Recording and Live Sound Tips and Tricks

(For the podcast segment I did on this topic at Home Recording Show, please click here.)

There has been much debate over how similar or how different the Shure SM57 and SM58 are against the GLS Audio ES-57 and ES-58 series of microphones. I have read several reviews and there seem to be two distinct camps forming. One group that believes that the GLS mics are every bit as good or better than the Shure counterparts and those that scoff at them as even being in the same league.

I have worked with both the Shure and GLS microphones at live sound venues. My initial impression was that the GLS mics were terrible. I was expecting to confirm this once I was able to test them side by side in the controlled environment of the studio. I was surprised to find that the GLS mics, while not a Shure replacement, are better than I had previously determined.

Here are a the tests that I conducted in the studio:

The first pair of audio tracks are the SM57 and ES-57 respectively on a clean guitar track:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The second pair of audio tracks are the SM57 and ES-57 respectively on a distorted guitar track:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The third group is my voice recorded simultaneously with the SM58, ES-58, and SM58a Beta respectively:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

What I noticed in the test was that the GLS Audio microphones are much more sensitive than their Shure counterparts. Less preamp gain was needed to achieve equal levels. This may be attributed to the base impedance of 300 ohms compared to that of the Shure at 150 ohms. I heard more bite in the higher frequencies and a less defined lower mid and bass response in the GLS mics.  Handling noise is also much less pronounced in the Shure models.

In the studio, if I were looking to get an electric guitar to stand out in the mix with a biting treble character, I would likely grab the GLS before the Shure. In most cases, even after these tests, I would be far more likely to use the Shure microphones for the majority of what I currently use them on.

In the live environment I would not recommend use the GLS microphones. Because of the bump in the sensitively and the higher frequency attack, feedback from the monitors is much more difficult to control. I have used them many times and some of the performers became quite difficult to accommodate. The venue that once used the GLS mics has since upgraded to the Sennheiser e835. My very first show after the switch was completely squeal free.

My final thoughts on this hotly contested topic is that the Shure and GLS Audio microphones are not interchangeable. They have different tonal characteristics, sensitivities, build materials, and specifications. At a price of about $30 each (and even less when purchased in bulk), the GLS mic is a fantastic deal. If you are just starting out in recording and your budget is minimal, this would be a great choice. I would strongly discourage anyone using them in live environments where feedback can be a problem. At the end of the day, I am sticking with my old standby microphones made by Shure.

Test notes:

The guitar tests were made by using a Fender Strat guitar signal recorded using a Countryman Type 85 DI directly into my DAW at 44.1kHz at 16 bit. The exact same signal was sent out via a Radial Pro RMP to a Marshall DSL 2000 into a vintage Orange 4×12 cabinet. The exact location on the speaker cone was marked with masking tape on the grill and the microphone was exactly two inches from the grill cloth. The same cables and signals were used for all tracks. The gain on the Focusrite Octopre was higher on the SM57 to match the output of the ES-57. No compression, filters, or EQ were used.

The voice test was made by setting up all mics very close together as seen in new coverage. I was at 3 inches away from all mics equally. All three were recorded simutaneusly with gain settings to match overall equal levels. The SM58 used the most gain, followed by the SM58a Beta, then the ES-58. No compression, filters, or EQ were used.

I always use compression when I am tracking. Be very careful to make sure that you are not using too much from the start because just like salt on food, you can not remove what you have already used and you can always add more later.

When you compress a signal, in simplest perceived terms, you are taking the loudest parts and reducing them and boosting the quietest sections of the source material. This can benefit you in many more technical ways beyond the scope of today’s show, but it will become obviously useful when it comes time for mix-down.

The basic signal chain that I use when tracking most everything is a microphone to a pre-amp to a compressor and then to my digital audio workstation. Once you have your pre-amp level dialed in the compressor’s settings are next. Depending on what you are recording and what you want to get out of your overall sound will determine what your settings will be. A good place to start is a 4:1 ratio with a medium to fast attack time and a medium to slow release. Make sure that the signal only engages the compressor at the louder passages. The portion of the signal under this threshold will remain unaffected. Use the make-up gain to get the overall signal back to the level of the where the loudest parts were originally.

Imagine the real world difference in the dynamic range between a whisper and a scream. With compression you can reduce that difference. How much you reduce that distance is how heavily you are to compress the signal. With the material you are about to record in mind, you can control the dynamics right from the start to have a dynamic range that will not only be usable on the track, but in some cases, will work at all.

