SettingUp

A) Preamp - This is the knob we twist to crank up the signal coming from our microphone,
synth, drum machine, etc. We cover preamps in detail elsewhere, but just remember this is
where you juice up the signal in the first place.

51

B) Auxiliary sends - We have four “aux sends" with this mixer. Each one is little more than a
1/4” output which we have the option of sending somewhere in addition to where the signal
normally flows through the mixer.

What does an aux send do? Think of it as a pipe. We can send whatever we want through it
(in terms of audio, obviously). This pipe is extra and has nothing to do with the usual flow of
audio in a mixer...hence the name “auxiliary”.

What do we send it to? We send it to whatever we want. We can send this signal to a
reverb, a delay, a headphone amplifier. If we really wanted to, we could send the signal to an
input on an audio interface, but there are reasons we may not want to do that (see below).
It's also common to use this signal to feed wedge monitors in a live sound situation.

When we send out a headphone mix, we'll want a nice balance of kick, snare, overheads,
bass, guitars, keys, vocals, etc, but we may want more or less of different instruments
depending on the player. Since each channel feeds to these "pipes", it makes it easy to
create a custom mix.

When we send a signal to a reverb, we may only want to send just a vocal or maybe just a
snare drum or both. It's all possible by manipulating how much of a given channel we send.

Aux sends are one of the most difficult parts of a mixer to understand for beginners, but they
really are super simple once you get the hang of it. Regardless of their learning curve, aux
sends are outrageously powerful. In other words, they are worth the damn effort so learn it!

C) Equalizer - The top knob lets us boost or cut the highs (treble). The second knob lets us
adjust the mids. The white knob underneath it allows us to adjust the frequency of the mids
for added control. The bottom knob gives us control over the low end (bass).

This EQ isn't nearly as flexible as the parametric EQ in your typical recording software. We'll
cover that in much greater depth in Killer Home Recording: Murderous Mixing.

The little button underneath the low end EQ knob is a high pass filter (otherwise known as a
low-cut filter) which essentially removes all the deep bass in a track. We'll cover the purpose
for that in "Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering and Murderous Mixing".

52

D) Pan - Turn it all the way clockwise and the signal moves entirely to the right speaker. Turn
it all the way counter clockwise and the signal flows entirely to the left speaker. This allows us
to determine where we want to place our instruments in the stereo field. For center panning,
we set it to 12 o'clock.

This concept of panning is one that often baffles beginners. Let's take Channel 15 in this
example. If we plug a mic into Channel 15 and start hollering, we have a mono source.
Because we have this whole panning mechanism (either hardware or software) we have the
ability to place that single mono source dead center so that it comes out of both speakers
equally. Some beginners mistakenly get this idea that you need a stereo track to get sound
out of both speakers. By definition, a mono signal comes out of both speakers.

E) Volume fader and routing busses - After the signal has flowed from the preamp, aux
sends, EQ, and panning knobs we can now adjust the overall level of the signal we are
passing onward by adjusting the white fader. This is fairly straight forward. What isn't so
straight forward is the buttons just to the right of the white fader. This is where routing comes
into play. Let's dig in.

This particular mixer has four mono busses. What is a bus? It's basically a path where audio
can flow allowing you to group several instruments together. I realize this is a generic
meaning now but we'll give it some real world context down below.

F) Aux send return levels – You control the amount of level being returned from your aux with
these knobs. Not all mixers have them. When using the aux sends for headphone mixes,
there really isn't any point to bring that signal back to the mixer. The headphone amp got it's
signal. Case closed. However, if we send a vocal to a delay box, we obviously want to hear
that delayed signal. We can send it out of the delay box to the aux returns or we could send it
to a channel in our mixer if we require EQ, the use of more aux sends, or fancy routing for our
delayed sound. It really depends on the mixer.

G) Meter and headphone phone monitoring – The LED meter gives us a visual indication of
how much signal we are dealing with. Most people would prefer their stereo bus (2bus) be
sent to the meter, but we have options. The 4 grey buttons on the left side of the box

53

determine which signals are being routed to the LED meter and headphone/control room mix.
H) Bus assignments – As stated before, we have 4 mono busses here. These options for left
and right are semi-confusing and really aren't important to the routing concepts to anyone
who isn't using this specific mixer. For 99% of all applications, we'll simply route the left to 1,
the right to 2, the left to 3, and the right to 4.
I) Bus fader – All signals sent to Bus 1-2 will flow through these faders before they get to the
master fader. If the bus faders are down, we will not hear any signals assigned to those
faders. If we routed 8 channels of drums to bus 1-2, (the first two faders) we could then
control the volume of all the drums with just these two faders. I'd call this the “drum bus”.
They have other processing powers which we'll discuss later on.
J) Master stereo fader / 2bus – This is the final output. All signals have been combined and
are fed to the final fader to control the stereo output of the mixer.

Q: Why not send an aux send to an audio interface input?

While we certainly can send an aux to an audio interface input, most mixers have a limited
number of aux sends. In the case of our mixer here, we only have four. So if we are relying
on our aux sends, we are only going to be able to record four simultaneous tracks. If we are
recording a live band with 14 inputs, this obviously isn't going to work.
Using this mixer and assuming the audio interface only had line-level inputs (no mic
preamps), I'd tap into the inserts of each channel by placing a 1/4” cable half-way into the
inserts jack. Don't worry! It's designed to do that.

Aux Send Uses

I talk about parallel compression quite a bit. This means I send a signal (we'll say a snare
drum in this case) to a compressor by physically plugging in a 1/4” cable into the Aux 1 output
and connecting it to an outboard compressor. We then bring that back on another channel (if
we want to further process it) or to the aux return if we want to free up as many channels as

54

possible. For our purposes here, we'll assume we have plenty of channels and would like to
manipulate the compressed signal and will therefore route the output of the compressor to a
channel on the board.

The idea is to adjust the level of signal I'm sending via the Aux 1 knob on the snare channel. I
then play with the settings on my compressor before sending that signal back to a separate
channel for me to blend in the mix however I see fit. Since the signal is flowing through an
audio channel in the mixer, I can utilize all the features such as EQ or additional aux sends
that might be feeding to a reverb or delay.

Feedback Loops

Basically, a feedback loop is a dog chasing its tail. The input goes through the output which is
totally normal, and then the output immediately goes back into the input. This is not-so-
normal. In audio, this causes a high pitched squeal. You've surely heard it in PA systems
(not so desirable) or guitar amps (much more desirable). Anytime the audio output gets into
the input at excessive levels, feedback occurs.

In our case, we sent our snare through Aux 1, then we compressed it and brought it back to a
new channel. If we sent it back through Aux 1 on that new channel the signal would route to
the compressor, back to the new channel, back to the compressor, and so on, resulting in
feedback.

Digging Into Routing

We have a few different options for routing with this mixer. After a signal has made its way
down to the volume fader, we can send it directly to the main stereo output if we so choose.
This is a good default setting. We can also send it to any of the two stereo busses if we like.
Why would we like that? We'll get into that. We can send it to just the individual busses or
the master bus or any combination of those. We could even send the signal nowhere. Let’s
make some sense of this.

Let's pretend I didn't pull out my battle ax and the mixer you see here had all 16 inputs. Let’s
say that 10 of them were drums, 1 bass, 2 electric guitars, 1 lead vocal, and 2 background
vocals. There went our 16 inputs! Let's say the mix is pretty good, but the drums are too

55

loud. It's not necessarily just the snare or kick, the mix is good but all the drums need to go
down in overall level. We could certainly go through and pull down each fader by 3dB, but
there is a much better, more powerful way.

By routing all the drums to a bus or “subgroup”, we have total control of their volume before
sending them on to the master fader. Basically, we are going to press the 1-2 button on all
the individual drum channels. That will route them to those first 2 faders I'm pointing to in “I”
in the chart above. This means that if we have the first two subgroup faders all the way down
or not routed to the master fader, we won't hear those pounding round things.

Bus Outputs

This mixer is not exactly a $300,000 console. This is a relatively inexpensive mixer and we
don't see any aux sends, EQ, compression, etc, on the bus channels. We only get a volume
control. We do, however, have 1/4” outputs for each bus. So, we could hook up a stereo
compressor and EQ across that bus and process all our drums at the same time. This is not
the same as having individual compressors and EQs on each channel. We are able to “gel”
the individual drum tracks together in a way that would not be possible if they weren't already
mixed together. Besides, if we are looking for this kind of “gelled” processing, we wouldn't
want to chew up 10 equalizers and 10 compressors when a stereo version of each would do
the trick. We could also send the bus to some kind of recorder, a video camera, or nothing at
all. Just like the aux sends, it's totally up to the user. You never know what you'll think of.

I have another idea. There is more to this functionality than just convenience. We can do
things that simply aren't possible with individual channels. It's a common trick to scoop out
550Hz from all the drums. You can do it by cutting each and every drum @ 550Hz, or you
could do it by simply using one single EQ on the drum bus to make this cut. It's very
convenient and it's easier to get the sounds you are looking for via bus processing.

We could do the same with just about anything. If we had 4 guitar tracks, we could route
them all to a bus and use a single EQ to process them. The possibilities are really endless
once you understand this routing.

So, to sum it all up simply. Don't send large groups of similar instruments directly to the
stereo bus, route them to a subgroup so you can control them all at once.

56

Recording Software Routing

Imagine we have a big complicated mix with 12 tracks of drums, 3 tracks of bass (DI, amp,
and guitar emulator), 4 tracks of electric guitar, 2 tracks of acoustic guitar, 1 lead vocal and 3
backing vocals. With recording software everything is virtual, so we can create as many
group busses as we want (assuming our software has no limitations). Right off the bat I'd
create 5 busses, for drums, bass, electric guitar, vocals, and a master bus that everything
routes to.

