Stupot

I realise this is off topic but it's an interesting subject, did a little research into when we bought our current rig 3 years ago. Can't promise what follows is 100% accurate, it's just my understanding.

Add up all our amp power at 4 ohms and it's somewhere in the region of 30KW but the speakers themselves only draw around 6KW RMS in total. Make a mathematical allowance for the speaker efficiency (and Funktion One speakers are incredibly efficient compared to just about everything else), then that 6KW will output more like what you'd expect from a 7KW rig. All those figures are from memory as I can't be arsed checking.

But that doesn't provide much to go on, the number of actual drivers makes a big impact. Using 2 speakers will move twice as much air as 1 speaker. There are many different speaker configurations. We're currently running 22 drivers of various sizes, and this will shortly increase to 28 when we add another set of delays.

Then there are other factors like the room itself and where the speakers are positioned.

Power ratings don't really reveal much... except how big you electric bill would be if you cranked it right up for an our and fed through a test tone heh heh.

I subscribe to the Tony Andrews school of thought that ringing ears is caused by crap fidelity rather than too much volume. This is something you can check with a dB meter. There's little correlation between ringing ears and volume. We once maxed out at 120dB about 3-5m back from the stage front and my ears were clear afterwards. I've been to other gigs that registered a significantly lower volume and had to leave because my ears were complaining so much - I'm such a fucking anorack sometimes

There is a good analogy relating to amp power vs speaker requirements:

Imagine your car broke down at the side of the road and it was blocking someone drive way so you had to push it out of the way. Provide the road was reasonable flat, using all your strength you would be able to overcome the inertia of the car and roll it forward a few meters. But if you tried to roll the car forward exactly 3cm in exactly 2secs, and do it consistenly then you'd find that impossible.

Given a matchbox car you could make a much better job of the 3cm in 2secs, but you wouldn't be using anything like all your strength. Yet it's within your range of strength to move both the 1500KG car and the 25g car. The difference is that with the 25g matchbox car your latent strength is overwhelming and that's what gives you so much control, compared with the 1500KG car where your strength is being used closed to it's upper working limit.

The same applies to amps. Getting the speaker going is easy but controlling it is a lot harder. Using a big amp that is easily producing clean power well within the ranges that the speaker requires, increaes fidelity, and is less stressful to the speaker. Hence why we have so much amp power driving so little speaker requirement. Dampening factor also plays a big part in this phenomenon, so it's important to take that into account too.

If the rig is any good, then a good live gig should sound nearly as good as a good live CD of the same gig that has been mixed from the channel outputs. Just with more dynamic range.

Pretty much spot on flash.

Most people try to drive speakers with power amps that are inadequate and end up with really ghastly distortion and blown tweeters.

Good hefty power amps driving effiecient speakers and not even breaking sweat while doing so is the beginning of good sound.

It appears that "girl power" now involves getting knocked up by Eddie Murphy.

continous and RMS are comparable and refer to a constant delivered signal. It means your amp can deliver 300 W of power till the cows come home without damaging the speaker.

Peak power refers to short transients like snare hits that are momenetary. Your speakers won't like this level of power continuously.

The wattage has little to do with overall loudness as this depends on how efficient your speakers are at turning wattage into sound.

Bear in mind that many manufacturers lie about their speaker ratings.

Nobody proved it to me either way. I think the world is warming up but also think it's a natural occurence and we do make at least a small contribution.

What I do know is that if you're a scientist and you want money, you simply type "global warming" somewhere in your funding application and there it is. Also if you're a freedom hating politician, you can cite global warming (or terrorism) and curb the freedoms of your population.

I also know that if you put ice in a glass of water and allow it to melt, the water level in the glass goes down not up.

Less pollution can only be good. Less bullshit about it would be good too. And less people hating eco warriors would be fine too.

I would suggest that The Moorings is one of the very few (possibly the only) venues of it's size in the country who bother their arse to do it right.

I've heard some live recordings from there and they are first class. And I know what I'm on about.

The best bit was act 4 of swan lake. Then you got to see who were the hooray henrys leaping to their feet and applauding wildly. Then either attempting to get down wid it or peering myopically at P Diddy while saying, "I say! Who's that black chappie?"