Here are some examples to illustrate my point. The first track here is not compressed at all.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This track is compressed lightly as I would normally do in tracking.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This final track is heavily compressed. I would not recommend this at the tracking stage.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Of coarse I am talking in extremes to make my point, but all sound sources have at least some dynamics. Certainly some have more than others. Human voices and acoustic instruments can vary wildly within a track. Light compression is almost always used in these cases in most studios around the world. If compression is not used in tracking, it will most certainly be used at mix-down, mastering, broadcast, or all of the above.

In conclusion, light to medium compression during tracking will give you a more dynamically balanced signal to work with from the start. You can always add more compression later, but you can not take it away once it is there.

With a geographically undesirable partner for your show, traditional methods will certainly limit your ability to get together unless you have both an ISDN line (service and expensive equipment), already own a private jet, or you like spending an obscene amount of time in the car. There is another way. And get ready for this… it is free! You can use Skype in a way that is similar to having your own personal free ISDN line. As I am sure that you already know, Skype is a free computer to computer VOIP system that is really easy to use and gaining quickly in popularity. I was first introduced to using Skype in this way by Leo Laport who has the largest podcasting network and uses this service on his nationally syndicated radio program.

There are several ways to capture the conversation either with software or external hardware. The most common would be to use a USB headset that comes equipped with a microphone like the Plantronics DPS 400. This device is great for most podcasters and is certainly be a quick and easy solution with great results. There are several software package that are out there that will capture the dialogue and give you an audio file that you can then use a free program like Audacity to add theme music, promos, commercials, announcements, and make edits. The computer you already have, a $50 headset for each participant, a free editing program, and you are there.

That being said, what if you want to step it up a notch? What if you already have a good amount of audio gear and you want to get the most out of it using Skype? This is where the fun begins. Lets say there is a situation where there are three people in three different cities that want to do a high quality podcast. There are two ways this can be accomplished.

The first is that one of the three participants will be in charge of making the recording. This should usually be the one that doing the most talking or is the host of the show. This is because the mic that this person is talking on will go directly to the recording gear at the highest possible quality. Next is to route the two Skype calls to a channel and record them. The two people that are on Skype will be in a conference call and will be able to hear one another just fine. The real trick is to send them your voice without sending their voices back to them creating an endless loop. This kind of mix is called mix-minus. Mix-minus is a particular setup of a mixing console, such that the output to a certain device contains everything except the input from that device. It sounds confusing, and it is… but once you get it straightened out in your head, it really makes perfect sense. In addition to all of that setup, the two people that are not at the base station can really up their quality by using good preamps and microphones that are fed into Skype. This will produce a dramatic improvement over the USB headset mics. I generally recommend a large diaphragm mic like a Shure SM-7, EV RE-20, Heil PR-30 or PR-40, or Sennheiser MD421. I usually do not like the use the condensers in this situation because they pick up a lot of background and room noise. Unless you have a treated room, you will be better off with a  Shure SM57 over a more expensive condenser mic.

Did I mention that there is another way? Indeed I did. If the quality is still not up to par for you with your friends on the Skype end of the line, there is still hope. Have them record their audio from the mics that they are using with no other source material to a track. That track can then be exported and sent to the member that is doing the recording and lined up with the original conversation. This method requires much more time and effort. Some times the files will not add up exactly especially the longer the program. For short shows, there should be much less of a chance for disaster. In this scenario, we have both people from the Skype end sending in full fidelity audio and the mix down would then sound as if all three parties were actually in one room.

Here is a little more to think about. Your Podcast shows will never be send out to the public is high quality wav or aiff files. You will most likely be sending out an MP3 files at 128kb or less. That being said, it will mask some of the quality loss of a Skype call. It really all depends on what your priorities are and how much time that you have to dedicate to your show.

I would have to say that this is one of the worst titles to an article, but it certainly is a question worth asking. I have recently been interested in reamping. What this means is that the original source material, like an electric guitar, would have its pickups recorded directly via a direct box. After this material is recorded and edited, it would be output through another type of DI box that is designed to convert the line level back to an instrument level as so you may plug a 1/4″ cable from it directly into an amp.

The first few time you do this it seems like the haunted mansion where the amp is seemingly playing itself. I was curious to see if there would be a significant loss in quality in using this method so I have made some examples and I would appreciate your feedback. Why even bother to go through the trouble? This can be a great way as a producer to dial in exactly the sound that you are looking for no matter what rig the session guy shows up with.