By doing this I have dramatically simplified things. For example, if I want a low cut on the
guitars to make room for the bass, I could put an EQ on each guitar track or I could just put
one on the guitar bus. I want to compress the bass as a whole, so I’ll send all three tracks to
the bass bus. I’ll push quite a bit of signal from the DI, a little from the amp, and a little less
from the emulator plugin. I’ll then toss a single mono compressor on to the bass bus, now all
3 bass’s gel together to sound like one. Pretty cool!

Let's say I want to add a bit of natural sounding ambiance to the drums. While this mixer
can't do it, my recording software can. I can create an aux track or “effects track” and slap a
reverb on it. It’s important to set the mix to 100% so no dry signal makes its way out of the
reverb.

Now, instead of sending individual elements of the drums to the reverb, I’ll just send the entire
drum bus. I am feeding an aux with a group so this is still a parallel signal. This means my
drum bus is routed to the master bus, but it's additionally flowing through a “pipe” to my
reverb plugin.

Differences Between Software and Hardware

While the concepts are exactly the same for hardware and software mixers, I wanted to touch
on a few differences. The first major difference is as long as you don't have a limited version

57

of your brand of recording software, (Light or LE versions) you essentially have unlimited
options. Our Mackie 1604 only gives us 4 mono / 2 stereo busses. It's no big deal for me to
fire up 16 stereo busses if I so choose in my recording software. The same can be said for
aux sends as well.

Another major difference is in the handling of returns. In our hardware setup, we had to
physically plug in a cable that allowed signal to flow from Aux 1 to a compressor. Then we
had to bring that signal back to the mixer with another cable routing it to a new channel. With
recording software, all of this is easy as clicking your mouse.

Recap On Routing

I've flapped my jaw on this one much longer than I intended so let’s do a quick summary and
move on.
1. Adjust the amount of signal coming in from the preamp
2. Send the signal via aux sends to wherever we want
3. EQ the signal
4. Pan it
5. Adjust the levels of that channel
6. Send that signal to a bus for further processing and volume control or send it straight to the
master fader or “2bus” as I like to call it.

Sorry. I know that was rough! This will need to be a video or something.

58

Beginner Recording Gear Stuff

Electric Guitar Recording Gear

Situation #1

You are a guitar player. You've got your tone down. You have your amp and you love the
way it sounds.
Recommendation: You simply need a single mic to toss in front of it, and you should be
good to go. Mics I love on electric guitar are, depending on what I'm going for:

• Shure SM57 (Reviews At Recording Review –More info at Musician's Friend -
Zzounds)

• Sennheiser MD421 (Reviews At Recording Review –More info at Musician's Friend -
Zzounds)

• Cascade Fathead II (Reviews At Recording Review –More info at Musician's Friend -
Zzounds)

• Royer Royer R121 (Reviews At Recording Review –More info at Musician's Friend -
Zzounds)

• Shure SM7b (Reviews At Recording Review –More info at Musician's Friend -
Zzounds)

• Audix I5 (Reviews At Recording Review –More info at Musician's Friend - Zzounds)
Any of these mics will get you there. You can hear them all in action in “The Interrogator
Sessions: Electric Guitar”. There are certainly more options out there, and often times, the
same mic you use on vocals can do excellent things on electric guitar too, but these are the
mics I know work very well. If you can't get the tones you are looking for with any of these
mics, you've got a problem further up the chain.

59

Situation #2

You don't have your tone down. You may or may not already have an amp, but either way
you aren't entirely excited by what comes out of it. Maybe you normally love your amp's tone,
but you are stuck recording at ridiculously low volumes. (It's hard enough to nail the mega
tone when you aren't penalized! Good luck trying it with one arm tied behind your back. It's
not worth the effort in my opinion.)
Recommendation: I recommend taking a look at the guitar emulators.
There are numerous free emulators out there that are pretty damn good. The simple truth is if
you don't have an amp that makes you say “YEEEESSSSS!!”, by the time you run this not-so-
exciting tone through the recording process, it's going to get worse (unless you are just really
good at this whole engineering thing...then it will just stay the same).
In “The Interrogator Sessions: Electric Guitar” I've included some random clips of the
following emulators:

• Waves GTR 3.5
• Amplitube 2
• Vintage Amp Room
• Metal Amp Room
• Overloud TH-1
• Guitar Rig 3

Hi-Z Inputs

It's highly recommended to use a Hi-Z input as this brings out a ton of clarity in the electric
guitar by giving it an impedance load it was designed to work with. Many audio interfaces
have a Hi-Z input. You can purchase the Hi-Z input by itself such as what come with the
Waves GTR 3.5 or you can purchase a standalone preamp that has Hi-Z inputs.
You can hear the difference between Hi-Z inputs and standard inputs in “The Interrogator
Sessions: Electric Guitar”.

60

Make sure you check out the Electric Guitar Emulators thread on RecordingReview.com

Bass Recording Gear

Situation #1

You are a bass player. You've got your tone down. You've got an amp that adds some
serious character to your tone and you'd be lost without that one amp. You have a room that
sounds good.
Recommendation: You need one single mic that is excellent on bass cabinets.
The type of character you want out of your bass cabinet will determine which mic is right for
you. I like upper midrange grind and character. I'm big on the large diaphram dynamic mics.
I like the Shure SM7b and the Sennheiser MD421. A large diaphram condenser can sound a
bit thicker and maybe a hair less defined in the upper mids. The Shure Beta 52 is a fun mic
for both kick drum and bass guitar. I recommend you take a listen to the bass microphone
Interrogation in “The Interrogator Sessions: Bass”.

Situation #2

You are a bass player. You've got your tone down. Your amp is super duper clean and really
just makes the bass louder.
Recommendation: Record the bass DI.
I'd plug the bass directly into my audio interface via either the line input or the Hi-Z input. (On
bass, this line input vs HI-Z input thing is really just a personal preference while on direct
electric guitar I consider it mandatory.) Direct boxes will have their specific (but probably
subtle) impact on the sound. I have a Sansamp that is pretty cool sometimes, but over the
years, I've gotten away from it and moved to just plugging straight in. You can hear an array
of DI's in “The Interrogator Sessions: Bass”.

Situation #3

Maybe you aren't a bass player. Maybe you are. You aren't all that picky about any one

61

specific tone but would like a bit of versatility.
Recommendation #1: Take a listen to the $200 P-bass in “The Interrogator Sessions: Bass”
and see how it sounds compared to big boy American basses (Fender Jazz, Stringray,
Warwick, etc). Record the bass DI. Add a bass emulator plugin.
Because of the price of a bass amp, and more importantly, the difficulty in keeping the room
out of the bass amp in most home recording situations I recommend taking a look at the bass
emulators. They have quite a bit to offer in terms of character.
Make sure to listen to how Ampeg SVX compares to a number of real bass amps and maybe
read my review on it.
Make sure to check out the Bass Emulator thread at RecordingReview.com
Recommendation #2: If you are up for MIDI sequencing, some awesome tones can be had
with a bit of programming. Generally speaking, some mega dude has already done the
engineering for you. Before you buy samples, you always listen so you immediately know if
they are going to be compatible with your specific tastes. Jazz dudes probably aren't going
to buy sludge rock bass, for example. So if you are looking for X bass sound, it's safe to say
there are samples out there that 10,000% nail it.
I often tinker with Quantum Hardcore Bass. You can hear just one quick and dirty example in
my Recording Gear Quiz. If you'd like to hear more, just yell at me and I'll throw something
together. Of course, there examples all over the web.
It can sometime be difficult to get the feel of the “playing” right with samples. There are times
when it's just quicker to put it down with a bass and deal with the engineering. This is
especially true for fast punk stuff where the guitars “push” and are ahead of the drums a bit.

Drum Recording Gear

Situation #1

You are recording a real drummer with a real drum set. You need to figure out how many

62

mics you need. I'm going to stereotype and generalize here. (Kind of like saying black
people can jump high. It's a mostly true stereotype but I'm sure there are at least three black
people who can't dunk a basketball. I bet they are all rappers. (Joke!))
For Ringo Star drums, 2 mics is all you probably need. For John Bonham drums, 2-4 mics is
fun. For most anything else, 8 is about right, but 10-12 is often the most fun. In fancier
cases, a person can get up to the 30s and higher, although, this is only recommend for
people who REALLY know what they are doing. That many mics is the equivalent of juggling
nitroglycerin. You've got to be crazy and accept the fact that you are going to get burned.

Drum Mic Selection

Kick drums
You should really take a listen to the “The Interrogator Sessions: Drums”. My personal
favorites are the Shure Beta 91 and the Audix D6. I like the Shure Beta 52 quite a bit. The
Sennheiser e602 is cool. Many LDCs work really well on the outside of the drum. A
Sennheiser MD421 isn't the beefiest kick drum sound in the world (it's kind of a 1978 kick
drum sound), but it can certainly work.

Snare drums
Again, check out the Interrogations in “The Interrogator Sessions: Drums”.
It's hard to beat a Shure SM57. The Oktava MK219 is a fun mic on snare, but it is going to
catch more bleed than a dynamic and it'll require quite a bit more headroom as it can
overload most preamps with ease. I've seen quite a few people use SDCs with success on
snare but this isn't my bag.
On snare bottom I often just grab an SM57, but I did go through a phase where I used an
AKG 414 in figure 8 about halfway between the kick drum beater and snare to pick up both of
these at the same time, but block out most of everything else (do to the extreme null of the
figure 8 microphone). That was fun.

