compressor, limiter, gate,
expander, ducker, de-esser and tremolo (external frequency generator). A handy box.
Valley Kepex-II
Quantity: 1
Very clean, fast-responding parametric expander with key input. Much faster and
more discriminating than original Kepex modules. It can use either a linear or
logarithmic slope for release, which can help with percussive sounds.
ANNEX C
Electrical Audio Recording Equipment List: Tape Machines & Mixers
Ampex ATR 102

Type: 2-track
Quantity: 4
2-track master recorder, refurbished by Mike Spitz of ATR Service.
Widely regarded as the best mastering recorder built. The heads are manufactured by
Flux Magnetics which have an extended low frequency response for reference. This
way, our ATRs have a relatively flat record to reproduce response from 20 Hz to 30kHz
at 30 IPS! This is the machine to mixdown to. These machines have been completely
rebuilt by Mike Spitz (the Neo in the ATR matrix). We have four of these machines
available with 1/2" and 1/4" headblocks, and all speeds. Tape machines are calibrated
before each session.
Digidesign/Motu Pro Tools, Digital P
Type: DAW
Quantity: 1
Electrical Audio has joined the '90s.
Mac Pro Tower 2G RAM 2.66Ghz loaded with Pro Tools HD 2, version 7.3,
and Digital Performer 5.12
24 channels in and out Digidesign 192s
Pro Tools HDpack plug-in bundle
Bomb Factory® plug-ins
Digidesign DigiRack™ Plug-ins
Xpand!™ sample-playback/synthesis workstation
Pro Tools Ignition Pack 2 Pro collection
Steve doesn't know how to use any of this stuff, so please don't ask him to
record your band with it.
MCI JH-16
Type: 8-track
Quantity: 1
1" 8-Track Recorder
This is a great sounding machine that we have for more simple sessions. It is made up
of transformers and discrete electronics which makes for a more colored recording.
The best application for this machine has been with bands set up for live tracking
(drums, bass, guitar, etc. at the same time), and minimal overdubs. No fancy
punches. Notice the wonderful wood veneer. They made this machine out of a tree
apparently. Let us know ahead of time if you want to use this, so we can move it and
order fresh tape.
Tape machines are calibrated before each session.

Studer A 820
Type: 2-track
Quantity: 1
(1/4" only)
This is the 2-track version of the A-820MCH (MultiChannel). It shares all the same
features except the meters and automated alignment. We have DIN pancake hubs for
our German friends if they need them. Tape machines are calibrated before each
session.
Studer A 820 MCH
Type: 16/24-track
Quantity: 3
2" 24/16-Track Recorder w/Dolby SR and Dolby A Noise Reduction
The high watermark of analog multitrack recorders. This machine is the result of a perfect
marriage between microprocessor aided function and 40 years of professional analog
audio expertise. Studer, in the late eighties decided to make the ultimate
engineer/technician/musician's machine. They took application suggestions from
engineers in the field to better facilitate given studio habits. The net result was a machine
with near perfect tape transport, and a multitude of handy features (reverse record,
easier spot erasing, 4 different ways to dump tape, cigarette lighting, leftover eating, etc.)
The audio alignment is aided by a computer making it a matter of minutes to completely
"set-up" the machine. It will memorize 2 sets of calibration data for every speed. This is
handy when mixing down tapes recorded at different levels and speeds. One feature that
seems intimidating at first is the meter bridge. Bargraph meters on an analog machine
seems wrong I know, however it gives you the ability to truly see transient levels. Either
way you can accurately predict whether your signal is at a good level, or getting
compressed/distorted. Whatever your preference, we can help orient you on what's
what.
You can tell I like talking about this machine. Oh yeah, it sounds good too. Those of you
familiar with the A-827 will get along fine with the A-820. They both sound transparent
with mild bass bumps and extended high end. Did I mention it eats leftovers? Lets see
your pro tools do that. We have 2" 24-track, and ultra high fidelity 16-track headblocks
(2" 8-track headblock rentable). All tape machines are calibrated before each session.
Neotek Elite [custom]
Type: in-line
Quantity: 1
General Features:
• 48 mono channels with two signal paths,

individually assignable to mix buses or
output buses (96 inputs)
• 8 stereo inputs, 4 mono effect returns, 8
stereo effect returns
• 8 stereo subgroups which can be used as
outputs, stereo submixes or telescoped
into each other with balanced inserts
• 2 stereo buses, which can be used
separately or combined
Custom Features:
• Flying Faders automation