Lets say you have an important session and the guitarist shows up with the worst sounding little pawn shop special amp with a blown speaker and spent tubes. Instead of passing out and hitting your head on the console, just run the guitar’s output into a DI and connect the output to his amp so he can hear what he is used to hearing and you will have a raw file to work with through any amp of your choosing at a later date.

Another use of this technique is if you need to track a band all at once and you run out of amp closets. When you really need to keep any bleed out of the overheads because of impending edits, this could well save you butt in the session. Some purists will scoff at the suggestion, but most players will really be interested to see their gear crank out their performance while they are kicking back and relaxing.

Once you have a direct signal on tape or in your DAW, you now have the option of using plug-ins for emulation software as well. There are so many different varieties out there, but most of them will give you several presets that will mimic different classic amplifiers. Some are better than others, but I have been able to get useful sounds with some tweaking out of most that I have sampled.

Below are the test that I have completed to illustrate the different results of these methods. Please excuse the performance.

Original DI guitar signal (Countryman Type85)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Fender Deluxe Amp (Shure SM57)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Fender Deluxe Reamp via Radial Pro RMP (Shure SM57)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Fender Emulation – SansAmp (Champ setting, drive 50%, level 75%)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Fender Emulation – Amplitube (Warm Clean setting, slight overdrive)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Marshall DSL 2000 Amp (Shure SM57)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Marchall Reamp via Radial Pro RMP (Shure SM57)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Marshall Emulation – SansAmp (JMP-1 Setting, no changes to preset)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Marshall Emulation – Amplitube (Power Tube setting, added treble, presence, and volume)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In conclusion, I found that the reamp of a good DI signal is remarkably similar to the original source data. The emulation plug-ins that I used, even with some tweaking, were not too close in getting similar sounds from the presets, but were certainly usable. I would highly recommend use of reamping in any situation that you may benefit from its use. Any loss in sound quality is negligible in relation to the trade off of its usefulness.

These files were created using a Les Paul to a Countryman Type 85 DI which fed directly to a Focusrite pre with no compression, effects, or filtering of any kind. The guitar cabinets were mic’d with a Shure SM57 and left in the exact position with the amplifier settings left untouched once the experiment was started. The SansAmp and Amplitube LE settings were slightly modified from the comparable preset of each actual amp used to closer emulate the direct mic sound as described above. The amps used were a Fender Deluxe Reissue and a Marshall DSL 2000 head connected to a 4×12 vintage Orange cabinet.

This is a question that seems to have a simple answer at first. The logical conclusion is that there is one microphone for the performer… how hard can it be? If you have ever heard a comedian without an audience, it is a much different experience. In fact, it is almost creepy. You can see now how quickly that conclusion is about to change.

The first thing that we need to do is capture the performer’s audio to a track that is not mixed with any other audio. This will obviously be the focal point of the recording. Secondly and almost as important is the audience. A good crowd can make or break a show. I recently engineered a comedy night at a local club and the audience did not laugh or participate at all. The acts that night were leaving the stage so quickly the night ended almost an hour early. To get a good audience properly mixed into this project you need to mic them and give them their own track as well. The more mics and separate tracks the better, but one signal path will do as the minimum.

The quality of microphones and recording equipment will certainly impact the recording, but getting the mics in the right places will make a more noticeable difference. Take a look at the room before you make any concrete decisions about your mic placements. Make sure that you are getting as little direct sound from the stage PA as possible. The tighter you can get in on groups of people with multiple mics the less bleed from the PA speakers you will be likely to get. If you only have one microphone to capture the entire crowd, get as creative as possible to maximize them and minimize any audio coming from the performer. The more isolation you can create the more you will have to work with when you get it home.

Now comes the mixing. If you are still with me on you will have a minimum of two discreet tracks to work with. Depending on the quality of the audio, there are several different things you can do at this point to give it a little something extra. Compression is a must in the mix stage as well as the final master. Spoken word will take much more compression than modern music. If you have ever listened to talk radio you know what I mean. Even though the setting get a little extreme, that is what most people are used to hearing. Don’t go too far overboard, but don’t skimp. Another thing to think about are some gentle EQ curves to balance things out. A little EQ will go a long way. As a general rule, do not boost any frequency more than 6 dB. If there is a lot of low end rumbling on either track, consider rolling off the bass starting somewhere below 100 Hz.

Now that you have your mix sounding pretty good, if you used more than two mics on the audience to separate tracks, now is the time to do some stereo imaging. Make sure that you check for phase problems. Remember that you are always going to have some bleed from the stage and sometimes they will hit mics at different times and can cause some weird things to happen. Let your ears be the judge and check the signals at different times at different settings.