63

Toms
I've been using Oktava MK012s on toms for years. I'd love to eventually have 3-4 Sennheiser
MD421s for toms for more 2Hz attack. I've not been overly thrilled by many other things I've
tried.
Make sure you check out Favorite Tom Mics on the RecordingReview.com forum.

Overheads
Oh hell! This opens up Pandora's box. I've used everything under the sun. If the room is
awesome, just about anything works. If the room blows, just about everything sucks. So it's
hard for me to make a magic recommendation for overhead microphones. It would be better
if I just sent you here, I think. The World's Biggest Overhead Mic Shootout
Some people really love their SDCs on drum overheads. I can't say this is me. SDCs have a
tendency to get a little hard in the upper mids and this is something I generally try to avoid.
To each his own, however.

Room Mics
When it comes to room mics, I have to say that ribbons are often my first choice because they
avoid the harshness of the cymbals especially with hardcore compression. The Cascade
Fathead II and Royer R121 are both excellent at this. Being figure 8, they make it easy to
use their strong null to avoid the direct sound of the drums.
In certain rooms LDCs can be fun too. This room mic thing is really wide open and depends
heavily on where I'm working, what I'm going for, and what I've got to deal with. It's more of a
fun experiment than anything.

Situation #2

You are recording a real drummer with real drums and you aren't happy with the results.
Recommendation: Read “The Interrogator Sessions: Drums”. That should take care of
most of it. Post a mix in Bash This Recording.

64

If you still aren't happy with what you've got, it may be time to introduce sample layering. The
idea is to use the snare top track, convert it to MIDI, and then send that to a sampler,
triggering some robo sounding snare (or tuba or harpsichord).
To convert a snare track to MIDI I use KtDrumTrigger. It's free. It takes some getting used to,
but it's simple when you get the hang of it. I just got a review copy of Toontrack's
DrumTracker, which I'll be tearing into soon. It looks like it may be a little more elaborate and
may come with it's own samples. Another popular method for this is Drumagog.
Finally, you'll need drum samples for this. Make sure to check out Realistic Drum Samples on
the forum.
Here's an illustration of many of the drum samples I'm using these days.

Situation #3

You've been through #2 and you still aren't happy. Maybe you don't have the room or ability
to tune drums to the level you desire.
Recommendation: Get an electronic drum kit and use MIDI out to trigger incredible
samples.
The morality police are going to condemn me for this one. They'd rather you sound bad than
take some method that happens to give you the quickest path to monstrous results. I say the
music always wins. Kill who you need to in the process.
While edrums can have issues with drummers who do all kinds of weird stuff, for relatively
straight forward drumming electronic drums are incredible. The samples you can trigger with
them are absolutely phenomenal. See #2

Situation #4

You aren't a real drummer, but just need some real sounding drums to go behind your music.
Recommendation: Use the samples listed above and either program your own, use an e-
drum kit, or use MIDI grooves.
A big chunk of the drums for the Interrogations here in Killer Home Recording were done

65

using MIDI grooves through Superior Drummer 2.0. While I'm not a fan of sifting through
MIDI loops, I have to admit that Toontrack's EZ Player certainly makes the process easier.
Programming real sounding drums is a waste of time. Life is too short. Some guys do it
extremely well, but I feel like I'm filling out a tax return when I do it. You may have a higher
tolerance. When it comes to fake drums (techno / hip hop / etc), I have no problem with
programming because I'm not emulating anything.

Situation #5

You don't care about real drums. You are looking for techno drum sounds.
Recommendation: I really like Battery by Native Instruments. It comes with quite a few drum
samples and gives options for many more. Reason is a full-featured sequencer that is
extremely popular, although I've never really gotten into it.

Microphone Selection

A Few Microphone Rules

I will lay out a few “rules” for you that are probably worth 10,000 times what you are thinking
right now.

• If you are just getting started with music recording you will probably be surprised by
how good ANY $100 condenser mic sounds.

• If you aren't going to tear your hair out because your vocal sound isn't BETTER than
John Mayer, Toby Keith, Mariah Carey, or James Hetfield, do not bother spending
more than $200 when first jumping into this whole recording thing. In fact, $100 may be
fine. Your vocals will be a little bright at that price, but you'll live.

• If you are going for ultra-robo pro vocals then you really need to read “The Interrogator
Sessions: Vocals” and “Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering”. We tackle the
concept of the mic collection there. Simply put, few mics sound great on everyone. If
there was one mega mic, everyone would just shell out the bucks for that one mega
mic. It doesn't work that way. If you plan to record more than one source, you'll want to

66

build an entire arsenal and learn how and when to use each piece of that arsenal.
• If you are going for ultra-robo pro vocals, don't expect simply dropping $2k on a mic is

going to make all of your dreams come true. As you'll hear in some of the Killer Home
Recording Interrogations, I'm using $7,000 signal chains and coming out with vocals
that sound okay (without processing), but they are definitely not the kind of thing worth
killing over...and I once killed for a Snickers bar! Some say the magic mics don't really
kick in until $5k. That seems to be directly contradictory of the tune I heard yesterday
that sounded outstanding and used a $70 MXL 990 (A mic I don't usually like.)
• When possible, a variety of possible microphones is always best. Real World Food
For Thought: If your recording style doesn't allow for trying out mic after mic after mic
before recording a new vocalist, there isn't any real point in having all these mics.
• The bang for the buck threshold seems to be pushed continually. Asking around on
forums for mega bang-for-the-buck mic companies is going to give you some exciting
options. There always seems to be new companies who may not be as famous as
their bigger counterparts but make outstanding products at prices that were unheard of
a few years ago.

What Big $$$ Gets You

This will be fun. My only goal here is to illustrate what you gain from paying way more for a
microphone. I'm big on the idea that the price of a piece of gear is only a factor when you buy
it. In the heat of battle, no one bothers thinking about price. The sound is all that matters.
However, since we are giving advice as what you should buy, let's think only in terms of
dollars and sound.
Download
Take a listen to this.
Note: Prices were obtained from Google Shopping Results
Answers

67

Lead vocals - 001 $299.00 vs 002 $1,200.00
Lead vocals - 003 $2,679.00 vs 004 $149.00
Electric Guitar - 005 $99.99 vs 006 $1,295.00
Fair Warning
In each clip, each mic was placed in the same spot and therefor they probably would have
sounded better if we would have ideally selected the “right” position for each mic. No EQ was
used.

My Views

I wonder why I shell out so much cash for some of these microphones! When a mic is a little
too this or too that, I have processors around to address that at least to a certain degree. In
an ideal world, I wouldn't need to rely on processing in any way, but in an ideal world, zebras
wouldn't be mangled by lions. Maybe using 2dB of plugin EQ to make X cheap electric guitar
mic sound a hair more like my Y expensive electric guitar mic is worth the benefit of not
having to explain to little Timmy why all the other kids get to go to the dentist and he doesn't.
Note: I'm not necessarily recommending processing over mic selection, mic placement, etc.
I'm simply stating that even when everything goes right, most musical styles and tones
require some processing in one way or another to meet the creative demands of the band or
producer.
I'm mixing a record right now. I did all vocal with a Peluso 47 ($1,200 give or take) through a
Martech MSS-10 preamp ($1,900+) > Distress EL-8x > Mytek AD96. On some of the tracks
the vocals are perfect. On some of the songs, I've had to fight and fight and fight to get them
where they needed to be. I did all kinds of stupid processing from using lots of EQ, de-
essing, multiple compressors, and blending in distorted high pass filtered tracks slightly. A
part of me really wonders if it would have been any different if I would have just used an
SM57. My point is that expensive gear hasn't been life altering. Sometimes I say, “Yes!”
Sometimes I say, “That's it?” Sometimes I wonder what disaster occurred that causes such
exponentially different sounds with identical gear.

68

How much should I spend on my first mics?

If your budget is tight, don't feel bad. There are some tremendous microphones out there that
perform dramatically better than you might expect. I'm still chasing that magic vocal sound
and even with mics as expensive as $3k, I've not gotten where I'm ultimately going.

Generally speaking, there are often sonic characteristics that can only be obtained by shelling
out the green stuff. I've not heard a budget mic that had the enormous low end of my Peluso
47 or Soundelux U99, for example. While this one particular sonic trait has advantages when
recording specific instruments, it's seldom a life or death thing.

If a person had a billion bucks, I'd recommend skipping the brand new car and pick up a
vintage Neumann U47 and Telefunken 251. If a person had $200 bucks, I'm confident that
there is a mic out there that will perform well in that price range. I hesitate to sensationalize
any one link in the chain until I know what other links we are dealing with. Since you are
brand new, it's safe to say that you don't have the experience of a Grammy Award winning
mixing engineer. Don't take that as an insult. Enjoy how liberating it is to say, “Of all the
problems I have, my mixing skills are the weakest link. I think I'll put my wallet back in my
pocket!”. In that light, you've immediately freed yourself from any potential stress in selecting
a microphone. I'm confident that a beginning mixer is a greater hindrance to the quality of the
recording than the price of the mic used.

If I had to answer the question on this topic, I'd say you should spend exactly what you want
to spend. A person willing to invest $500 in a mic will get a $500 mic. A person willing to
invest $100 will get a $100 mic.

I highly recommend you listen to the vocal mic Interrogations in “Killer Home Recording:
Vocals.” We've got four voices and enough mics to give you some perspective.

Mics I've Used And I Recommend Checking Out

Dynamic Mics

Shure SM57
Reviews – More Info At Musician's Friend - Zzounds

69

Cheap, versatile, and hard to break. They work well on a number of sources. Some people
love them. Some people hate them. I couldn't imagine life without them. Extremely popular
on electric guitar and snare drum. They can get bitey if you aren't careful, but are often under
rated on certain vocals.

