Recording and Live Sound Tips and Tricks

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.

Do you have a band and want to record your band’s shows but do not have a way to do it?  Do you work at a venue but the management will not spring for a recording system.  Are you just a regular person, but you just have lots of source material that you want to archive?  Do you want to do a podcast?  Whatever your needs or expertise, if you want to record just about anything and you do not want to spend much or any money to do it, I may be able to help.

If you have found your way to my site, you are obviously using a computer and are likely interested in music.  As technology seems to progress at a rate that not even the geekiest of us can keep up with, it is pretty safe to say that you have an old computer in the closet collecting dust or know somebody that does.  If you can get your hands on this old beast, most of the battle will have already been faught.   We do not need the fastest computer because it only will need to do one major task.   It will become a dedicated recording machine.  I have a computer that I bought 8 years ago that does the job without a complaint.

At this point, we are going to get a little geeky.  If you are running Windows and the machine seems to be reasonably healthy, there is only one step to take and the fun begins.  The program that we are going to use for this project is called Audacity.  This is a free open source program that is full of options and quite reliable.  I have been using it my laptop for recording live shows without fail… so far.  Click on Audacity to learn about the software and to download it.

Once you are up and running with Audacity run a microphone or 1/8″ line in into your sound card, send in some source material, hit record on Audacity, and you capturing audio.  Make sure that your levels are nice and hot without going over.  After you have a recorded file you can even save them in MP3 format without having to use any other applications.  It is all right there for you.

If the computer that you want to use is not in the best of health, I would suggest that you install Ubuntu as your operating system.  I would highly recommend this for anything on that machine that came before  Windows XP.  With Ubuntu you will have a free reliable open source operating system that will run like a champ even on older hardware.  In most cases it will run faster and more reliably, but there will be a slight learning curve if you are accustomed to using Windows.  The support documents and user groups for Ubuntu are fantastic if you do decide to switch over.

If you are lucky enough to acquire a laptop for this purpose, you will certainly increase the portability of the recording station. The main difference with the laptop is that there is a low likelihood that there is a good sound input built in. This can easily be remedied with a USB sound card that will accept RCA inputs. There are a couple good ones out there, the cheapest of which that I have found to be useful is the Behringer U-CONTROL.

Now that we have a recording machine, we need to know what we are recording.  All the above scenarios will accept a line level input.  This is the output of any standard CD player, a mixer, or even a headphone out jack in a pinch.  If you want to record a microphone, you will need to get a mixer to amplify that signal to a line level.  That being said… go out there and record something.

Equalization is always an interesting topic. I have found it to be completely overused in many cases, completely overlooked in other cases, and completely misunderstood in most cases. To illustrate my point, check the settings in a couple different car radios. The controls are either untouched or the treble and bass are completely cranked. Chances are that somewhere in between, the truth lies. Without getting into the finer points of EQ that may well be debated until the end humanity, I will explain what EQ is, give you a few guidelines on how to use it, and explain the four basic types of equalization that are currently standard issu.

The human ear can hear frequencies from 20-20,000 Hz. Within this range are the changes that we make with our EQ devices. Some devices will effect large chunks of the spectrum centered on a specific frequency while others can be quite surgical and exacting. In simplest terms, if you picture all audible sound as a straight dotted line where each dot represents a frequency, equalization is the ability to change the relative volume of the dots individually without affection the others. Below is a chart showing what ranges of the spectrum instruments generally fall into.

The main types of equalization are Fixed, Sweepable Mid, Parametric and Graphic.

Fixed is the most basic in the list. You have seen this on on most every home stereo system in the past several decades. These are the Treble, Midrange, and Bass controls. Each control is anchored on a specific frequency and when active effects the frequencies on either side of it in a bell shape of a specified range. A large group of frequencies are affected, but it is very easy to use and adequate for most consumers.

Sweepable Mid EQ is usually found on higher end mixers and recording consoles. This is similar to the Fixed EQ with one major addition. The midrange has an extra settings knob. This frequency knob lets you pick the precise frequency range that you want. It is no longer anchored like in the fixed configuration. This is especially useful when you really know the frequency that you want to get at.

Parametric EQ is the big boy on the list. This is for complete control of your EQing universe. These days you are very likely to see it as a plug in used by your recording software as opposed to outboard gear, but the functionality is all the same. Taking the sweepable EQ to the next step, you get a Q control. The “Q” is the bandwidth. You can grab a large amount of frequencies with a “wide Q” or just a handful with a “narrow Q” setting. So dial in the frequency, select the Q, and reduce or boost your favorite part of the signal.

Finally we come to the graphic EQ. This is basically a fixed EQ with 31 separate knobs… but since that many knobs on a single rack space would be inoperable for humans, sliders are used. The frequency spectrum is divided equally against the number of sliders. The most common use of this type of EQ will be at the end of the chain of a live mixing board to deal with the acoustics of the room. Far more often than not, deductive EQ is employed in this situation.

Now that we have the types of EQ out of the way and we know more clearly what EQ is… how do we use it? That is a never ending topic that I do not have time to write. I am not immortal. At least I don’t think so. Generally I would say that a little bit will go a long way. Extreme settings will get you extreme results that can be fun for an effect, but likely useless for much else. Also, you can get amazing results not in boosting the frequency that you want, but you reducing the ones that you do not want.

As a final thought, just do what sounds good. Do some experiments. Have fun learning. There are many that will tell you that you always need to add 4dB of 6k to a kick drum, but maybe you do not want that click of a beater in your kick. Just pay attention and listen to what the song needs and you will do what is right in the end and not what you think that you should be doing.

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!

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.

Who would win in a fight to the death for sonic superiority when it comes to vacuum tubes vs. transistors? That is a hotly debated and clouded issue. The only way I can give a simple answer to such a complicated answer is this: you get what you pay for. High end gear is high end gear no matter what its guts are. The most common misconception that I have seen is that if there are tubes in a product that it will sound warm and full and in solid state that it will sound cold and brittle. I will attempt to simply explain both technologies and the subtle differences.

Let’s start with tubes. This is the technology that up until the 70’s was in most consumer electronics products. Not much more complicated that a light bulb, almost as bright and hot, is used to control electric currents. They work by creating signals, strengthening them, combining them, or separating them from one another. This big open design will add artifacts to amplified signals that with quality tubes in well designed gear is quite favorable and desirable. As you can see in the picture below that there is a considerable difference in size. From a manufacturing standpoint, you can see why tubes have been pushed to the past and in niche products.

Transistors work in much the same way as tubes but in an extremely compact form factor on a silicon chip. The accuracy of design and lack of artifacts that are inherent in the tube technologies lead the early users of this new gear to believe that the sound was sterile. In all actuality, it was likely too accurate. This new level of clarity without tube coloration not been heard previously. Also keep in mind that the first generation of any new technology does not achieve perfection in its first time at bat. Eventually we got used to the new sound and were started to incorporate the new technologies with old to make an interesting new hybrid.

What does this all mean? If want that tube tone, it will usually cost you. When you see an inexpensive product with a tube built in, it is most likely a marketing ploy to sell an inferior product simply by incorporating the tube in a weak design. Tubes will have more inherent noise in general, but will offer some great warmth and natural compression in audio signals. Solid state devices will give you a better signal to noise ratio and a more accurate signal at a lower price point. Remember that with either technology, you get what you pay for!

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.