A final thought about what to do if you are having problems with your mix at this point. If there is just too much bleed and it all sounds like you recorded the thing in a cave, you may be able to us gating to smooth things out. What a gate does, as its name implies, is opens and shuts the mic audio at a predetermined level. For example, this can be used to turn on the audience mics only when there is laughter present. Be careful because you can cut out things that are meant to be there. This technique can also be done manually line by line in your recording software. You just need to decide how much time you want to spend. Just remember when you are setting up, the more you get right on location, the less that you will have to fix later in the mix.

What is this guy talking about?! I promise that it will make sense after I explain. Lately I have been doing a lot of recordings for singer/songwriters. Many of my clients come in with an acoustic guitar and lyrics. From there it is then my job to then build a band around them. I almost always start with a click track, a scratch acoustic track, and a scratch vocal track.

What does any of this have to do with the title of the article? Nothing yet, but hang in there.

Next up is drums and bass. If I have two people to do the job for each, I will record them together so they can lock it down as a team. This is my preferred method, but sometimes it is just me and I have to really plan it out before I get started. This usually requires a bit more editing to make sure everything lines up and swings.

From here, the final acoustic is laid down. Now after all of that, we can now get to my premise. The foundation is laid, now it is time for some flavor. Unless the client has exact specifications what is to happen next, this is where the session gets more interesting.

I am sure that most people who are doing some recording know several musicians in the area that love to play anywhere and everywhere. Give one of these guys a call and have them over. Play them the song once or twice, set up the recording rig, and let them jam out the song two or three times. They are undoubtedly going to miss the transitions of the song because they really do not know it, but you are not looking for a contiguous performance.

This is where you will sharpen your skills as an editor. Take a listen to the phrases that catch your ear and then move them to the part of the song that will be best suited by it. Make sure that you are flexable and work with your client until they are happy. This is not about you! I usually do a full edit my way and then alter it until it suits my client’s tastes.

Using this “hunt and peck” method of jamming and editing, I have come up with some of the most interesting combinations of sounds and sonic flavors than most ideas that were completely clever and intentional. To me it seems to be a simple blend of uncolored unintentional human feel combined with overproducing to yeild a hybrid that resembles neither giving way to something fresh and new that really works.

I am very often asked what is the most important componant of making a good recording. Most people are usually quick to tell you that all you need a quality microphone. I agree in part, but the question is only half answered. Just as important as your microphone, if not more in some cases, is your microphone preamp. The best mic in the world through a poor preamp would have trouble competing with a microphone of much lesser quality through a great preamp.

Wikipedia defines a preamp as: A preamplifier (preamp) is an electronic amplifier which precedes another amplifier to prepare an electronic signal for further amplification or processing.

What the preamplifier does is take the very faint signal from the microphone and amplifies it to “line level”. This is the point where it is ready to be recorded or in the case of live sound, it will be sent to the power amplifier where the signal will be boosted for a second time to power the speakers. Inside of every home stereo unit there are preamps and power amps all included inside the same box. This may be one reason why the concept of separate components is usually misunderstood as an all-in-one process when we first start out exploring electronics and recording.

When I first started out in recording, I had little concept of preamplification. I was using what was attached to tape machines and mixers with little thought of the actual signal path. At that time when I asked guys in the know how to make better recordings I never got the full answer. After years of trial and error and much research, I finally figured it out. The quality of the mic plus the quality of the preamp plus how well they work together will get you your optimal signal.

There are so many options out there for you these days and many are quite good. Generally speaking, it is safe to say that you get what you pay for. The market is pretty good at dictating the actual worth of these devices. Sometimes if I am looking to purchase a particular unit, I will check out eBay to see if people are getting rid of them in mass or if you can’t find them anywhere because people are not willing to let them go. Also, great unbiased user generated reviews can be found at Harmony Central.

As a final thought to add another level of complexity to what can be a confusing issue, adding a quality compressor after the preamp before your recording medium will ensure that your levels are within the proper range, strong, and clean. Compression is somewhat of a black art and there are several great articles online that will get into all the miunte details. A quick Google search should get you what you are looking for. As a simple guideline for using compression while tracking: A little bit goes a long way. You can always add more later, but you cannot take away what is already there.

I hope that this article will help many of you who are still only getting half the answer as I had for so many years. Please let me know if this was a help to you.

We still live in a transitional time from analogue to digital… and I love it. I know that there are many purists on either side, but what intrigues me the most is combining the best of both worlds.