Shure SM7b
Reviews – More Info At Musician's Friend - Zzounds
A super versatile microphone. It does very very well on many vocals, electric
guitar, bass, cutting acoustic guitar, and kick drum (needs a low shelf boost
though). An excellent mic to have around. It doesn't do the condenser sound
or the ribbon sound, but does pretty much everything else well.

Sennheiser MD421
Reviews – More Info At Musician's Friend - Zzounds
A fun dynamic mic that can get a little nasty in the 2k region and somehow
sound good doing it. I don't care for it on vocals much, but on electric guitar, it
can be mean as hell. It does the 1978 thuddy kick drum sound well and it's
about as good as it gets on toms. It's a good mic to have around. I don't consider it as
flexible as the SM7b, but I do like it.

Large Diaphram Condensers

AT4050
Reviews – More Info At Musician's Friend - Zzounds
You can find these for $300 used all the time. The shockmount sucks. The
sound is usually very, very good. It's doesn't have a super thick low end like
the more expensive condensers, but for a home recording situation, this thing is often
excellent. It can be a hair bright sometimes, but not nearly as bad as many of the $100

70

condensers out there. I read a while back that this was used on all the solo Richie Sambora
records after Bon Jovi had more money than since. My point? This mic can deliver pro
results.

AKG 414
Musician's Friend - Zzounds
You can find these for $500 used quite often. They are much thicker than many
mics out there in the under $1k category. I love them on acoustic guitar and
certain vocals. On vocals that really need to cut through a mix, I'm not super huge on the
AKG 414 unless I'm willing to go to war via EQ or the mix is sparse. When I need “smooth”
vocals (whatever that means) the AKG 414 is usually my first choice.

Karma K35
Website - Reviews
A hell of a bargain. This thing is heavy and needs a strong mic stand, but it
sounded good on everything I tossed on it. It wasn't excessively bright
compared to others in the same price range. You'll need an external pad for this one on loud
sources. If you are on a budget, this is definitely a mic I'd take a look at.

Cascade Elroy
Website - Reviews
This mic can get a bit sibilant in a hurry, but sometimes there is something about
this mic that I really like. There is some exciting stuff in there. People who
really get their panties in a wad about “clarity” will love this thing in omni. It's a
tube mic, so I don't recommend it as a starter mic.

71

Peluso 251
Reviews – Website
I love the Peluso 251. I don't know how it compares to the $9k Telefunken
version, and until my bank-robbing career takes off, I probably will never know.
It's not cheap, but at $1,200 (used) it performs extremely well. I have certain
singers who insist on this mic (always a good sign!). I haven't heard a voice I didn't like in
front of it. It's done great on just about everything I've ever used it on. If you want to pay
extra, I think there is some value in this one. How much value? Hell I don't know. I just like it,
okay. Give it a listen in all the Interrogations in Killer Home Recording.

Peluso 47
Reviews – Website
On a good day, I love the 47. It's a bit darker in the ultra high end than the 251
but has a bigger, lower midrange. It's a big sounding microphone. This is
another expensive mic. If you are a beginner on a budget, ignore this one.

The Oktavamod MJE-K47H "Solo"
Website
I haven't used this one yet, so I'm not making a glowing recommendation
YET. However, based on what I've heard in audio clips, buzz, etc this thing
is going to officially break the price / performance barrier. The MJE-K47H
is just the to capsule which is the bottom part in this picture. You have a to

screw this capsule to a specific SDC body. You can see the details on their website.

72

Small Diaphram Condensers

Karma K10
Reviews – Website
Super bargain SDCs. $140 for a pair of mics that can run with big boy mics
is unheard of! These have an aggressive upper midrange. Sometimes this
isn't a great thing. Sometimes a bit more smoothness is required. At this price, who cares!
Sometimes this aggression is exactly what you want. Very useful on drum overheads (with
an external pad), acoustic guitar, and percussion. You'd be surprised how they do on a bass
cabinet or an electric guitar cabinet. (See the Killer Home Recording Shootouts for those.)

Oktava MK012
I love them on toms. I don't get as wound up about them on drum overheads or
acoustic guitar as many people do. They used to be $100 a piece, but I hear
they've gone way up and are harder to find.

Ribbons

Royer R121
Reviews - Website
I have it. I love it. It's expensive. It's my favorite electric guitar mic, and it's
excellent as a room mic on drums and anything you'd reach for a ribbon for.
The hype on this this is substantiated. Does it work miracles? No. Does it make engineering
easier? Yes.

Cascade Fathead II
Reviews – Website
It's just as good as the Royer, but voiced a bit different. I like it 96% as much as I

73

like the Royer on electric guitar. With a touch of EQ, it's about the same. It costs about 1/6th
the price. It can get a little 2k heavy if I'm not careful. It did something “neat” on acoustic
guitars...kind of a 1950s acoustic guitar sound. On drum overheads, it does something
awesome if you don't need any real top end in the cymbals (fairly rare for me). As a room
mic, it's awesome.

Karma K6
Reviews – Website
Similar to the Fathead II, but not nearly as aggressive in the 2k region. It can
almost be too smooth sometimes, but some of you may like that. I tend to like
aggressive sounds more than the next guy. You'll need a pad with this one if you are using it
on anything loud.

Conclusion
There are many, many mics out there. I've only used a tiny portion. My use is entirely
subjective. If you want objectivity take a geometry class. You won't find it in this
craft....EVER. Recommending a mic is much like recommending a girlfriend. I can give you
advice on the girls I've dated. I can tell you what I like (and what I hate) about the girl I
decided to keep. I can give you advice on how to deal with your girl after the fact, but I can't
really say anything about girls that I've not gone out with. It's the same with mics.
I've used many more mics than appeared on this list. You won't see me un-recommend a
mic. I simply wanted to show the mics I do recommend.
There are plenty of mics on this list that are excellent, but I didn't see much reason to list 40
mics that all do very similar things. So don't send me any death threats because I didn't
include X mic. This was just a quick recommendations list. There may be better mics for less
money out there.

74

One Mic Guys

For those of you prescribe to the epic disaster known as monogamy, let's talk about your
specific mic needs. Because you are going to be with this one mic all the time, it's important
that you can stand her (for this discussion, the mic is a girl) pretty much all of the time. The
only way for that to work if the situation changes often is by going with a fairly neutral mic.
A mic that has a bit too much personality this way or too much personality that way is going to
cause you problems.
Note: I want to emphasize that we are discussing a situation that changes often. If you know
the only voice you are going to be recording is Johnny Cash (good luck with that one these
days), then you can find that one special mic for the job.
The problem with relatively neutral mics is that they don't have a whole lot of character. I
come from the school that I want to flatter each and every instrument in a way that makes the
instrument most exciting on the recording at hand. Simply tossing up a neutral mic is not
always the easiest way to achieve my sonic vision.
Then again, the difference between most mics is subtler than it should be, so maybe I'm
blowing this concept out of proportion, particularly if you aren't going to go into depression if
you don't win an Engineering Grammy. The real fun and color comes from certain preamps,
compressors, distortion gadgets, EQ, and the all the other mixing tools.

Audio Technica AT4040
Reviews – Musician's Friend - Zzounds
If I had to pick one relatively inexpensive mic that works well on practically
everything, I'd take a hard look at the Audio Technica AT4040. Again, it's not
the most flattering mic in the world, but that's exactly what makes it so versatile.

Make sure you check out this thread: Neutral / Workhorse Microphones

75

Mic Stands

Avoid The Cheapos

If you plan on recording for a while, invest in some decent mic stands. I don't mean anything
you can do a pull up on. That's overkill! I just mean something name brand. Atlas and K&M
make good stuff, but just about any “real” company will work. There are often micro budget
mic stands on Ebay or in flea markets near lakes (don't ask!). Refrain from buying them
unless it feels like they were created during the industrial revolution.

People have often asked me, “What in the world do you have to do to a mic stand to break
it?” They obviously have never had cheapo mic stands. I've seen the bases fall off the
bottoms. I've seen the base break from the rest of the stand. I've seen stands break in every
place they can be tightened. Murphy's Law certainly applies in this case.

Stackable Mic Stands

If you are ever going to take your stands to a live show, make sure to get the stackable
stands that have a round base that resemble a distant cousin to Pacman. Not only are
stackable mic stands extremely convenient when traveling, but they also use dramatically
less real estate in your studio. That real estate could be used by bass traps or groupies.

Tripod Mic Stands

I do like having a few mic stands with a tripod base. When it comes to micing a drum kit,
there are some situations where only a round base will fit. There are situations where only a
tripod will work. Having both is the only way to go.

$200 Mic Stand

I have several $200 mic stands. Luckily, they cost me less than $50. How? I bought a

76

standard mic stand with a round base and a boom for $45 and then added an old 10lb weight
from an old weight lifting exercise package to the bottom (take the base off, run the mic stand
through the weight, and then screw it back into the base). After years of trying, I've never
knocked over a $200 mic stand. They are a gift from God when using heavy mics like the
Shure SM7b or many large diaphragm condensers.

Make sure not to go heavier than 10lbs. I used a 15lb weight for a while and I ended up
pulling the stand right off the base. 10lbs seems to work well, but I bet a person could come
out with a $175 mic stand with a 5lb weight.

Short Mic Stands

Always have at least one or two shorter mic stands. While you can usually make a standard
boom stand work on most instruments, if you just happen to need to put a mic inside a kick
drum, these are required. There are certainly guitar mic placements that are tough to pull off
with a standard mic stand particularly with side-addressed microphones. Mic placement is
too important to compromise.

