YouTube and "compression" revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZEN Amps
  • Start date Start date
Thanks man, hard to make that riff sound bad!

I'm also interested to hear opinions on this type of recording. Is this blend of a close mic and a little bit of room a good compromise for online clips? The debate has been raised a number of times about studio miking vs room recordings, with passionate supporters of both.

I just can't get into the room only thing, so curious if this is the best way forward as we're currently putting together some YouTube content.
My opinion is close mic only or room mic only are the compromises. Both combined (with emphasis on the close mic) is the best representation of speaker detail and cabinet knock/thump. Anyway the clip sounds excellent.
 
What did you mic it with?
SM57 / E906 blend, about 50/50. Good combo for quad boxes, seems to work most of the time.

You may not notice if you're on small speakers or headphones but the clips are meatier in the low end than average. My preference is to capture the thickness and later HPF to taste. For bottom end you can cut what's there, you can't boost what's not. They're also a little darker than what would be required in a dense mix but for isolated clips I don't think searing high end is necessary - and highs can be boosted easily later depending on usage.

And for the huge reveal we've all been waiting for, B is the original.... although I'm convinced they're near identical enough for human ears. I can't tell them apart even when quickly switching between them.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why I care about this so much, but I've added some new ramblings to post #1 to re-open the conversation.

Maybe it's because 90% of what's discussed on this forum is subjective. This is not, unless you're an audiophile I suppose. It's soulless tech talk that doesn't really affect or influence tone. Yet here I am talking about it again - perhaps I need to get out more.
 
Back
Top