Sep 03, 2003 02:10 am if your setup goes MIC100>414mkII>AP2496, you might as well just take the tascam unit out of the equation. perhaps get a compressor? maybe an EQ unit?
Next Purchase
Posted on Sep 02, 2003 10:58 pm
murray the k
Member Since: May 23, 2003
Need help wit my next audio purchase. I'm looking to spend around $200 - $300 on something to enhance my current setup or fill in the neccesary spots. I have my guitar, vocals, bass and keyboard/drums go into my Behringer MIC100 them into a Tascam 414mkII mixer than to my Audiophile 2496 and finally onto Cubase SX. I have a good amp, vocal condensor mic and drum sound form my keyboard midi. What should I get with that figure and is there anything lacking from the description I just laid out.
[ Back to Top ]
Sep 03, 2003 02:10 am if your setup goes MIC100>414mkII>AP2496, you might as well just take the tascam unit out of the equation. perhaps get a compressor? maybe an EQ unit?
Sep 03, 2003 07:14 am Yeah, or failing that, replace the Tascam with a decent mixer by Soundcarft / Behringer. Also, it would be a wise idea to replace any "cheap" cables with pro quality ones - you'll be glad you did in the long run.
jues.
Sep 03, 2003 10:43 am Getting rid of the Tascam has always been on my mind as I dont see how benefits my productions. So instead you think I should place a reverb or compressor unit. Should they be rack type units or will good pedals like a Holy Grail or Boss C3 work just as good? I also know I'm missing a good dynamic mic. Because Cubase has a mixer, does that defeat the purpose of the Tascam, as I thought it still had to go thru a mixer first? My music is an offshoot of mid 60's and early 70's pop/rock and I also record everything myself, so nothing is done simultaneously, so no more than two mixer inputs are used at once. Hope this helps a little more.
Sep 03, 2003 10:44 am I would get a rack unit myself...pedals, as a rule, are noisier. On top of that rack units are more convenient in most situations...but really, whatever works best for you is the right way to go.
Sep 03, 2003 12:56 pm I've been searching the net and I'm looking at the Behringer Composer and Behringer Ultra Pro PEQ2200, but I cant seem to find any rack reverb units for under $200.
Sep 03, 2003 02:07 pm I would recommend a compressor before effects box since you can do reverb, etc. with plug-ins, but compression is a bit different. It works best if you apply it before it goes into the computer. I have the Composer Pro and it is good. I use it mostly on vocals and it sounds really transparent (Something that's hard to get on a plug-in).
Sep 03, 2003 09:38 pm Cheap (but good) Reverb
Alesis Microverb
Alesis Nanoverb
Have a look for those, also be sure to check ebay - both of those sound damn good and are well under $200.
As for transparent plugin compression - hehehe, Try wait till you hear RComp Prop... :D
jues.
Sep 04, 2003 09:51 am Could I also do without the EQ as I have all the Waves plugins? I guess what I'm asking is, it's very expensive to put together a hobby studio, and I want to be able to do it as cost effective as possible. I'd like to know what I can use with a plugin and what needs to be outboard. I have Waves, Ultrafunk and all Cubase plug's. Reverb plugins and are far to cpu intensive, so a hardware reverb is inevitable. Thanks for all the replys so far, all are great suggestions and have given me more insight.
Sep 04, 2003 09:55 am Personally, I think yes, you could live with out it, you will have limited EQ on a mixer, and many people record flat, doing any EQing on the amp itself, then often the recording in the software.
Sep 04, 2003 02:48 pm I've never felt like reverb has sucked that much out of my CPU, personally (And I only have 256 mb of memory, 1.8 ghz CPU). I mean, I record over 20 tracks with reverb on half of them with no major problems, and keep in mind that if you have a slower computer you can always apply the actual plug-in effect to your track if it's overloading the CPU. Then you've got the same results as you would have had if you had used an outboard reverb, as it won't tax the CPU any more. Plus, you usually have the option to undo it if you go back far enough. It just seems so much less permanent to me, which I like. I don't personally see any reason for an outboard EQ, except if you like to hear yourself eq'd before you play back the track. It just seems to me that plug-ins can be much more versatile and the fact that they are non-destructive is a huge plus. Even if you have to apply them, you can still at least wait until all the tracks are done before you add it so that when you're mixing you don't discover you added too much or too little of it to a certain track.
Sep 04, 2003 02:53 pm It really depends on WHAT reverb plugin you use, some are worse than other, the really good sounding reverbs are generally pretty intensive, and the crappily programmed ones are as well (many freeware or shareware reverbs for example. Reverb is an effect that requires an enormous amount of calculation to produce, and therefore, by nature requires more than many plugins.
I would be curious to know which one you use that doesn't use a lot, it's either a very good pluggin, or a very lousy sounding one that doesn't use as much math to reproduce the incredible amounts of data that are needed for a quality reverb.
Sep 04, 2003 03:08 pm It's just the good ol' cakewalk reverb that comes with SONAR. Not the cakewalk FX reverb, I really generally don't like the sound of that (It looks cool, but that's all). I usually use something similar to the "concert" setting on vocals. Sounds good to me. I've used some freeware stuff which I've always thought sounded terrible.
Sep 04, 2003 03:10 pm Ah, I always use Waves Renaissance Reverb myself.
Sep 04, 2003 03:17 pm Eventually I hope to, as well :)
Sep 05, 2003 09:46 am Quote:
As for transparent plugin compression - hehehe, Try wait till you hear RComp
yo jues, what's "RComp"? -j
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.