All music ultimately comes from grass root scenes, where a multitude of young bands and acts join together using the most basic of gear and knocking out the rawest of sounds. It's a big melting pot where commercial attitudes don't count and nothing has any need to be perfect and polished. It's all about fun and enjoying the music. Kinda like a carefree childhood or never never land where you can play whatever you like without worrying about whether it will sell, whether radio will play it, whether you'll sell enough albums to repay your advance or fret about your record label dumping you because you're over. There's no PRS, no MCPS and no overbearing producer screaming for your next album.

Here you don't care about 24 bit 96KHz or not being able to sing your lead vocal cos the engineer put up a SM57 instead of a U87. You don't need to worry about the settings on your compressor cos you don't have one anyway.

Sun reporters don't go through your bin and you can fart and get drunk in public because your ass belongs to yourself and not to the likes of Simon Cowell.

There may come a day when it's important to have some material mastered to a commercial standard but it's probably not yet and most people have enough savvy to realise that it may never be, but they can still have a lot of fun finding out.

Remember...all this super duper digital technology is relatively new. It wasn't so long ago we were editing with razor blades and glue and still made some of the finest music ever. It's the talent, not the tools that count.

Right, so mastering engineers, mix engineers, producers and consumers(commercial and private) who appreciate and expect audio of a certain quality are just being pretentious and somehow involved in a conspiracy to mask deficiencies in the music itself because amateurs like you and your deaf mates are happy with the pish that you come away with from a couple of hours in a badly equipped provincial studio? Brilliant. Fuck good audio and the people who strive for it, as long as your happy, the science behind audio reproduction is just a bourgois lie anyway!

There can be a happy medium. There's no point in an unsigned band who're happy just to play a few gigs and put a few songs on a CD paying hundreds for mastering and post production work. I don't feel it's important to have your material mastered if it's never going to be commercially released or played on radio.

Personally, I master everything I record and mix either for myself or any of my clients because it's part of the service we provide. But it's not a religious requirement for music.

There's comes a point in any band's career, should they be lucky enough to have a career, when things have to be done to a certain standard. Until that time they don't need to worry too much.

We are happy with the recordings if they sound good to us. If we are happy with the sound, then we don't fuck with it, end of. You're a bright guy, I shouldn't have to dumb down like this.

That's what it's all about really. If you're happy with the end result, that's what counts.

I get a lot of bands in who simply want to capture as much of the raw power and vibe of their live set as they can. Lo fi is quite in at the moment, perhaps as a reaction to the ultra clean, super editability of the pro tools environment.

Some of the most enjoyable sessions of late have been sticking up a couple of mikes in the live room, mikes in front of the singers, having the band play and running everything straight onto 2 inch tape on the studer.

Of course you have to stick it into a computer at some point if you want a CD, but the ambience and the analogue warmth is still there.

Yeah this will be for vocals, acoustic guitar and hand percussion. I was looking at the rode NT1A due to the low noise floor and I don't really need features like highpass filter coz I'd do that in software anyway and have more control...apparently some of these cheaper chinese made large diaphram condensors like Samson's are actually ok for the price though...

You could try the sontronics orpheus. Good price. Good features. Sounds a bit like a neumann but with cut and boost and 3 polar patterns and sounds great on everything.

IMO some material is suited to being pushed a bit further in the "very-heavily-limited/compressed-at-the-expense-of-dynamic-range" sense, i.e dance music like techno and drumnbass

I agree completely with you. These genres do benefit from being squashed and hammered as much as possible.

which mic's do you have?

Although his mic list is more than adequate, pre amps and converters are way more important. (Franz Ferdinand bellowing into a sm57??)

And the simple truth is, on a well recorded track, you can't tell what mic was used once it's mixed down.

Sounds like a fair deal to me. 10 -7 for 150 is pretty good. We do a 6 hour demo day for 100 but as we're 65 miles from aberdeen it's not much competition for you.

Good luck mate.

Thanks, that is very useful.

I've had my fair share of run ins with Stripey regarding some of his attitudes to music, especially toward the music that I'm involved in, but in this case I think he makes a good point. There is nothing wrong with spending either a little time or money to get more from recording.