Speaker Stands

When you’re in the audiophile world, you see all these $249+ speaker stands. For the life of
me, I can't figure out why a person would need fancy speaker stands. In 99% of the studios
out there, the speakers are behind a desk of some kind (whether that be Neve console or just
a computer desk). So, in most cases the aesthetic argument is moot.
I always recommend buying 8 cinder blocks. They cost $1.42 each as of this writing. That
comes out to $11.36. Some say they look ugly. a) I think they are the coolest looking things
ever. b) Are you telling me that you have creativity to write a song, but you can't figure out
how to use $4 worth of fabric, $4 worth of wood, and 10 minutes to pretty them up into
something to the caliber that would be on the cover of Mix Magazine? It should be super
easy. Make it fun!
It's important to have something rigid with mass for your studio monitors. Obviously, a big

77

part of this is just so the monitors don't fall over. My monitors weight a good 50lbs. A not so
obvious factor is the way the speaker vibrating the stand can have an effect on the frequency
response of that speaker. I believe that my cinder block method is a relatively crude way of
dealing with this vibration, but it's also pretty damn massive. (170 pounds per stand). It's
hard to refute sheer physics sometimes even if there are more elegant designs.

Headphone Amps

For those of you recording live bands, recording more than one musician at the same time, or
who would like to offer everyone in the room a chance to listen via headphones, a multi-
channel headphone amp is a must.

I went with a cheapo Behringer headphone amp back in 2001, and it is still growing strong in
2009. I don't feel that a high-end headphone amp provides any benefit. Take a look at this
headphone amp. They also make an 8-channel version if that better suits your needs.

Headphones

When it comes to all-purpose headphones there are many options. Some guys spend the
bucks to get really nice headphones. I personally haven't found a need for this. While I do
have my studio monitor headphones for mixing, I don't use them during tracking unless I'm
checking a sound. (They aren't cheap and musicians are bigger versions of dumb kids that
break things.) I've had excellent luck with Behringer headphones I bought for $25. Do they
sound good? They sound about like any other $25 set of headphones. The thing I liked
about the Behringer headphones was their ¼ connector. Most headphones in this price
range have an 1/8” jack with an adapter. This is the biggest waste of time ever. These
connections go bad more than you go to the bathroom. I refuse to use one in my studio. I'd
gladly pay double for a set of headphones just to avoid that damn adapter.

78

Acoustic Treatment

As we explain in great detail in “Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering,” acoustic
treatment is the name of the game. A great sounding live room and an accurate room for
studio monitoring is absolutely essential. There is no way around it. You can fiddle fart all
day with your fancy gadgets that are more fun to talk about on forums, but that stuff is
practically useless without killer sounding rooms. (In regard to “fiddle fart”...Back off,
buster! That was my grandpa's saying, and he had a Purple Heart fighting the Nazis. ROAR!)

Avoid The Foam

There are some famous brands that have very nice logos and present themselves as real
companies. Deep down, all their tech guys know they are selling products that do not work.
Let me rephrase that. Foam will absorb some frequencies. It just so happens to be that
those frequencies could be absorbed by a stupid blanket. Even if a person had at least some
interest in aesthetics (I don't), then with a little creativity, the blanket method is still superior.
If you are considering the purchase of acoustic treatment for your room, I'd check out
Realtraps and Gik. These companies make real products that will actually improve the sound
of your rooms. They also have logos and appear to be professional companies, too. I guess
it's a nice bonus that they sell an authentic product. Yes, I hate studio foam.

Bass Traps, Bass Traps, Bass Traps

If you have any intention of putting together a room that is anywhere near accurate for studio
monitoring, you'll want to go nuts on the bass trapping. We cover this in “Killer Home
Recording: Audio Engineering,” so I just want to mention it here. Just remember to save
room in your budget or consider building your own. (If you build your own, make sure to
submit your plans on the Acoustics and Studio Construction forum first.) It's very easy to
screw up a bass trap design, and if you've got the budget, buying them is often a better way
to go.

79

Financing The Unknown

If you'd like to spend money on a product you know nothing about, I recommend sending me
$50 for what my Invisible Machine does. Actually, you can't see, taste, hear, smell, or touch it.
You'd have just as much luck with my Invisible Machine as you would with purchasing
acoustic treatment, if you have no understanding of what is going on in your room. I
recommend you don't spend a dime on acoustic treatment until you've conquered the “Control
Room Acoustics” chapter in “Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering.” (Fair warned! You
will not like it!) You'll thank me later.
After you understand the basics of room treatment, then be prepared to dump some real cash
into it.

Studio Monitors

We cover this in robo detail in “Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering.” The short version
goes like this. If your room isn't ideal, and you don't have extreme room treatments, no studio
monitoring system is going to be all that accurate. With that said, mixing on studio monitors is
generally more pleasing than mixing on headphones, and it’s certainly more likely to deliver
better results than using your home stereo.

For a person who doesn't want to shell out a good $2-3k on acoustic treatments, there is
limited reason to purchase studio monitors that cost $1k+. I'd recommend going with studio
monitors in the $500-1,000 range. If that's too expensive for you, just use a stereo system
from around the house until you are ready to upgrade. I highly recommend you check out
Budget Studio Monitors: Do They Work?

Regardless of your budget or situation, I recommend that everyone snag a set of studio
monitor headphones. Getting this level of accuracy with studio monitors and room treatment
would cost thousands, but you can hop into the world of accurate studio monitoring for under
$150 even if you just happen to be stuck in headphone land, too.

The beauty of the studio monitor headphones is they give you an accurate playback system

80

for a price that most of us pay for shipping studio monitors. I find that even if a person hates
mixing on headphones, they make a great 2nd system to check your mixes on. I expect to be
using mine even when I have a super mega room and robo high end monitors.
When I make my usual rounds through Bash This Recording, I find myself repeating the same
old cliché. It seems that every beginner is making mistakes that have nothing to do with their
abilities, necessarily, but due to inaccurate monitoring. Big problems have a way of sneaking
through poor monitoring conditions, but mixing (or at least listening a time or two) through
studio monitor headphones can be a lifesaver.

MIDI Production Gear

81

MIDI Controller Selection

We get into the greater details of MIDI in “Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering,” but it
basically goes like this. MIDI has got to get into your recording rig one way or another. One
way is with the conventional MIDI port. The other is USB. Since USB is pretty much the
standard on every PC in the universe, it's a safe bet to go this route. However, if you have an
old keyboard collecting dust with a MIDI out port you may be in luck. Just make sure your
audio interface has a MIDI input. You can always buy a MIDI interface separately, but
bundling with the audio interface will probably save you a couple of bucks.

For your meat and potatoes MIDI work for non-piano players, just about any old keyboard
with MIDI out will work. I'm still using an old Roland XP-10, and I'm entirely satisfied. (Real
keyboard people laugh when they see it.) Others may want a certain weight and feel, but I'm
not a piano player. Some MIDI controllers allow you to control all sorts of functions. I've
never felt the need for this but, again, your needs may be different than mine.

Misc Virtual Instruments

In the old days of MIDI production, you ran out and bought a high-end keyboard and used its
onboard sequencer to make your productions. Those sound like crap for just about
everything unless you have something really special like (sing along Human League fans)
“Don't you want me baby?” Realistic certainly wasn't an option.

Nowadays, none of us are using synths to mimic real instruments. Instead, we are using
samples.

In the old days you needed a hardware sampler. These set you back about half the price of a
new Kia back then. They were the centralized player of all your samples. I'm calling them
The Mothership, because I'm that nerdy. The hardware Mothership was replaced by the
software Mothership. (Kontakt is my weapon of choice for that).

There's a problem. All the Childships grew up. (Why does Mothership sound bad ass &
Childship sound ridiculous?) Instead of buying a cd of Color Me Badd edition drum samples,

82

drum samples took on a whole new life. They grew to be real sounding. In fact, they are
scarily real sounding. They can do all kinds of wicked things. You can control how much
bleed of the snare gets into the hihat or kick drum. You can send only the snare drum to the
room mics. (Not a reverb!) The days of bleed in the toms are over if you want them to be. It
wasn't possible for the Mothership sampler to do all this. So some nerds on the Childships
got creative and changed the sample world. It was no longer essential to use the Mothership
sampler at all. Each sample package now had its own independent player.

Then other instruments followed suit. I have individual Childships for every sample package
I've ever purchased except one. Quantum XP Hardcore Bass, Native Instruments B4 Organ,
Native Instruments Electrik Piano, Superior Drummer 2.0, and all the others I can't think of,
all came with their own players. There is no need for the Mothership samplers for any of
these.

I'm hesitant to recommend buying the Mothership sampler software because of this.
However, there is one thing I do like about having Kontakt. I have access to all kinds of
random samples that come in handy. For example, I'm not a harmonica guy. I'll never buy a
comprehensive sample set of harmonica. However, I have found a need for it in my ridiculous
productions from time to time. It's nice being able to fire up the stock harmonica samples in
Kontakt. These samples are not nearly as elaborate or comprehensive as those found in a
dedicated sampler set, but they fit my needs.

I'm not sure what it's worth to you to have a nice collection of simplified samples to toy with. I
guess it depends on how badly you have need to toss in random instruments.

An Overemphasis On High-End Gear

We all know that losing weight is as simple as burning more calories than you take in. Yet, we
all want some kind of short cut. Fat burner pills and such is a zillion dollar industry. I guess
it's human nature to look for some kind of shortcut that allows us to outsmart the system and
bypass the simple solution. I consider recording to be similar. A great band playing in a great
sounding acoustical space in a situation where an engineer can make decisions that translate

83

to the outside world (accurate studio monitoring) is the exact formula that was used to make
your favorite recordings. The other stuff makes up minor details. The other stuff is the cherry
on top.

