Firewire 1814: To Use Or Not To Use...

[Miles Ahead]

I've had a Firewire 1814 for two years, just getting a handle on the basic using Logic. Now I want to upgrade to do studio quality recording with a RODE NT2A or tube mic for example. Is the best option to buy a better soundcard (Duet/Apogee, Audio Kontrol/NI, etc.), or a mic pre (BlueTube, ART Tube MP, etc.) as a front-end to the 1814, or is this redundant?

Are the mic pre and A/D D/A converters on the 1814 really below average, or what's the deal.

I'm singing and playing trumpet; all else will be midi (so should the 1814 be kept as the midi-interface?)

Thanks much.

 

[fmw]

I don't know what an 1814 is but I can tell you than neither ADC's nor mic preamps are the solution to "pro" sound. The primary requirement is skill and experience. Then the things that affect recording quality the most are the same things that affect playback - room acoustics and microphones (speakers for playback.) Pros use isolation to record voice, as an example, so spend the money you would spend on an ADC on a voice recording booth instead. It almost never an equipment issue.

 

[TLS Guy]

I've had a Firewire 1814 for two years, just getting a handle on the basic using Logic. Now I want to upgrade to do studio quality recording with a RODE NT2A or tube mic for example. Is the best option to buy a better soundcard (Duet/Apogee, Audio Kontrol/NI, etc.), or a mic pre (BlueTube, ART Tube MP, etc.) as a front-end to the 1814, or is this redundant?

Are the mic pre and A/D D/A converters on the 1814 really below average, or what's the deal.

I'm singing and playing trumpet; all else will be midi (so should the 1814 be kept as the midi-interface?)

Thanks much.

It looks a cheap and nasty unit, and to top it off it is powered by the computer. Real pros do not power mixers or DACs from a computer power supply. If you want to step up take a look at RME products, like the RME Fireface 800

I agree that microphones are crucial. I have made a lot of professional recordings in years past, and I can tell you that I kept things simple and would never have dreamed of using an isolation booth. You can not make realistic natural recordings that way.

If you are recording voice and trumpet, I strongly advise you to use omnidirectional microphones. All microphones are inherently omni. Directionality is achieved by altering the phase of sound coming from the back of the microphone, to cause cancellation of the signal from the rear. The response of omni microphones is never as smooth or linear as good omnis.

Figure of 8 types are also very useful. Cardioid mikes are used for too often in my opinion, and omnis and figure of 8s nowhere near enough.

And cheap mikes are disaster. For highly cost effective mikes, (not cheap, but reasonable) look at the Shure range. Their omni phantom powered condenser mikes have an excellent price performance ratio.

 

[fmw]

The reason most mics are cardioid or supercardioid is that the engineers are always trying to achieve as much isolation as possible. They can put things together in the mix any way they want but only if there is enough isolation in the first place. It is easy to combine things in the mix (including room ambient noise) but it is difficult to impossible to remove things that were tracked together. I would say over 99% of studio voice recordings are made completely isolated from the instruments. The singer performs in a booth while listening to the instruments on headphones. That's the way it's done. Live recording is a different thing but in the studio they will always isolate voice from instruments. I aways do.

 

[fmw]

I guess I should talk briefly about recording interfaces. RME makes nice products but the truth is they don't really perform much better than other products. They might be akin to choosing a high end audio componenent compared to a mid line one. The differences in performance are not so important as the other aspects of ownership.

I have two recording interfaces myself. One is the Edirol FA66 which is a small, portable Firewire unit that I use for location work. It has two oustanding mic preamps as well as two line level and two S/PDIF inputs. It also has midi in and out. You can find it for $279.

My other one is the Focusrite Saffire 10 Pro which is a rack mount style unit with 8 mic preamps, 8 line level and 2 digital. Midi in and out here as well. I bought mine for $375 although you will usually find it for around $500.

One of the most popular is the Presonus Firestudio. I've never used it but it gets very high marks. It might be the single most popular for project studios. It is priced the same as my Saffire.