There are a lot of enhancements that can be done to a track, especially those that are not done in the 30 minute studio mix that really could make huge differences to the quality. You don't have to compromise the sound that you're aiming for but you can make subtle differences to give more professional sound (or at least make the best of what you have). There are huge amounts you can do to a track yourself if you have the patience.

I've done the whole recording 8 tracks in 12 hours thing which is great fun and good for having songs recorded for posterity but there must come a time when you want a little bit more from recording. I have pretty much every song that our band wrote, recorded in some fashion. Many of these were reasonably good recordings in terms of time spent to get great tones for guitars etc. but always lacking in certain elements (like a perfect drum sound). This is great in terms of a memento but I wish we'd moved fast enough to evolve up a stage when the opportunity was there. Once you have songs rehearsed well enough and sounding fresh, splashing out on a having a couple of tracks recorded in a quality studio then mastered would be, in my opinion, worth the money spent. Even if you don't make it beyond local level, you can't take away the quality or experience of having done it.

Even very quickly recorded demo tracks will benefit from the mastering process. I get sent a lot of CDs, most of which are straight mixes with no mastering and this is fine. Occasionally, a mastered one will appear and blast out of the speakers which have been turned up to listen to quieter tracks!

Of course, a very badly recorded track will simply be a very loud badly recorded track if mastered. You can't really fix a dreadful hash of a track.

The price is right! In lay person's terms, how do you process the tracks?

A well mixed track often doesn't need much doing to it.

Basically, you give the track a critical listen and note any problems, such as too much bass, a dull high end ect.

You correct these with careful EQ, and multiband compression. You remove any pops and clicks as these bring down the overall volume of the track. You top and tail (check fade ins and outs). You bring up the overall volume of the track, while bearing in mind the dynamics of the song. (There seems to be a competiton about who can get a track the loudest!!! We don't play!) If you're mastering an album, you take into consideration all the other tracks and master as a whole. You don't want to be reaching for the volume on the CD player between tracks.

Once you're happy with result, if the track is going to be a 16 bit master you add dither. Dither is low level noise added to randomise quantisation errors in the audio file. (It makes a 16 bit file sound better!!)

Bear in mind you often can't correct mixing errors once the audio is a stereo file.

This is a very simplistic explanation of the process.

mastering

We provide a mastering service in our studio.

In fact, if anyone wants to try us, send a track on a CD (24 bit 48Khz WAV preferable but 16 bit will do) and we'll master it for free so you can see the results. Can't say fairer than that.

PM for address.

Depending on what you need, we can hire you a PA for your thurso gig. We're not far from inverness.

From the Shure website:

"The Shure SM58 and SM57 have been fabricated in Shure's Mexican facilities since circa 1985. "

I think if your 57 claims to have been made in America and it's less than 20 years old they must be referring to the package that was made in USA and not the mic. (i.e. it was shipped from Mexico, put in it's box and the cable added-tadaa:made in america).

Anyway, juvenile squabbling (or accuracy, depends how you look at it) aside, a thought has occurred to me, Mr Ascension thinks that 57's cost 30 and they're shit, maybe he's been the victim of these poor chinese copies?

You appear to be right re the shure website. I bought 8 of the things when my studio opened in 2000 and looking at the paperwork they claim to be manufactured in the USA. No mention of Mexico. It would seem to be a bit chicanery regarding the packaging and cable as you suggest. I shall stand corrected and disgruntled at shure, although the mics have performed and continue to perform well.

Thomann do a version of the 57 at about 25. I ordered one for a band that then split up and didn't want it. I've since used it and it's surprisingly fine. The output is not as high a genuine shure but it's not too shoddy.

You can find chinese 57s on e bay from 10 upwards. I've repaired one for somebody and it's a piece of crap. Weighs about half of a shure and the electronics are nasty.

I expect the thomann version is also chinese made but is of higher quality.

" Question

Can you explain the difference between a SM57 and a SM57-LC ?

Answer

The SM57 "microphone" used to come in two different "packages". One was the SM57-CN which included a standard, 7 meter, XLR to XLR mic cable. The other one was the SM57-LC which came without a cable - just the mic and stand adapter.