By far, my favorites from yesteryear are the microphones, preamps, and compressors like the classic Neve preamps and the UA compressors and limiters. This list could go on for days, but I just threw out a couple ideas. One day I will own several makes and models of these increasingly expensive devices, but for now I will remain married and visit them in cool upscale studios. Using these classic high quality processors coupled with digital technology will certainly yield and amazing finished product. With the vintage gear, you will not likely get the cleanest signal path, but a little grit goes a long way in dialing in that that warm complex tonal character.

I have long since moved from tape as a recording medium. That is not to say that tape machines are still not without their charm and usefulness. One of the great applications that I see today is employing tape to recreate analogue warmth; essentially using it as an effect. After recording and editing tracks digitally, they are then sent to tape strong and hot to get some of the benefits of natural compression that tape offers as well as the desired coloration that tape emulators just can’t yet touch. After this process the mix is generally sent back from tape to the digital domain where it will then go off to to the next process or final mastering.

Vintage microphones are also another semi-obsession of mine. Maybe its nostalgia from the pioneers of recording or having seen certain microphones from old pictures of the Beatles in the studio. Whatever the reason, I dig them. Recently I have been collecting large diaphragm dynamic mics and I came across the EV model 666. Ironically a church was selling it on eBay. These mics are still alive and well in recording studios for use on kick drums and guitar cabinets. Originally it was intended as an inexpensive public address microphone.

There are, of coarse, the undisputed classics like the Sennheiser U 87 that I would go to great lengths to obtain, but everyone knows that they are great. What excites me is finding something that has fallen off the earth, something quirky, something different, and bring new life to it. You never know what will grab you in a pawn shop or out of the way Mom and Pop music shop that could define your sound. I know that I always keep an eye out. Good hunting.

If you are using a computer to record sound, you are like the majority of us these days. With the great quality, endless editing possibilities, readily available plug ins, all at an increasingly lower price… it is a no brainer. We are certainly living in the digital age.

Many of us started tinkering with the sounds of our early personal computers. For the first time we could load up sound effects, simple synth programs started popping up, and privative manipulation of sound files were given to the masses.

Now that we have far more sophisticated systems these years later, all of those old toys have been moved to the digital basements of our hard drives. Why not break them out and see if they have some life?

I recently used a USB keyboard to trigger a simple synth program, ran it out of the computer’s sound card, and then into Pro Tools. It was exactly what the song needed. We ended up leaving the Roland keyboard in the box.

Another great use of the old with the new could be utilized in podcast production. With the recent explosion of this new material on the Internet, some of those old folders full of sound effects that you collected and was not sure what you would ever do with… set up clips to play on the fly during a broadcast. I am sure that you have heard the cleverly placed sound effects on many radio talk shows. Why not incorporate them into you own show? You have the technology!

If you have an old computer laying around that you could dedicate to simple sound output, you would have your ideal situation. Many do not, but you can push your computer to work double duty. The computers that are coming out today are really powerful enough to pull the load. Remember I am talking about the programs of several years ago here. If you try to get your system to run a CPU heavy sequence on top of your DAW software… prepare to lose some performances. I am not saying that it can not be done, but I would not recommend it.

I really just like to push things as far as possible or find a new use for what I already have laying around. There are so many possibilities for items that may have seemingly long outlived their usefulness. Look around, you may find that your next favorite toy is a freebie!

Have you ever seen an acoustic guitar connected directly to a mixer? Have you seen a 100 foot guitar cable? Not usually. Most likely that situation would create an antenna broadcasting more AM radio signals than guitar signal. What is one to do to make the reach all the way to the mixer while maintaining pristine acoustic tone?!

This is where the DI box steps in. Years ago when I discovered this black art, I couldn’t believe that nobody had mentioned it to me earlier. What this device does, in the simplest possible terms, is it takes a high impedance unbalanced signal (guitar, bass, keyboards, etc) and converts it into a balanced low impedance signal typical of that of a microphone. Why does that make any difference?

I glad that I asked myself that question. Let me explain. The real magic happens with the switch off to a balanced cable. If you look at a microphone XLR cable, you will see that there are 3 prongs. The advantage in the 3 conductor setup, as opposed to the 2 conductor, is that it can send two lead signals and one ground. Through some rather simple but extremely clever engineering, the early pioneers of sound engineering figured out that that any noise introduced in the cable could be almost completely removed when that noise is flipped out of phase with itself. Rarely will you see and unbalanced guitar cable at a length of 20 feet, but mic cables connected through a snake can easily run 150 plus feet with very little undesirable added noise.

