|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.100.227.202
In Reply to: Do I really need a mixer to record on my Nak BX with a mike posted by DWPC on December 12, 2006 at 09:58:22:
Something like a small Behringer would do the trick. What mic are you going to use? Check out the link...
Follow Ups:
I want to be able tape myself practicing acoustic guitar for self-evaluation. Nothing fancy. Close up. Of course, decent sound quality would be nice, but I'm doing this on the cheap.
to remember is that you should always record with two microphones or a stereo microphone. This is difficult to do on the cheap. Sony has a new stereo microphone, Sony ECM-MS957 Stereo Microphone, that goes for about $200 on the street. It has one capsule that is movable to create different pick up patterns. It's an electret condenser and would be ideal for acoustic guitar. When ever you use only one microphone or a monaural pickup then you destroy the difference cues that humans like to hear because they hear with TWO EARS! This is how we place a sound source in an acoustic space. Good luck! Ray
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
Also try posting your question in Pro Audio Asylum... you'll probably get more responses there.Cheers
And a Sennheiser mic (link below) are about as cheap as you want to go if you want decent sound quality... you might also consider a portable recorder w/ built in mic. It won't sound as good, but it might do the job!
Why are most new mixing boards so cheaply made? They tend to look like
cheap toys from a kiddies toy factory. Little tiny knobs, annoying
digital metering, or digital metering that could stand to have far
more than a half-dozen LED's; connectors on top of the console instead
of on the back panel and overall design that says "cheap, cheasey
rotten rubbish to make music that sounds like rubbish with" (perhaps
that explains the annoyingly cacophonic sound of most post 1980's rock,
for example).
Midas, Sony, and Yamaha are just three manufacturers which make very nice boards, if that's what you're looking for.But if you're looking for a cheap board, you can get those, too. And then don't complain about it.
But the main reason why is that manufacturers are out to see if the public will accept lower quality. To make something of high quality takes high quality parts and an attention to detail that requires time. Time is money. They are also obsessed with volume sales to jive with their idea of profit returns. So marketing issues win out over quality. So everything is mounted to a circuit board that a robot can assemble. It has cheap carbon track or cermet pots and switches that are tiny and will not suffer very much abuse. Go price a Neve 1072 module that was built in the 60s by hand with its 17 position rotary switches and precison resistors. Bet you can't find one because they are cherished! The better recordings of our lifetime were made with them. There is no substitute for quality. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
I own 3 Behringer mixers for various applications, including the nearly pocket sized UB-502. The mic preamps are dead quiet, and they have very good build quality. They'd be excellent all-around at three times the price. I also have a TASCAM mixer, and a Studiomaster.I also have a lot of the Behringer processing gear. Never made a bad purchase yet. Their XM8500 mics that sell for $20 each easily give the Shure SM58s a run for their money both in sound and build quality.
My friend, a professional sound guy who does concerts uses a big Allen & Heath 48 channel board, and a Behringer 16 channel for submix duties. He's sold on the quality of the Behringer stuff.
Still, Behringer mixers are still rubbish in comparison to some mixers
made over a decade ago. Actually, all of the mixers to be found in
places like the typical mail-order catalogues for musicians look like
they were designed for people with tiny hands and fingers, have no
positive aesthetic value (they're hideous to look at!), the jacks
tend to be in the wrong place, the slide-pots/faders are tiny, and
too close together, making it difficult to work with them quickly with
adequate degrees of precision. The also look like they'd break if
they fell a few feet. Any good audio specifications, which will
probably degrade after a reasonably amount of use, are offset by their
other poor qualities. At least older mixing consoles without
great specs. can be upgraded with better quality components to rival
the more expensive consoles.Of course, people have become acustomed to cheap and cheesey
poor quality merchandise, from home audio systems to modern-day
automobiles; put an expensive price on it, or make it appear
popular, and the suckers will come out of the woodwork, in vast
quantities, to purchase it, often making those legalized loan
sharks, called credit card companies, happy in the process.Just my two cents worth. :-)
Hi there.Sure they're not as good as some mixers made over a decade ago. They're also much better than some mixers made over a decade ago. There was some good stuff, but they also made some utter crap in the 80s and 90s. Just like now. Depends on what you're comparing them to. If you're comparing the Behringer mixers to the Peaveys or similar middle-range mixers of 10-20 years ago, they're sonically a bit better overall, but not as heavily built. But then again, you couldn't touch a decent new 16 channel mixer for $200 10 years ago. But yeah, they're not a Neve, or a Soundcraft, or Midas, or Allen & Heath. But they're a tiny fraction of the cost. For someone on a budget, they're a steal.
And yes, the knobs can be fiddly to work with, but how else can you fit 16 channels into a rackmount board with EQ on all channels, etc.? You gotta make the controls smaller to fit. Or buy a board with fewer channels.
As for aesthetic value, I personally don't put a big value on it. For me, it's a tool. If it does the job well, color & style, etc. aren't that big a concern for me. I happen to like the style of their equipment anyway, but different strokes for different folks.
"They also look like they'd break if they fell a few feet." - I wouldn't wanna drop a $10,000 Midas console either. I'm guessing unless the gods are smiling on you, any mixer would be FUBAR if you dropped it from a few feet.
"Any good audio specifications, which will probably degrade after a reasonably amount of use, are offset by their other poor qualities." - Speaking from a lot of experience, that's not the case.
"Of course, people have become accustomed to cheap and cheesy poor quality merchandise, from home audio systems to modern-day automobiles" - This is true. I personally wouldn't call their equipment cheesy, especially for the money. Even the little pocket-sized UB502 mixer has a hefty feel and good build quality. And it can be had new for about $40.
I'm just speaking from my own personal experience. Your mileage may vary.
The quality varies widely. There are boards made today that rival or exceed the quality of the boards of yesterday... and some that suck.
Others have recommended a good digital voice recorder like Olympus or Sony. Some MP3 players have voice recorders too. That would be in the same price range as the mike/mixer, but I'm sure not nearly as good in sound quality. The Nak BX has been in the closet for years; I might as well get some use out of it. Thanks.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: