On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:52:18PM +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: > Sounds very good to me. I've heard pro studios do worse with much more > expensive equipment. I prefer the dry raw sound [2] here for the demo. Same here. I've heard *much* worse. > > If I would improve the quality of my recordings, where should I spend > > more money? > > I don't think you have to. Tweaking mic positions and adjusting the mix > will have greater impact in this stage. Agree. Experiment with mic positions. And the final result you can evaluate only in the context of a complete mix. > If you really really want to waste some cash: one can never have good > enough Mics and analog preamps :) but you'll have to go up an order of > magnitude on the price-list for it to make a significant difference - if > any. Very true. If a mic is OK, which means it doesn't distort and it has a clean polar pattern and frequency response, you can make it sound like any similar good one with a bit of EQ. Finding that bit of EQ may not be obvious. But that doesn't change the simple fact that there's a lot of myths about expensive mics and their subjective qualities, and that most of it is nonsense. > You're fine on the digital side. the Echo Layla has only 20 bits but > that's plenty here. Don't worry about this. Certainly not if you can get one for $50 ! > The weakest part of your setup are probably the KRK Rokit 5 monitors. Yep. -- FA A world of ext haustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