While you could say that engineering is a game of inches, and a great engineer should be
aware of each and every detail, what do we say about the engineer who obsesses about the
tiniest details and completely ignores the most important hit-you-in-head-with-sledgehammer
criteria? I'd call this engineer nuts! Sure, the big boys like their fancy consoles, preamps,
and compressors, but do you think they'd be caught dead recording a band that couldn't play
or a vocalist who couldn't sing?

It's complete insanity to put high-end preamps and robo-priced analog to digital converters
over accurate studio monitoring, room acoustics, songwriting, and musicianship. You might
be shaking your head saying to yourself “Yeah right! The big boys put such an emphasis on
the gear. There must be something to it!” There is something to it. The big boys have
conquered all the prerequisites and now play around with their toys, because they can.
They've earned the right to nitpick about the small, fun stuff. More power to them! However,
if you think that any big boy is going to put a greater emphasis on gear than they would the
accuracy of their studio monitoring system or the quality of the music/musicians they are
recording, you have either been intentionally mislead or you are asking the wrong questions.

Go on the usual recording forum and say “Brandon Drury says in his book that a person
should focus on putting together an extremely accurate studio monitoring system that
translates well to the outside world before spending money on high end outboard gear such
as preamps and AD converters.” I'd like to see how many big boys argue with this. If anyone
does, ask to hear mixes from them as they are probably not a big boy. They are probably full
of that stuff my grandpa always said I had between my ears. I'm aware of no engineer worth
his salt that undermines the importance of accurate studio monitoring and the power of
“great” music.

84

Q: Do I Need A Mixer For Home Recording?

A: It's very common for beginners who have just jumped into the world of home recording to
automatically assume that they need a console or mixer. I can see this as rational. I don't
know much about guns, so I figure I need a gun and some bullets to shoot. Of course, I'm
just basing this of layman understanding, watching movies, and guessing.

It turns out that I very rarely recommend a mixer for home recording anymore. In fact, never
may be a better description. To understand this, we first need to understand how old school
tape machines worked. It goes like this. Let's say we want to record on channels 1-10 on an
analog tape machine. We plug our kick drum microphone into our mixer on Channel #1. We
bump up the gain with the preamp, and then that kick drum is routed to track #1 on the tape.
After we have recorded that kick drum, we rewind the tape and hit play.

That kick drum is then routed to the outputs of the tape machine. These outputs are actually
sent to the Tape output side of the console. In this case, we'll say that we run kick drum from
Track #1 out to channel #25 on the console. From here we can play with the signal after it's
already been recorded to tape if we really want to. This is something we may do more
aggressively during mixing where we may be adding compression, EQ, or sending the track
to reverbs, delays, distortions, and who knows what. For the time being, however, these tape
outputs are only there so we can hear what is going on through the studio monitors. This
routing is repeated with the snare mic routed to channel #2 on the console to track #2 on the
tape to channel #26 on the console. This repeats for as many tracks as we want to record.

So what we really have is a chain that works like this when tracking:

Mic > Mic preamp > Recording Device

When it comes to playing the track back, the chain goes like this:

Recording Device Output > Mixing Console Channel #25 > Stereo Out Of Console >
Studio Monitors/Headphones/Whatever

Now let's talk about how we record tracks with a computer system.

We run a mic to the kick drum, just like before. We then run that microphone to a preamp.
This preamp could be in a console, but let's forget the console for right now and go straight to

85

the built in preamp in our audio interface. This is channel #1 on the audio interface.

Behind the scenes, the preamp is routed to the AD converter in our audio interface, which
converts the signal from analog to digital, and then shoots the signal into our computer. In
our recording software, we create track #1, make sure it's a mono track because we are only
recording one mono microphone, and then we make sure the signal from input #1 in the audio
interface is routed to our newly created track.

From that newly created track, the signal is passed down to our console. However, in this
case we are not using that giant console that looks like something inside a 747 jet’s cockpit.
Instead we are using the console within our recording software. As each kick drum hit is
captured, we can see the meter bouncing up in Channel #1. This channel then flows into the
stereo master fader and to the audio interface. The audio interface converts the signal from
digital to analog and sends this analog signal out of the audio interface into the studio
monitors.

The routing to capture the kick drum track looks like this:

Mic > Mic preamp > Recording Device (which is the audio interface routed to the
recording software).

When it comes to playing the track back, the chain goes like this:

Recording Device > Mixing Console In Recording Software > Stereo Out Of Software
Mixer > Audio Interface > Studio Monitors/Headphones/Whatever

It's extremely important that you understand these two concepts.

A) In both the analog tape situation and in the computer situation, the mic is plugged into a
mic preamp, boosted, and then sent to the recording medium. The concept is exactly the
same. Instead of scratching audio into a magnetic tape, the audio is converted to digital and
stored as ones and zeros. A fancy console is certainly not required on the input side in either
situation.

B) In both the analog tape situation and the computer situation, a mixer/console of some type
is required to mix the music. You'll want EQ, compression, etc. You'll want to send the signal
via aux sends to reverbs, delays, and other effects. In an analog situation, you will need a
real, hardware mixer for this. For every reverb you use, you must have a hardware box that

86

you can route this signal to. For every delay you use, you must have a delay box sitting
around.

However, when it comes to computer recording, all of this mixing is handled “in the box.”
Instead of buying a box for reverb and a box for delay, you simply fire up a plugin. The
concept is the same, but it is all handled in the computer. The entire signal flows into the
stereo master bus and is then routed to your studio monitors in either case.

With the computer recording method, all mixing is done within the computer, and you can
forgo the analog console and all rack devices because your recording software replaces all of
this. The only hardware device you still require is the kick drum, mic, and preamp.

Long story short: The computer with an appropriately equipped audio interface has entirely
replaced the need for a mixer. In fact, in most home recording situations software is
dramatically better than a mixer.

Headphone Mixes

When I got into home recording back in 2001, there really wasn't a good way to rig up
headphone mixes on the computer. So, I went ahead and purchased a Mackie 1604 mixer
for $1,000. I would send the mic I was recording to channel #1 on the Mackie, boost the
signal with the preamp/trim knob, and then immediately send that signal to my audio interface
(which was from back in the days where audio interfaces did not include preamps). Using the
mixer I could then use the aux sends to create up to 4 individual headphone mixes for
individual members of the band. This was one solution, but I have to admit that $1,000 is a
lot of money to pay for headphone mixes considering the fact that many modern audio
interfaces include a DSP mixer especially designed for this. (My current audio interface
allows me to give up to 9 individual stereo mixes!) So the audio interface and computer have
made the analog mixer obsolete for home recording in my opinion in almost all situations.

The Big Boys And Analog Consoles

There are still some die-hard fans of the analog way of working. At first, I could see their
point. The original EQs, compressors, reverbs and other plugins simply didn't sound that
good on computers. Today, this has changed. Computers have some great sounding plugins

87

for a fraction of the price of the hardware stuff of yesterday. Some hardcore, big boy purists
still prefer to use their $300,000 console and $4,000 compressors on vocals while mixing the
big boy platinum records at a fee of $4,000 per song. Well, this level of recording I can't even
relate to. $50k to mix an album? That's complete insanity based on the budgets I'm used to
dealing with! It's no wonder these big boys are buying expensive gear. They have more
money than they know what to do with!
Note: If you pay attention, you hear about more and more big boy engineers making platinum
records while mixing in the box.
A person that makes that kind of cash to mix a record can use whatever gear he/she wants
and does not have to worry about the price/performance factor. They can simply use “the
best” and go on with their day. For the rest of us, we don't have a $2,000,000 facility. If I can
get 98% of the way there for 1% of the price, I'm very happy! When my lottery check comes
in, I'll have to re-evaluate.
For just about every beginner, there is no need for a mixer. Buy an audio interface with built
in preamps and mix “in the box” within your recording software. Use DSP headphone mixes
from the soundcard if you require a bunch of fancy headphone mixes.

Hardcore Hardware Synth Dudes

There is one exception to this no-mixer rule. The dudes who insist on using quite a few
hardware synthesizers when working on their MIDI sequencing projects often require an
analog mixer to plug all of these synths into. It is possible if you are using high end software
and have an audio interface with tons of inputs to create specific, external busses that will
automatically route the audio out of your hardware synths and samples to an audio track in
your recording software, but it never fails that the people on the forum who want to use 10
different hardware synths in their MIDI productions always seem to have a two channel audio
interface. This does not make using external synths practical.
If you are using virtual instruments (synths and samples in the box) you'll have no need for a
mixer.

88

Q: Do I Need A Pop Filter?

Don't even think about this one. Buy one! If you are on a robo tiny budget, go mow a lawn or
two, and then go buy one. Or, just build one for four dollars.
Pop filters are great for reducing the plosives that have a way of getting into your vocal tracks,
but I don't consider this to be their #1 function. Instead, I use pop filters to keep singers the
right distance away from the microphone. Singers that stand too close to directional
microphones can sound boomy because of the proximity effect. Let's just say I like the sound
of the singer standing 10” away from the mic. The solution: I move the pop filter to be about
9” from the mic and the singer plants their face right on the pop filter. Everyone wins!
Of course, not everyone needs to stand 10” from a mic. With my Shure SM7, people have a
tendency to put their lips right on the tip of the mic. It's kinda sorta designed for that, but I
usually don't want that sound in the recordings I'm doing. Placing a pop filter just 1” of the
mic is enough to dramatically reduce the proximity effect and get the sound I want. We'll get
into distance in the vocal recording section, but let's just say that this is a very big deal and
should not be overlooked. That, and life is too short to waste it removing P's from vocal
tracks!