The MOTU (Mark of the Unicorn) interfaces are also well regarded. They are a couple of hundred dollars more than my Focusrite.

Any of these units have quiet and linear mic preamps with more gain than you will ever need. They are like high fi preamps - clean and quiet. The ADC's and DAC's are all about the same as well. Here are images of my two units.

The Rode NT2 is fine mic. I have the NT-1 which is the same unit but cardioid only and without a pad or rolloff. I use it for male voice recording. A couple of other brands you might want to check out are Sterling and Studio Projects. Both of these companies provide Chinese made mics that perform like some of the classics mics like those from Neumann or AKG but at a fraction of the cost.

 

[TLS Guy]

The reason most mics are cardioid or supercardioid is that the engineers are always trying to achieve as much isolation as possible. They can put things together in the mix any way they want but only if there is enough isolation in the first place. It is easy to combine things in the mix (including room ambient noise) but it is difficult to impossible to remove things that were tracked together. I would say over 99% of studio voice recordings are made completely isolated from the instruments. The singer performs in a booth while listening to the instruments on headphones. That's the way it's done. Live recording is a different thing but in the studio they will always isolate voice from instruments. I aways do.

Yes, this isolation leads to dreadful results in my view, with everything being in a dead artificial space. That is the penalty for the "fix it in the mix" approach.

If recordings were laid down with a get it right the first time approach, in a pleasing acoustic environment, and laying off the dynamic compression, there would be a total rebirth of artistry and a boom in sales. This commercial sound dead end has literally killed the "golden goose" in my view.

The other issue is that omnis are in fact directional by proximity, and you get the desired result without the proximity effect of cardioid microphones. I have always vigorously limited the use of direction microphones except figure of 8 types.

 

[fmw]

Yes, this isolation leads to dreadful results in my view, with everything being in a dead artificial space. That is the penalty for the "fix it in the mix" approach.

If recordings were laid down with a get it right the first time approach, in a pleasing acoustic environment, and laying off the dynamic compression, there would be a total rebirth of artistry and a boom in sales. This commercial sound dead end has literally killed the "golden goose" in my view.

The other issue is that omnis are in fact directional by proximity, and you get the desired result without the proximity effect of cardioid microphones. I have always vigorously limited the use of direction microphones except figure of 8 types.

I'm not sure what would be reborn. They've been recording with isolated tracks since the 1930's. It certainly isn't a new phenomenon. The major difference is that in the old days we had 2, 4 and 8 track tape recorders and today, with digital recording, we have as many tracks as we need or want.

I tend to agree with you about the limiting and compression. The record companies use it so heavy handedly because the majority of listening is done with ipods and car stereos. They need to be able to be heard above the ambient noise. There is no doubt that pop recordings these days aren't made with you and me in mind. Jazz and classical are still recorded pretty well for the most part. Recording engineers don't like all the limiting and compression either. They just provide the record companies with what they want and pay for.

I think it is fair to say that omni mics are somewhat more accurate and, certainly they don't suffer from proximity effect. However, I don't know any recording engineers who are particularly interested in accuracy and proximity effect isn't all that hard to manage. Most of them are interested in "great" sound however you want to define that. The great majority of studio recording is done with cardioid patterns mostly to enhance isolation.

If you are recording a violin sonata or an acoustic big band, then you certainly need to have enough accuracy so that the listener recognizes the sounds of the instruments. Nevertheless, these types of recordings still go through quite a bit of processing during mix down. It is the nature of the beast. Microphones don't always "hear" like we do. With sequenced music, all bets are off, as you know.

Back in the 1970's there were some people making some wonderful recordings with just a pair of mics and a two channel preamp. They connected the mic preamps directly to the master cutters and went straight to disc without any mixing at all. Some of these recordings were outstanding. Some, not so good. Today, we've eliminated all the problems related to tape recording so there really isn't any advantage to going through what those guys did in the 70's.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm not sure what would be reborn. They've been recording with isolated tracks since the 1930's. It certainly isn't a new phenomenon. The major difference is that in the old days we had 2, 4 and 8 track tape recorders and today, with digital recording, we have as many tracks as we need or want.