There are many different DIs on the market of varying features and quality. The heart of this device is the transformer. The better the quality of the transformer and connectors the better the quality of sound you should expect. I myself and a purest when it comes to DIs on stage. I prefer the path of least resistance found in passive DIs with no controls beyond a ground loop lifter and input selector as sound on the Countryman Type 80 Direct Box as pictured above. There are many great active direct boxes with all kinds of imaginable features that should work great in desired situations. It all really depends on what you want to get done. There are some really high end expensive active DIs that I have used in the studio, but I would never put them in a live stage environment!

In conclusion, if you are running acoustic guitars, keyboards, or bass guitars into a PA or recording rig, to get the best signal, find yourself a nice DI.

Surprisingly, most people seem to think that a PA system is really simple to set up. All you have to do is plug a microphone into an amp and hook up the speakers, right? If you are primarily concerned about speech in an auditorium you would be correct. I have seen this setup at countless clubs that claim to be music venues. At this level, a few relatively inexpensive pieces of gear will really make all the difference in the world.

Without getting too much into of the minute details of effects, compression, EQ, crossovers, manufacturers, and speaker designs, I will give you a basic overview of the components of a “standard” music venue setup. (Minute details to follow in future articles.)

Starting from the bottom, lets work our way up. The heart of the operation is the mixer. Make sure that if you are building a system to get all the features that you need from the beginning. It is quite easy to make upgrades later if you do not have to replace your mixer every time to grow. Some examples of quality club mixers are the Mackie Onyx series and the Venice Midas series mixers. Both of these examples have quality preamps for the microphone inserts, excellent routing options, and powerful EQs.

Next on the list is the compression. This is an extremely overlooked part of the puzzle that is very important. This is likely due to the fact that it is widely misunderstood. In simplest terms, compression limits the dynamic range of the signal. What this means (and why it is important) is that you can automatically set the range of the quietest and loudest signals. An overly dramatic example, with an extreme setting, would render a whisper and a scream equal in relative volume. This extreme setting would be defined by sound engineer lingo as squashed. With a more realistic compression setting on individual signals, they all sit better together in the mix and retain some of their original dynamics. Also, using these methods you don’t have to run the system as hot for everything to be clearly enjoyed.

Many compressor units come with built in gates. These are particularly useful if you are using several microphones on a drum set and other percussion. What they do is turn off the mic until there is enough signal that is set to your specification. The benefit is that the fewer “open” mics you have on stage at any given time the less opportunity there is for feedback and other sounds bleeding into unintended microphones. I would be weary using gating when it comes to vocals because it can often chop off the beginning and/or end of words. There is very little more annoying than this to an audience.

A limiter is a more extreme form of compression that will should be positioned at the end of the mix in the signal chain. This will create a brick wall for the entire mix. Any signal that goes past the set threshold will be stopped completely. The setting on this unit should just kiss the slight intermittent peaks. Be forewarned, heavy limiting will completely suck the life out of any mix.

Reverb and delay do not need much explanation. If you are attempting a system of this size you will most likely be familiar with these “echo” and “repeating” effects. Make sure that when you set up these effects and outboard EQs that you are using the board’s inserts and returns. If you are running short on returns, you can use the stereo channels on the board for the effect’s return to the mix.

Headphones are also often missing from the bigger setups. I am still not sure why. The primary benefit in having them is that you can “solo” individual tracks that are only sent to the headphones mix letting you hear what is going on with those particular tracks. This can really help you fine tune certain signals. Remember, it is not what the tracks sound like on their own, but how they all sit together in the mix!

After the limiter I like to use an exciter/enhancer. This will add some EQ and desirable “noise” with a propriety algorithm. Nobody but the designers really know exactly what they do, but your ears will certainly notice the difference. They really do what their name implies. A couple great examples of these devices are the BBE Sonic Maximizer and the Aphex Aural Exciter.

You may have noticed that there are outboard EQs between the mixer on both the main speaker system as well as the monitor system. There are separate reasons for this, but both very important for your overall sound and control. The main speaker EQ is used to compensate for the acoustics of the room. Generally once you make these precise adjustments, you want to leave them alone and lock up the gear so nobody can ruin your hard work. The monitor system requires the EQ to adjust for feedback in the monitors. The preformers on stage need to hear themselves and with the microphones so close to the speakers, there are a few frequencies that may pose a problem. Once you isolate these offending frequencies (different for each room and position), notch them out with the EQ. I highly recommend that you do not boost any of the frequencies; deductive EQ is the way to go in both of these situations.

