Stinky Pete wrote:eliya wrote:Anthony Flack wrote:I would think doubly so for the amateur who almost certainly has bigger problems going on.Well, since amateurs usually use a lot less than 14 microphones to record a whole band, then it would stand to reason that they should have nice preamps, no?They could just spend that money they would spend on pre's on nice mics or nice gear. I run an 18 channel setup and I've a single external pre. I'd like to get a second, but it's just way down the pecking order.Dude, you're missing the point. Sounds like you have actual mixer, where someone put thought into the preamps. Or at least some thought. I'm talking interfaces that are powered with USB and still offer you preamps with +48V. These preamps don't sound good. They don't have a lot of gain, they get noisy, and they distort. I have nice microphones, and I used them with onboard preamps as well as decent preamps (like Sytek, or stuff you'd find in a mixer) and the difference is quite noticeable.

Tommy wrote:Anthony Flack wrote:Also mentions panning from the drummer's perspective in case anybody was in doubt that this is the true and correct way.I still do not understand this practice. There is only one person who hears music this way. The drummer. Every person seeing/hearing any sound source should hear it from the direction it originates. Not backward. When you see AC/DC, Malcolm in on the left and Angus is on the right. Their records are mixed this way too. I'd call that correct.I agree, but this debate will never end on the PRF. I think the only thing supporting the drummer perspective argument is the idea of pleasing the band in their representation, which is a guiding philosophy I am behind. Of course, like most philosophies it can fail if carried to its logical conclusion. Pleasing the band in this manner also ignores what the audience would hear, which I think should be at least as important. The AC/DC mix comparison is worth raising. If you mixed those tracks from the guitarists' perspectives, both guitars would be straight down the middle. That said, I don't really care that much either way anymore. It's easy enough to change a pan if someone doesn't like it while you're working on the record.

endofanera wrote:When you see AC/DC, Malcolm in on the left and Angus is on the right.And they'll sound pretty well mono by the time the front-of-house reaches the stadium seats, I'm sure.Stereo imaging on a record can be done however, but I feel like the player's perspective is the most reasonable default when it comes to instruments w/ stereo information. I've seen the example given of a piano recording where the lower register is in your right ear, and the highest keys in your left. Instinctively I think that's messed up. I'm sure it's happened, maybe it even sounded good. But I think wanting to hear it from the player's perspective is the most defensible instinct.

Tommy wrote:Anthony Flack wrote:Also mentions panning from the drummer's perspective in case anybody was in doubt that this is the true and correct way.I still do not understand this practice. There is only one person who hears music this way. The drummer. Every person seeing/hearing any sound source should hear it from the direction it originates. Not backward. When you see AC/DC, Malcolm in on the left and Angus is on the right. Their records are mixed this way too. I'd call that correct.When I first started recording I took this viewpoint until I actually listened and realised that, as a drummer, it was fucking WEIRD to listen to. Just plain wrong. Ever since I ve gone with drummer perspective.I think the only people who notice are drummers in any case, so you might as well mix the drums so they sound right to them. Anyway, if you re going to mix it from anyone else s perspective then you should really essentially mix the drums in mono.

i have a soundcraft 600 which is no neotek, but still sounds really good to my ears (especially for a home studio). i rarely use the preamps but i'm always pleasantly surprised when i do. i've been in this mindset for so long that since i don't have a better board i should compensate with preamps. i've even made economical mic'ing decisions based on trying not to go through the board to tape. also my board is a 16x8x2, but i rarely use the routing and usually end up printing things like the bottom snare mic to tape, which is a little frivolous with only 16 tracks. i'm not about to stop using the external pres that i have, but it makes me think i should spend a lot more on mics before i bother getting another preamp, and it changes my thinking about mic'ing the drums. in the future i may go ahead and put up some extra mics and just buss them down.and the whole session flow thing is so relevant. i've always found it a huge asset to be able to get sounds quickly, not just in terms of the clock, but the whole flow and morale. ...and plugging 10 mics into the snake, going back to the control room, and then patching all 10 mics through external preamps, (sometimes) compressors, and then to tape and back to the board without any head scratching or patch checking hardly ever happens.it's just one of those things you hear that makes you say 'of fucking course, why not? fuck yeah).

eliya wrote:Dude, you're missing the point. Sounds like you have actual mixer, where someone put thought into the preamps. Or at least some thought. I'm talking interfaces that are powered with USB and still offer you preamps with +48V. These preamps don't sound good. They don't have a lot of gain, they get noisy, and they distort. I have nice microphones, and I used them with onboard preamps as well as decent preamps (like Sytek, or stuff you'd find in a mixer) and the difference is quite noticeable.On the point Elyia is making...It seems like Steve does mention certain pres and ribbons. I think it is just a matter of being realistic about the point of view in the video versus trying to use a board/interface pre on a "Budget" range ribbon microphone.To me, there's validity on both sides of the discussion.

(Considers the panning of the Quad version of The Song Remains The Same. Grins a bit.)

eliya wrote:Anthony Flack wrote:I would think doubly so for the amateur who almost certainly has bigger problems going on.Well, since amateurs usually use a lot less than 14 microphones to record a whole band, then it would stand to reason that they should have nice preamps, no?They could just spend that money they would spend on pre's on nice mics or nice gear. I run an 18 channel setup and I've a single external pre. I'd like to get a second, but it's just way down the pecking order.

Anthony Flack wrote:Also mentions panning from the drummer's perspective in case anybody was in doubt that this is the true and correct way.I still do not understand this practice. There is only one person who hears music this way. The drummer. Every person seeing/hearing any sound source should hear it from the direction it originates. Not backward. When you see AC/DC, Malcolm in on the left and Angus is on the right. Their records are mixed this way too. I'd call that correct.

MrWarandieBoy wrote:Tommy wrote:Anthony Flack wrote:Also mentions panning from the drummer's perspective in case anybody was in doubt that this is the true and correct way.I still do not understand this practice. There is only one person who hears music this way. The drummer. Every person seeing/hearing any sound source should hear it from the direction it originates. Not backward. When you see AC/DC, Malcolm in on the left and Angus is on the right. Their records are mixed this way too. I'd call that correct.When I first started recording I took this viewpoint until I actually listened and realised that, as a drummer, it was fucking WEIRD to listen to. Just plain wrong. Ever since I ve gone with drummer perspective.I think the only people who notice are drummers in any case, so you might as well mix the drums so they sound right to them. Anyway, if you re going to mix it from anyone else s perspective then you should really essentially mix the drums in mono.Should we go ahead and mix it like it sounds with ear plugs in too?