• Simplified solo-in-place function
• Second stereo bus (which can be
combined with main stereo bus)
• Individually-buffered stereo outputs for
each master recorder
• Balanced pre-fader insert on stereo
master for mix processing
• Automatic or manual recording privacy
lights outside studio doors
• 2-track remotes mounted in master
section
• Automation keyboard and trackball
mounted in master section
• Direct outputs on each channel
• 2 line inputs on each channel
• VU needle meters on monitor
• 3 speaker selector
• Rear speaker switch
• Oscilloscope displays monitor output
• Retro-styled DOS/386 computer and
dinky monitor
• Talkback switch and mic at console and
rear sofa
• 5.1 mixdown capable
Neotek Series II
Type: in-line
Quantity: 1
36 channel 8 bus in-line console which used to be in Steve's house. This console was completely
refurbished by Mike Stoica of Sytek (former Neotek designer and current owner of Neotek).
If you are familiar with Neotek Series II desks, the modifications we have made to ours may interest you.
In a standard Series II, the monitor path from the tape machine is through the small pots labelled Monitor,
unless the Mixdown button is pressed, which routes the channel audio to the 2-Mix. The fader is normally
routed to the output buses for recording. This necessitates a complete changeover of the board before you
can enter mix mode in a session. We have changed this configuration in two ways: The channel audio now
goes to the output buses from the small pot labeled Monitor, while the tape return goes to the fader. This
means that the mix can be left undisturbed from the start of the session to the end, and a session can
include tracking, overdubbing and mixing at any time, without necessitating changing status of the
channels.
The other modification is the insertion of muting relays, which allows up to 10 mute groups to be assigned
using thumbwheels on the channels. The relays also function on solo button logic, which allows for solo-
in-place, which didn't exist on the original console. The mute groups, solo-in-place and the muting relays
themselves can be defeated on a per-channel basis or globally.
The console is entirely manual, the way nature intended.
The console has a clean sound. The eq section is precise and transparent (4 band parametric). The mic pre-
amps are quiet and accurate (discrete/solid state).

Bebio Amaro - Electrical Audio

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bebio Amaro - Electrical Audio

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Electrical Audio:

Recording Techniques &

Includes some info on recording sessions for albums by Nirvana, Don

Version Number: α 1.0 [Final]

Steve Albini has become a legend in the world of alternative music by

The big cliché about Steve Albini is that he has a

Indeed, a refusal to impose his own sound on other people's recordings is a

The Engineer With No Name

The American clearly takes no prisoners on the subject of the music

"I think that my name appearing on people's records is a little bit of a

Albini's exhortations may sound almost naively

"Working in the computer paradigm is much slower, because no-one knows

Albini says that he spends on average "four to 10 days recording an album,

Favourite microphones: Schoeps 221b, Neumann 56/54 and FM2, Audio

Favourite preamps: Massenburg 8400, Sytek MPX4.

Favourite microphones: Coles 4038, Royer 44/77, Neumann U67, Lomo

Favourite microphones: Beyer 380, EV RE20, Josephson C42, E22s, Audio-

Favourite preamps: John Hardy 2, Neotek desk.

Albini's recording preferences find their reflection in his Chicago studio,

Having expertly demoted the once-prestigious CD to the status of the

As Live As You Can Get

Clearly, Electric Audio is an unusual recording environment rooted in an

But what, for instance, if in his opinion an arrangement of a song doesn't

The advantage of dealing with a small, local

Leave Well Alone

Although Albini is willing to do something "fantastic" when required, it

"Ninety-nine percent of mixing is the balance. If you can hear what

Given the omnipresence of compression on today's recordings, particularly

"With regards to reverbs, we have the best in the world.

Albini is unconcerned by all this uncertainty. "To be honest, I saw it coming,

Published in SOS September 2005

Published in SOS February 2001

Wedding Present frontman David Gedge and engineer/producer Steve

"When I explained my idea on the phone he said 'That sounds hideous!'"

The Recording Process

Although no strings or brass were to be recorded in Chicago, they were

Over The Top

"It was a bit of a nightmare!" admits Dare. "Dave is nothing if not

"Digital systems invite an entire slew of problems, akin to computer

Into The World

Visit the Cinerama website at: www.cinerama.co.uk

Published in SOS February 2001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electrical Audio is a recording studio complex located in Chicago, Illinois,

In a post on the studio's message board, the studio's technician Greg

Studio B is the smaller and less expensive of our studios.

Some recording tasks require close recording with no room ambience;

Deadening high-frequency sound is fairly easily done; as the wavelengths

To control low frequencies in Alcatraz, we have used a membrane absorber

A dry environment can also accentuate subtleties in the sound of wood-

A nice feature of a highly-absorbent dead room like Alcatraz is that little or

Alcatraz Membrane Absorber [Construction Details]

Sound energy strikes membrane, membrane flexes, dissipating energy as

The membranes are made of oriented-strand board (OXB), and are

The control room is designed to accommodate larger groups of people, with

• Separate nearfield monitors for rear sofa

Studio A normally has 2 multitracks and 2 mixdown machines, but can

In addition to the fixed equipment, Studio A can accommodate up to 48

If desired, a digital multitrack or DAW system can be integrated into the

Headphone mixers provide independent unique mixes for each musician

The control room is designed to have minimal reflected energy, to provide

The control room of Studio A houses a customized 48 channel Neotek Elite

There are 2 in-house sets of monitors. In the soffits we have 3 way