A subwoofer is an optional addition to a system, but it will put out that low frequencies that many concert goers today are accustomed to hearing in live sound venues. With this kind of bottom end power, people tend to go a little power mad; less is certainly more. Get a good thump going, but do not drown out everything else! Too much bass in a room can cover a vocal and guitar mix more than you would think.

If you do go with the subwoofer option, you will need a good crossover. This sends the low frequencies to the subs and gives the mains a break and puts more sonic energy to the them for the highs and midrange frequencies. You can manually set the cutoff of the frequency split. This decision will depend on the size of your mains and the acoustics of the room.

Finally we come to the snake. This is crucial for getting your sound to and from the booth away from the stage so you can hear what the audience is hearing. You can’t make a good mix if you are sitting with the band. All of your connections will go into the snake and come quite a distance to connect with your mixer. No powered signals should be sent through the snake. You can, however, use the sends on the snake to send the outputs of the mains and monitors from the board to the power amps that should be located near the speakers that they are powering. Make sure to put the amps out of reach of the bands and patrons. Also make sure that your snake will give your enough connections to facilitate everything that you are need to accomplish.

Simple right?! Setting up a live PA system can be quite involved. This is a basic club setup at that. From here we still have microphones, recording setups, and endless effects possibilities. I think that this may be what is exciting about the process. The possibilities are limitless. I hope this may help you if you are attempting to start this project from the beginning or will use this information to upgrade your current systems. Please leave me comments if you find this information useful or have any thought to add that I may have missed.

The worst gear imaginable is not what you want to build your recording setup on, but a few select pieces can add that something special that may have been otherwise missing. I have to admit that I love quirky strange mics, amps, and miscellaneous gear. Pawn shops have been a weakness of mine for quite some time now. I have found things that nobody knew existed that I instantly had to have. Make sure that you understand where I am going with this… for this junk (treasure) to work for you, you will need to have plenty of quality gear as well. I am just talking about adding a little flavor to an already prepared meal.

At this top of this pile, my favorites hands down are tube amps. I am not just about the vintage amps of the 50’s and 60’s, but any tube amp. I had a friend find an old PA amp from an elementary school in the 50’s that was used for radio, PA, and records. He made a modification to the mic input, ran the output to a guitar cabinet, and at full volume with a Les Paul the tone was magic. It didn’t sound like a Fender or a Marshall at all. It didn’t sound like anything that I have ever heard. It was just cool.

Next on my list are cheap and old mics. I got a microphone from the 99¢ store. This thing is horrible. It is not usable in any conceivable traditional manner. It is great through in a two mic setup on a guitar cabinet. It seems to only get that mud frequency right, but with a little EQ and blending with the real mic it can add that little something extra. I also have an old Sony mic from the 70’s that came with an 8 track I believe. I don’t know what possessed me to use it as a kick drum mic, but the upper midrange thump on it was amazing. In retrospect, I would have never done that today, but now thinking about it, I may just use it again in the two mic setup going forward.

Another fun thing is using older consumer electronics in the signal path of your current recording gear. You may have to get all kinds of different adapters, but if you like to tinker a bit and you are looking for something different and fun, this stuff is great. I had a 70’s EQ for a stereo system that had some really amazing tone. I wish I knew where it is now. I have a friend that still swears by his 80’s EQ unit from his stereo from when he was a kid. He still uses it on his masters to this day. We are talking about a piece of gear that was maybe $50 then and most likely about $5 today on eBay.

You never know until you try some of this gear. Not all experiments will come out well and some will even come out completely different than you thought and you may think of a whole new use for it at that time. If you have any great stories about oddball gear, please let me know. I would love to hear them.

We all know what an iPod is at this point. Most of us know that it can be hooked into our home music systems as well as our in our cars. Why is there such a price difference between the professional and/or factory configurations and the “do it yourself” cable out of the headphone jack setups? Is there really a difference? If so, does it really matter to me?

Today I was in one of the large warehouse consumer electronics stores picking up some parts to help out my Father. I overheard a larger man that I believed to be a biker talking on his cell phone about iPod connectors. Once he hung up, I answered his questions and without my asking confirmed that he rides a rather large bike. At one point a store clerk approached us. After asking a simple question the resulting blank face spoke volumes.