Not All Pop Filters Are Created Equal

I started with the standard $25 nylon circle pop filter. Somewhere along the line, I was
convinced I needed one of the new metal, $40 pop filters that are supposed to sound clearer
came out. It's a total sham in my opinion! Don't spring for the $40 pop filter. The $25 model
is fine.

Q: Do I Need Expensive High End Analog To Digital
Converters?

Any audio interface with analog inputs already contains analog to digital converters. So this
question is really about whether it's worth upgrading the converters. I don't know your

89

financial situation, but I can tell you my experience with analog to digital converters. I
dumped about $2500 on upgrading from stock M-Audio Delta 1010 converters to (2) Mytek
AD96s and a Mytek DA96. The Myteks are on the high-end side of the market. I received a
discount for buying multiple individual products at once, but normally, a set of stereo inputs is
around the $1k mark I believe. Again, this is not for the preamps and not for the audio
interface. We are speaking specifically in terms of the analog to digital conversion.

There was a difference in sound quality. However, it wasn't the kind of upgrade I was hoping
for at $2500. It wasn't like my drummers, bass players, guitar players, and singers said,
“Man, I've never sounded better!” after the upgrade. In fact, no one has ever noticed the
switch. If I A/B a source, I can hear a difference, but I have to make that funny face with eye
brows (like Larry David from Curb Your Enthusiasm) as if I'm thinking really hard before I
choose the Mytek.

You'll read later on in the Killer Home Recording system about “The Ineffectiveness of
Upgrades,” where I sum up the notion that upgrades in audio recording seldom have the
benefit that home recorders expect when paying 2x or 10x as much for a product. I consider
upgrading analog to digital converters to fall into the “When You Get Bored” category. They
also fall into the “When You Get Rich” category.

No beginner should ever purchase high-end converters, ever! Stick with what you've got and
save your money for the things that really matter. Don't let anyone convince you that you'll be
stuck making terrible recordings until you get the high-end converters. After you've got your
important stuff worked out, then you can start playing around with boutique gear like high-end
converters.

For audio examples of converters in action check out Interrogations in the various other Killer
Home Recording products.

Q: Do I Need Expensive High End Preamps?

I think this question is highly dependent on how you define “expensive.” Personally, I find
$2,000 for a volume knob to be very expensive. When I plug a mic into this god-like preamp,

90

everyone in the room should turn and look at me as if I am the ultimate recording genius of
the world. This often happens when you switch from a mail-order guitar amp to a real-deal
mega guitar amp!

Unfortunately, if I was rich, and $2k wasn't all that much money, I probably wouldn't expect all
that much from a $2k preamp. It all comes down to how many meals you have to skip to get
that $2k. The rich people seem to have the correct expectations.

High-end preamps have their place, but if we strip off the psychological impact of knowing
you are using a gold plated volume knob, it is difficult to hear a difference in objective quality
between many preamps. This is especially true for beginners looking for that objective
improvement in fidelity and not simply a change in character. Even when I conducted the
preamp Interrogations, I had to listen over and over and over until my brain began to focus on
the ultra-minute differences between one track and another. It's often very subtle and it's not
the kind of thing that makes band buddies of mine come over and say “Brandon, you have
GOT to hear these drums!!”.

I think that spending big cash on preamps is something that should be done after a person
has quite a few mixes and quite a bit of experience under their belt. I never recommend a
high-end preamp in the first year of recording. Never!

No beginner is going to get any tonal benefit out of a super high-end preamp until the big
issues like accurate studio monitoring have been dealt with. The benefits from the high-end
preamps are way too tiny for this. It's ridiculous to put such a huge investment into one tiny
link of the chain unless the other links of the chain are of similar quality. If you are recording
drummers who have drawings on their drumheads from two years ago, the notion of high-end
pres being an issue becomes silly. In fact, if you’re recording a drummer who didn't go to
Berklee, the notion of preamps might still be silly.

There are people who believe the mic preamp is extremely important and even more
important than studio monitoring. I couldn't possibly disagree with these people more. I'm
willing to call them mentally retarded or at least deaf. In fact, I find that the objective
improvements in sound quality that are often implied in big boy recording circles when
upgrading to a fancier preamp is dramatically overstated 90% of the time and just overstated
the other 10% of the time. If you listen hard enough, you'll hear differences, but it takes an

91

incredible set of ears to say that one preamp simply smokes another preamp.
As much as I like to run my mouth about this and that, I'll let you decide for yourself. Check
out some of the various preamp Interrogations in other Killer Home Recording Books.
I want to make it clear that I started out with a Vintech 1272 from day one. I was led to
believe that this preamp was required for me to get the kind of sounds I wanted. I've
recorded literally thousands of bad sounding tracks through it. There is no magic in a high-
end preamps that can turn bad sounding sources into magic. It simply doesn't happen. The
“magic” comes from actually being able to hear what you are doing and having the knowledge
to know the most effective way for dealing with issues that pop up.

Q: Will A Tube Preamp Smoke My Stock Audio
Interface Preamp?

This is a loaded question. It's about as loaded as questions like “Which is better? A Les Paul
or a Strat?” The short answer is this. The stock audio interface preamps these days pack
quite a bit of value that most home recorders will never really outgrow. Those of you who are
willing to starve (or are willing to skip the trip to Hawaii) can get sonic gains from the higher
end gear. How much? It's limited.

I think this whole tube thing is hyped up considerably because of guitar player instincts. A
guitar amp is supposed to distort the living crap out of the signal. Mic preamps are entirely
different. Even the more colored mic preamps on the market (tube or solid state) don't distort
the signal anywhere near what a guitar amp does. Because of this, it's impossible for anyone
I know to tell you which preamp was used to record a track without an A/B test.

The general consensus for guitar land is solid state is completely acceptable when you want
clean playback. Much like digital technology, solid state amplifiers just don't happen to distort
as pleasingly. This concept can be easily illustrated by taking a look at your home stereo.
Unless you are on the robo high-end side of things, you probably are using a solid state

92

amplifier to listen to your music, yet your favorite recordings sound amazing. How can that
be?

Now, when it comes to actual preamp selection I've gotten my hands on the Presonus ADL
600 and Manley TNT (both of these 2 channel preamps are in the $2k+ region). First, I have
to say that if I was going to pick just one preamp, I wouldn't want it to be a tube circuit. Based
on what I've heard from both of these, the tube sounds big. The tube sound is a little too big
for me when I've got 20-30 tracks to work with. These tube preamps have a darker vibe to
them than their solid state counterparts and tend to have lower harmonics. For most
applications, I'd take a good solid state preamp. The Neve, Trident, SSL, and API sounds
that all the big boys rave about are all solid state designs and if we took away these four
companies, we have to take away probably 80-90% of all major label recordings made since
1970.

Now, when it comes to the low end of the scale, it's even more of a hit and miss. My gut says
that a good tube preamp is going to cost more than a good solid state preamp. Why?
Because tube circuits have more stuff that makes them expensive. Transformers and tubes
are a start, but the list goes on and on. Many budget tube preamp circuits aren't using the
tube as you would expect anyway. Using a tube in a wall-wart power supply, for example,
isn't exactly going to give the impact it would in the actual audio path.

On the low end of things, it doesn't make a bit of sense to me to bother with tube this or solid
state that when we are using preamps that aren't great to begin with. If you are the kind of
guy who wants to fuss with preamps, then you are aware of the sonic differences between the
high end and the low end pres. I'd guess if you are the kind of person who absolutely
demands the high end gear, then the circuit topology (tube vs solid state) in a budget preamp
is going to be irrelevant.

Will The Band Notice High End Preamps?

I may have to eat some of my words. Will the band notice high-end preamps? In the past, I

93

would have answered that problem with a distinct “no”. I may have even slapped in an
exclamation point to hammer the point home. Now I'm not so sure.

When conducting Interrogations for Killer Home Recording, it became increasingly obvious to
me that band people CAN hear preamps in many situations. To hear this difference does not
require a lab coat or 30 years of audio engineering experience. It simply requires a bit of
listening.

As I was conducting these Interrogations, I have to admit that I was naturally leery of the
impact of high-end gear. A part of me really wanted a Martech MSS-10 ($2,000 for a single
preamp) to have no noticeable impact over a Presonus Firestudio preamp. After I had a few
Interrogations finished, I would ask friends and fellow musicians to listen to a couple. I found
that on many sources, once the person got acclimated to what a preamp does, they were
able to identify which one sounded better (at least to a degree that was consistent with my
opinions).

It’s important to note that I'd ask the person, “Which sounds better.” Then I'd play both files.
Each and every time, you could see the person was putting on their thinking cap. Each
person had that indescribable thing that happens to the forehead when engaged in deep,
profound thought. In those situations where we’re playing the “Can You Find The Difference
Game?” most people did choose the high-end stuff.

This preamp Interrogation business sort of reminds me of when I need to go outside at night.
When I first walk out, I'm stepping on rocks, shovels, land mines (from my dog), and who
knows what else, because I'm completely blind (and should take better care of my yard). In a
matter of minutes, my vision becomes much more acute. I can see details that were getting
lost just a few minutes ago. Bear Grylls says after 45 minutes in the dark, your vision will
become outstanding.