I tend to agree with you about the limiting and compression. The record companies use it so heavy handedly because the majority of listening is done with ipods and car stereos. They need to be able to be heard above the ambient noise. There is no doubt that pop recordings these days aren't made with you and me in mind. Jazz and classical are still recorded pretty well for the most part. Recording engineers don't like all the limiting and compression either. They just provide the record companies with what they want and pay for.

I think it is fair to say that omni mics are somewhat more accurate and, certainly they don't suffer from proximity effect. However, I don't know any recording engineers who are particularly interested in accuracy and proximity effect isn't all that hard to manage. Most of them are interested in "great" sound however you want to define that. The great majority of studio recording is done with cardioid patterns mostly to enhance isolation.

If you are recording a violin sonata or an acoustic big band, then you certainly need to have enough accuracy so that the listener recognizes the sounds of the instruments. Nevertheless, these types of recordings still go through quite a bit of processing during mix down. It is the nature of the beast. Microphones don't always "hear" like we do. With sequenced music, all bets are off, as you know.

Back in the 1970's there were some people making some wonderful recordings with just a pair of mics and a two channel preamp. They connected the mic preamps directly to the master cutters and went straight to disc without any mixing at all. Some of these recordings were outstanding. Some, not so good. Today, we've eliminated all the problems related to tape recording so there really isn't any advantage to going through what those guys did in the 70's.

I have never heard of classical engineers putting soloists and instrumentalists in booths. I don't believe other genre's require it either.

MPR do a fantastic job of their recordings and they only use omnis.

I have never had to process a signal coming form any mic I have used. I always used first class microphones and took the trouble to position them correctly, monitoring with accurate speakers. I always used minimalist techniques. I strove for the "classic BBC" balance. In their hey day they were very fond of figure of 8 mics, and so am I.

You can download one of my CD's here, complete with cue file. Then you can see what I mean.

 

[fmw]

I haven't encountered anyone putting an instrument in a booth either nor have I encountered it in classical vocals. Most classical music is recorded live, not in a studio. But I'll bet when Yo-Yo Ma plays a cello sonata in a studio, the cello and piano are separately miced and then mixed to produce a final product. I'll bet the final mix has some VST's added and some EQ.

If you use no processing at all, then you are missing out on a big bunch of sonic possibilities. Get yourself some plug-ins and play with them a little. You can be subtle with their use. You might surprise yourself. Yes, you can make a vanilla recording with nothing but the input signal but I'll bet you can make a better one with the judicious use of some processing. Everybody else does.

 

[Miles Ahead]

Original M-Audio Firewire 1814 poster

Thanks a bunch all, and I guess I got the answer about the quality of my sound card; such a shame to waste all that money. Building a booth is out of the question, as I'm always moving about, so the mission is to have as high quality as possible with equipment, without the infrastructure. I'm always in (pretty quiet, 5-star hotels in Asia) so perhaps I'll just buy a portable tent for singing. Silly perhaps, but better than in the open room, eh?

I'm off to read more about microphones since you all have really focused on that item more than my audio interface. Silly me to think I could just buy good brands and be done with it! But it's good to learn these things. I was hoping there would be a solution that would allow me to make use of the 1814, but oh well... c'est la vie.

Thanks again.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks a bunch all, and I guess I got the answer about the quality of my sound card; such a shame to waste all that money. Building a booth is out of the question, as I'm always moving about, so the mission is to have as high quality as possible with equipment, without the infrastructure. I'm always in (pretty quiet, 5-star hotels in Asia) so perhaps I'll just buy a portable tent for singing. Silly perhaps, but better than in the open room, eh?