What he was trying to do was to output sound from his iPod to his car stereo through a cable and charge the device from (what once was called) the cigarette lighter. His stereo came equipped with an 1/8″ input on the face and the power source was located right below that. Couldn’t be more simple right? There are two issues that may be a factor in this setup which include ground loops and the line out audio vs the headphone out audio (there is a difference). The ground loop occurs when you power the device and the radio from the same source without a proper ground which may ad noise from 60 cycle hum to the engine revving sounds that can make any sane person cuckoo. This can be overcome by a ground loop lifter cable from Radio Shack. The next issue is where you sound source is coming from. The plug from the bottom of the iPod is the ideal source. This is a line level out that has no volume control, but is much cleaner do to the fact that the headphone out has an added amp that will color the sound slightly. Think of it this way… the iPod is amplifying the sound and then the car radio is amplifying the signal once again. Not the best if it can be avoided. The FM transmitter will resolve both issues, but if you are in any medium to large city there will be so much noise on the air, that they are virtually unusable in terms of great quality.

If you want to push the limits to get the ultimate in sound quality out of your iPod, there is a way. Now that the new models are out and you can have 160 GB of data, you have more than enough room for full quality audio files. The device will let you upload full quality (not mp3 format) files. You can have your CDs ripped directly at full quality. You will get a 10th of the amount of songs, but if full quality is your bag… then you are not too worried about that. Now it is time to take the headphones that can with your iPod and throw them in the trash. There are several other options out there, but the ones that consistently come in at the top of the pile are the Shure E4c-n Sound Isolating Earphones. These two tips will make a difference that you will really be able to hear. It will make this popular little device reach beyond what you ever though possible.

After spending thousands of dollars on “industry standard” condenser vocal mics looking for that raw rock vocal sound, I was finally turned on to the secret weapon… the Shure SM7. This is a large diaphragm dynamic microphone that is usually seen in radio stations, podcast studios, and used in many voice over applications. Other great mics in this category are the Electrovoice RE20, the Sennheiser MD421, and the Heil PR-40 but more on them in future articles.

Would you believe that a microphone only costing $350 dollars was used to record the vocals for Michael Jackson’s Thriller?! Its true. You know that if he wanted to splurge on a more expensive mic, the budget for the project would have certainly allowed for it! Bottom line, this is a fantastic mic at an unbelievable price when compared to the results of other professional vocal mics.

The beauty of the Shure SM7 is that it is a dynamic and will not require phantom power and it is highly directional so it will sound great even in an untreated room. Also, it is pretty far from delicate. If you happen to drop it, it will work after you pick it up off the floor unlike ribbon and condenser mics. It does, however, need a good amount of amplification from your preamps so make sure that you have a clean preamp with a decent amount of gain.

Now lets get down to it. I usuall take off the windscreen that comes on the mic (actually they give you two windscreens) and used a standard pop filter. This setup will give you a solid direct signal with a surprising dynamic and frequency range. Check it out, you will be glad you did… especially if you have your eye on mics costing upwards of 5 times the price.

One piece of crucial gear that you find in almost every recording studio big and small are furniture pads. These are the same exact ones that you can rent for a couple bucks each at your local U-Haul as to not destroy you refrigerator or kitchen table in the move. For about $15 each (or as low as $8 each if you buy a dozen) you will be able get one of the most important tools in the arsenal. If you don’t have at least one laying around, get up and get one now… finish reading this when you get back. I will wait for you.

Now with your new blanket in hand, set up for some vocal takes. Hang this blanket behind you and see what happens. A common misconception is that you need place the padding behind the mic… this in not the case. Most mics, even the big condensers have pretty good rejection at their rear. In the setup that I am recommending, the sound waves that are hitting the wall behind your head no longer have a chance to bounce back to the front of the mic with nearly as much strength as before. Isn’t the point of a vocal recording to record only direct vocals?! If you have spent $400 or more for a good mic and you are not getting the sounds that you want, what is another $15 if there is a solid chance for improvement? Chances are that this simple application will make you fall in love with your favorite gear all over again. You may even start to enjoy your space if it is less than ideal for recording.

Taking it one step further, which is what I usually do even if the situation isn’t calling for it, I like to build a tent with a couple blankets to make a vocal booth. I have seen this done on one of the biggest studios here in LA, so I was given some piece of mind that I am not completely nuts. There just might be something to this madness… I mean method. There are no hard and fast rules, but do make sure that outside your tent has a couple feet of space before your walls. You want to avoid have the blankets touching the walls if at all possible for the best results. Let me know if anyone tries this for the first time and what your results were.