The SM57 microphone included with both packages is the same. Just packaged differently. A few years ago the package that included the cable (SM57-CN) was discontinued and we continued to sell just the less cable (LC) version.

So to answer your question, when you hold the mic in your hand, you hold a SM57 model, but Shure stock item number is SM57-LC. "

Find an Answer

Normally i refuse to indulge in pointless wrangling like this, but when I bought my sm57s they came in a hard case with a clip and a cable. This was a good few years ago. They were clearly marked made in the USA.

Then a few years later I bought sm57s from the same source and they came in a soft case, with no cable and a clip and were designated LC and marked made in mexico.

I did not say LC meant made in mexico, only that the ones without cables originated in mexico.

juvenile pointless wrangling. If i gave a shit i'd photocopy the paperwork, but i don't.

They're all made in mexico..even the beta's. LC stands for "Less Cable" (ie. it doesn't come with a cable)

what really?? Does it? Gosh!!

They're not all made in mexico. It's irrelevant to the post anyway but not I suppose if pendatry and arguing for fun is your driving obsession.

A genuine American version.....made in Mexico 8-)

Ah, those are the sm57LC and they are indeed made in mexico, but by shure and not by xiango rip off electronics.

There are sm57s made in the US and they cost about 70. And don't forget the sm57 beta which is more expensive but a decent mic.

I use sm57s for recording drums, guitars and very occasionally, vocals. Never had a problem with 'em. Rock solid-hammernailsinwithit-doeswhatitsaysonthetin all round dynamic mic.

Of course, if you go on e bay and buy a chinese copy for 15 then you deserve the muddy shitty output you will undoubtedly get from it.

Get a genuine american version and it will never let you down.

There's no difference in recording for 5.1 or stereo. If you know a mix is going to be a 5.1 mix, you make descisions on what you record and how many tracks you use. For example, if you were recording a live concert, you would record audience reactions like applause and room ambience to mix to the surround speakers to add a sense of space. If you were doing a wrap around mix, you may have guitars or keyboard washes in surround to place the listener in the band. Impluse reverbs work well in 5.1, giving a sense of space to a mix. There's virtually no limit to what you can do in 5.1 and often you find people going absolutely mad with it. It's great for plays and performance pieces.

It's relatively straightforward to turn a stereo mix into a 5.1 mix and most of the up to date DAWs will handle the mix.

The crunch is the encoding. A 5.1 mix needs to be encoded so that it will collapse into stereo when played on a stereo system. There's very few places in Scotland that have the licence for dolby ac3 encoding (we can do it, though!) but there are a few types of encoding that can be used that give good results.

And this is an interesting thread apart from the baiting of stripey just because he's stripey.

When it comes to audio, ie your average band making a CD, very few are interested in 5.1 CDs anyway. It's mostly a medium for dvds and films. We've been offering dolby digital ac3 encoding for some time (and one of the very very few in scotland to do so) and we've had very few enquiries to encode a cd. Most people don't reckon it's worth the additional expense to do a surround mix and encoding for a CD. It's usually mixed from the audience perspective anyway, with ambient reverb and audience noise coming from the surround speakers. To mix it as if you're amongst the band feels strange to most people anyway.

For a perfomance piece, written with 5.1 surround in mind and played in a huge space like stripey says, it's ideal.

Very few are picking up on 5.1 CDs at the moment so it'll be some time, if ever, that bands are even considering 7.1 or anything else.

I agree with that 100%

The problems arrise when young bands come on and describe themselves as unique/the heaviest/the most hardcore/etc/etc/etc then point you to a myspace where there are 'demos' of the band recorded on their drummers dads dansette casette recorder of them playing a pantera cover with no bass player....and after one negative comment they get all hurt and offended and claim that its a work in progress and that they are the best band in the world and everyone that criticise them are cunts and know nothing about real music......and breath.....o_O

Too many young 'uns and thin skinned these days. They think things should be handed to them on a plate and they don't have to pay their dues. I blame stuff like x factor, instant fame shite. In reality, it takes years of hard work.