I'm off to read more about microphones since you all have really focused on that item more than my audio interface. Silly me to think I could just buy good brands and be done with it! But it's good to learn these things. I was hoping there would be a solution that would allow me to make use of the 1814, but oh well... c'est la vie.

Thanks again.

No! You don't need a tent. You don't need a booth. You will be able to get very good recordings indeed of your voice and trumpet in any good sounding room and that is also true of rooms with ambiance. Natural ambiance beets artificial ambiance any day.

Use good microphones, get the distance right, and if you have good speakers to hear it, it will sound very natural. Don't get it over complicated. Very good gear with simple signal paths make the best recordings.

Many of the best recordings left to us come from the hey day of companies like Decca and EMI, when they had recording engineers that stayed with them there whole careers. They used minimalist techniques. If they had a had plug in then, they would have remained unopen. The Yamaha plugins that came with my Wavelab system are still in the box, where they belong and will stay!

 

[fmw]

Good luck, Miles. I think most pro recording engineers would tell you that skill, room acoustics, mics and mic placement are the most important elements in a great recording in that order. The other things just need to be competent. It isn't really much different than the playback end of things. You don't need skill to operate a stereo but room acoustics, speakers and speaker placement would be the primary elements affecting good playback sound. The electronics aren't really that important in comparison. The same holds true with the recording end of the chain.

You have a perfectly competent microphone. Add a competent recording interface and then work on the skill because the equipment won't be holding you back.

 

[bandphan]

Neumann, Schoeps, and Telefunken make a wide variety of mics with adjustable patterns and capsules.

 

[fmw]

Every manufacturer makes them. In fact his mic has selectable patterns.

 

[Miles Ahead]

That's good stuff to hear... room acoustics, keeping it minimalist, and the plug-in's tip. Lord knows I'm always opening so many plugin's for each instrument when using Logic, without knowing what the eff I'm doing. I just got a hold of a CD of Berkley School Of Music's pdf's for all kinds of audio engineering topics and issues, and while I'm still about to dive into it, it's good to be "reminded" that ther was a time when great recordings were made and all that junk wasn't available. I'm surely going to proceed as a minimalist with good gear and take it from there.

 

[TLS Guy]

That's good stuff to hear... room acoustics, keeping it minimalist, and the plug-in's tip. Lord knows I'm always opening so many plugin's for each instrument when using Logic, without knowing what the eff I'm doing. I just got a hold of a CD of Berkley School Of Music's pdf's for all kinds of audio engineering topics and issues, and while I'm still about to dive into it, it's good to be "reminded" that ther was a time when great recordings were made and all that junk wasn't available. I'm surely going to proceed as a minimalist with good gear and take it from there.

Good luck. I think you have taken on board what we are saying. A little very good classy gear is far better than a lot of junk. Outside of the classical arena, and that is largely a lot of small firms now, recordings are not very good, I don't think. The stuff my wife gets is often really appalling.

My microphones are Neumann, AKG and Shure by the way. If you are on the road a lot, I would take a good look at what Shure have to offer. They are very good value for money, even if not the absolute apogee. They are also the toughest in the business, and that is important if you are on the move a lot.

 

[fmw]

I second the recommendation on Shure mics. They are great products. Same thing for Audio-Technica line (the 4050 is wonderful.) I have a Neumann U-87 (large tube condenser,) a TLM 103 (large solid state condenser,) and a pair of KM 184's (small condensers.) I don't own one but I have used the AKG 414. These are all top tier microphones in their respective categories. But I'll tell you from the heart you can buy good quality Chinese made mics like the ones from Sterling and Studio Projects and get 95% or more of the tonal quality of these microphones. The Sterlings are built like tanks with solid brass bodies. A U-87 is around $3000. For $500 I can get basically the same sound from a Sterling ST-66. You would have to track them side by side to tell the difference and the difference is subtle to say the least. The Studio Projects C3 has been called one of the best vocal mics made anywhere and it sells for around $300 I think. Your own Rode NT-2 is a great example. It is Australian made with Chinese made parts. Great mic. Good luck with the quest.