In a real deal session, few of us are allowed the luxury to let our eyes get used to the dark or
our ears to get used to what the preamps are doing. Most of us are fighting our sources to

94

the extent that the subtle nature of preamp character isn't going to make a truly life-altering
impact on what we are doing. For example, a guitar player who can't play in tune renders any
possible benefits of the high-end preamp useless. However, when the time is taken to really
listen, most of us will often hear benefit from the high-end gear. In other words, I've decided
that this whole high-end microphone / preamp / compressor / converter business is for more
than just audio engineer nerds, but at the same time, it's not something that those of us who
make records in a hurry are going to have the time to compare or may even hear any benefit
with.

The Big Issue

Maybe a person can hear the difference if put on the spot and allowed to put on their thinking
cap and concentration glasses. However, that doesn't mean the track sounds good. A
person hears a vocal recording. They immediately form an opinion. Maybe on a 1 to 10
scale, the vocal gets a 7. Then they listen to the two tracks with dramatically different
preamps (in terms of cost) and after three of four listens to each they make a slightly nervous
guess.

They've already decided that the vocal was a 7. If you had to ask them to re-rate the more
expensive one, I can't imagine they say anything more than 7.1 out of 10.

Q: I have a friend who insists on doing everything
in analog. Should I go this route?

A: The fact that your friend uses analog tells us a few things. #1 It says that your friend has
been doing this for a long time. If he is doing everything analog, it's fairly safe to assume he
has the experience and understanding to make great recordings. So I'd imagine that the
analog part has very, very little to do with his sound. It's his tremendous skill that makes his
recordings sound great. #2 If he is using all analog, he got into recording with a sizable
investment. This would illustrate his commitment to the craft.

95

There is no doubting that analog tape was the dominant force for recording classic albums for
several generations. With that said, I think it's easy to overlook just how dominant a force
computer based recording has become in 2000s. Different tastes will prefer different eras,
but just because a person may prefer music from a certain era does not mean their recording
method must be from that era as well.

While I'm not trying to change anyone's mind who insists on analog tape recording, it's
important to make sure you understand the benefits and limitations of either technology so
that you can form your own opinion and know exactly why you insist on one method or the
other.

There are many advantages of digital over analog.

• No purchase of analog tape
• No need to waste hours and hours aligning a tape machine before each session
• No worry about tape hiss.
• Most people who dealt with analog tape will tell you that the really good analog

recordings were done with the most high end of machines and a crappy analog tape is
not nearly as magical as may be implied.
• Purchasing all outboard gear for mixing is very expensive. For me to do what I do
during mixing with a $400 computer, Cubase, and $4,000k in plugins would cost
somewhere between $30,000-50,000 with hardware. Maybe more. Some argue that
the real stuff is marginally better than plugins. Maybe. However, human skill is 100x
more important, and that's the part I'm worried most about.
• With computer recording, you have the ability to save and recall a mix instantly. This
won't make a mix sound better, but it does allow you to make quick, slight, incremental
revisions that can dramatically improve a mix. If nothing else, you can work on a
different project without doing a total remix.
• Recording software allows you to work with VST instruments (synths and samples)
much easier.

96

• If you are listening to anything modern, the odds are very strong that it was done
digitally in some way.

I generally do not recommend anyone getting started to go the analog route. I can definitely
see situations where once an engineer is skilled enough, he may decide to try analog tape
out. He may even like it. At that point, the sky is the limit. Knock yourself out. However,
you've got to crawl before you can walk. You may need training wheels for this one. While
you are putting together a great sounding environment, it would be a good idea to start with
the least expensive quality tools available and work your way up. Any potential (and
debatable) benefits of analog tape are tossed out the window if any link in your recording
chain is broken, so approach this one when you get bored.

This analog vs. digital argument is pretty much dead these days. I consider it little more than
a distraction for a person wanting to record their music at home. Jump in with a digital
recording system and make a great recording. When you get bored and rich, you can try out
analog.

Q: Do I Need A Control Surface?

I never recommend a control surface in the very beginning. In fact, I've been recording for
nearly 7 years as of this writing and I still haven't been able to convince myself that a control
surface is worth the grand or so. I'm not even sure if it's worth anything to me. With that said,
it's hard for me to say, “You don't need this!” when I've never really used one. Then again, I
can say without hesitation, “I don't NEED a control surface! Why should you?” For me, it's
not that I take an anti-control surface point of view. It's more of an issue that I don't have a
grand to spend on a new mouse when I have so many important things to purchase that will
have a direct impact on the music.

What Is A Control Surface?

97

A control surface is a set of faders that resemble
an analog console, but actually control the mixer
inside the recording software within the computer.
Some people refer to a control surface as a
“glorified mouse”. There are some folks who feel
better with a set of faders in front of them than a
conventional computer mouse in their hand.

Control surfaces allow you to adjust faders, aux

Mackie Control Universal Pro sends, etc within your computer software from a

box that is supposed to look and feel like something you'd see in an old-school studio with an

analog console. There is something about the feel of real faders in your hands that I could

see being pleasing, and maybe even faster in the mixing process, particularly to a person

who hasn't replaced their right hand with a mouse (like I have considered). Some mixing

engineers probably consider mixing to be more fun on a console. There could be some real

benefit to having your hands on a fader, or 40, when setting levels.

However, I still don't see how the end result should be any different. Regardless of the fact
that playing with a metal thing that slides up and down might be fun. Who's to say that the
spinning of the wheel in the mouse is any different? Is there something inherently more
musical about sliding a metal thing versus spinning a plastic thing? Maybe. Maybe not. It's
rare that I don't use the wheel in the mouse to set my levels. In the end, I'm convinced that
the results would be similar in regard to setting volume faders, but who's to say? Maybe I'm
really missing out.

I think the differences in using a control surface and using a mouse come in the automation
side of things. When you automate things with a fader you get this natural, random, imperfect
organic thing that really only occurs from human interaction with a device. In many cases,
this is a performance within itself, and you can come up with interesting results that you would
never come up with by plotting dots with a mouse. This “organic” method of automating may
end up adding a little extra to the tune.

Then again, I'm not sure how much this theory really holds water. When I have an idea for an
echo for a vocal, I hear it in my head. I already know what I want. When I start drawing the

98

lines for the aux send to a delay, I'm going for something specific. I stop when I get it. Done.
Would it have mattered if I had used a control surface vs. a mouse? I'm not sure. However,
my ability to get what I want seems to be more dependent on how I set the delay or other
processing than the nature of the way I drew the line that sends signal to the processor.

A buddy of mine had his album mixed by a big producer dude in Nashville on an SSL. While
there were some things that were great about mixing on a real console, I thought the
automation process was kind of “clunky”. It just seemed like an outdated way of doing things.
I can't help but think if I was mixing on an SSL console, I would prefer to tap into the SSL's
computer and draw my automation in there as opposed to using the faders. I don't know.
This may be personal preference. I just didn't see any example where a “human”
performance in the automation department was particularly beneficial to the music.

Some people like to say that control surfaces use one side of the brain and the mouse uses
the other. These must be people who don't feel comfortable creating with a mouse. I'm of the
opinion that the computer has been used for a billion creative purposes and it really doesn't
matter if you spin a wheel on a mouse or turn a knob on a console. I can guarantee you that
the side of my brain I'm using when I mix is not the same side of my brain that writes PHP
code for web database applications or balances my checkbook. I feel that I am being
creative, and I don't feel like I'm clamped down by my mouse. I can do anything I want (within
the limits of my own skills and abilities). Then again, maybe I'm just a computer nerd and I
don't know what I'm missing.

The big thing that really interests me about the control surface is the ability to do things that
would take ages with a mouse. Pumping tracks up and down to the beat is a cool way to
create excitement in my tracks. (Note: I'm not talking about the “pumping” that describes the
sound of an overworked compressor.) There are probably other things that I just don't think
about that may be easier with faders. It's tough to say. Until I can think of these, I'm keeping
the subwoofer and big drum room as my top ways to blow my money. If you really like the
idea of using faders, knock yourself out. However, I can't help but think there may be a
weaker link in your chain than your mouse.

In the end, when I'm listening to a mix in the car, I never say “Awww! You can tell I drew the
automation with a mouse! Damn it!”

99

What do you think of USB microphones?

USB microphones can be a great way of getting into this recording thing on a very tight
budget. They do have their limitations, however, and these need to be noted. USB
microphones are often of higher quality than most expect when shelling out only a few
hundred bucks or less for a full blown recording setup. These mics are usually the equivalent
of the other $100 microphones on the market. Usually they are a bit bright and a bit fizzy
when compared to mics that cost thousands of dollars, but they are a dramatic improvement
over computer talkback microphones and the type of products you find in consumer
electronics stores. Most people are surprised by how good they sound.

The components in USB microphones are very inexpensive, but usually of better quality than
one would expect. The USB microphone manufacturers cut corners on features and options.

My biggest complaint with USB microphones is not the microphone. It's the audio interface /
soundcard they are replacing. The USB microphones really cut corners on the audio
interface. If you are simply recording a lecture like you would with a tape recorder, USB
microphones are fine. If what you do requires monitoring of some kind where you must hear
yourself in headphones, most USB microphones are dreadfully lacking. Some have no way
to get audio back to you at all and therefore rely on the stock soundcard to have low enough
latency to pull this off.

Another shortcoming of many USB microphones is the preamp. No, I'm not nagging about
the fidelity aspect necessarily. Make sure the preamp for your USB microphone does not use
some kind of auto-gain circuit like you find in most video cameras. Auto gain circuits detect
the level of incoming signal and boost it when it is quiet. You do not want this for anything
that requires actual fidelity.

While I don't want to get into specific models, I've have noticed that some USB microphone
models have solutions for monitoring, have real preamps with no auto-gain circuits, and are
fairly well thought out for music recording use. If these meet your needs, they are worth
looking at. You should definitely ask around first and don't assume the microphone has made

100