I got my 2nd Tannoy Gold 5. I do believe in the concept of "burning in" where a new piece of equipment needs time to play for a while before it settles down - whether or not it sounds "better" I don't intend to argue but they do change over time.

I understand why they sell pro monitors by the each but I wish they'd give you a small discount for buying a pair like most people - or at least ship them together maybe?

I haven't plugged them in yet, I've got to run some leads out and re-organise a few things to make space but I do want to hear them.

Currently it looks like we'll record on Monday. Good, I could use a few more days to prepare and tomorrow will be the hottest day this week, the basilica heats up much faster than it cools down too. Not that Monday is going to be much cooler (40C / 104F), I'd rather wait til that's over TBH ("All day I've faced, the burning waste, without the taste of water. Cool water" Gotta be the Burl Ives version)
I just saw a US news show about the cold and snow in the northwest, icy roads and cars trucks and buses slithering into everything and each other. Driving blizzards and people freezing where they stand - you go outside here then see that on TV and it might as well be another planet

EDIT they keep revising the forecasts upwards - tomorrow is going to be 43C / 109 F - oh come on! Sunday 42 then it cools all the way down to 41 for Monday, oh good what a relief (eyeroll). I really live in the wrong city.

m7cl

imo there is no point using the single 31-band geq vs the flex15 geq: why would you want to use just half as many processors? the theoretical advantage of having all 31 bands available at once is moot: no one needs to adjust more than 6-8 bands or else something is awfully wrong!

whether you prefer using peq's is a different discussion though: i prefer combining the busses' 4-band peq with the virtual rack's flex 15 geq: i'm using the peq's for correcting the loudspeaker's response (which i leave untouched once measured/dialled in) and the geq comes into play for problematic 'eq hot spots' which can arise from all different sorts issues - imo live sound (and broadcasting) is all about speed of use and this is where geq's shine/have their place - btw: i'm inserting geq's on podium mics and lavaliers by default...

and with the m7's limitations in terms of processing, i rather ditch an efx (or two) to get another pair (or two pairs) of flex15 geq's!

___


live gear vs studio gear

nothing wrong with Millennia, Grace, DOTEC, DAD etc. but imo it's a waste of money to buy additional über-expensive 'studio gear' when you could probably even borrow readily available standard 'live gear' - that also goes for speakers btw: i wouldn't have bought the tannoys but would have used a pair of frontfills...

bottom line is that you can use 'live gear' for location recording without restrictions or compromise while it simply isn't feasible the other way round. it's also mucho more difficult (if not impossible) to make any money back with occasional location recording...

...but my main critique is that with a bunch of mics, cables, preamps, converters, an interface and a pair of cans and speakers, you're not getting much control as you're still missing an integral component - which - at least for me - remains to be the desk!

with a mixing desk at the heart of your setup, you can switch back and forth between different scenarios (rehearsing, recording, studio and live mixing, broadcasting) and get a much better overview of the final result than if you just listen to the tracks you are recording.
ideally and with a bit - well - lots of experience, you have the final mix at the end of the concert and you're ready to move on to next project! the client's mostly don't mind either ;-)

this is the reason why i keep my two DM1000's alive: 96k if wanted (not that this really needed but that is yet another discussion...), surround ready (not that this is often wanted but invaluable for those few occasions), enough i/o's for most smallish/typical location recordings, option to use various remotely controlled preamps/converters, enough processing power to get a decent mix going, small enough to fit into the back of a car - and is much smaller than bespoke M7CL or any of my current Studer desks; i'm therefore temped to get the new Vista Bravo btw but then, the last thing i need is yet another desk! :-(

___


taste

can't argue with that, except that the result isn't 'more natural' when using less gear - i just call it lazy not to dig into various options: you cannot know what you're missing if you don't get to compare...

anyway, i've abandoned the minimal mic approach right at the start of my career: worth noting that at the time i was so young that i wasn't my decision and i wasn't really aware of what was going on: only in hindsight i could recognize that my mentors were looking into other/better ways to get the vision of the artists/band/ensemble/orchestra/conductor/producer across.

they were quite fearless in throwing old principles overboard and their success proved them right so it seems rather ironic that their legacy has been canonized, especially since it was their renegacy that set them apart and advanced not just them but our entire profession - i, for one, am heavily influenced by this spirit of optimism and do not want to let it dry up; i want to pass this spirit on to future generations...

I actually like the M7CL and I think it had one of the best UI's for a digital console of its time. Very intuitive, and for once things are not buried away many levels deep in menus. I thought the centre section was very good but the fact that all the CL consoles had such a close copy of it that you could learn on one and operate another was a breakthrough - to me the issue isn't how well any console is built or designed but having to learn it. Fine if you use it all the time but as a freelance I often have to operate different consoles. It's why I like the multiple targeted app Mixing Station - you can even save a mix on one console and load as many elements of it as possible on another *brand* of console, that's unique.

That M7CL is at a venue where I'm just a fill-in - someone else is the house engineer, I work there when he's not available.
I don't know how to alter the FX rack but I could find out. But is that something you can change for one show file, or is it done globally for the entire console? If so I wouldn't be the one to change it.

you're making smart use of the Mixing Station app! - i'm sure that you are aware of the fact that even if things look the same when transferring settings from one brand to another, they won't yield the same result/won't sound the same... - i alluded to Yamaha's strange filter design on many earlier occasions - of course that is also true for dynamic processing - ...but i assume this may be good enough as a starting point - personally, i'm still using an ancient ipad and Yamaha's own Stagemix app.

regarding different virtual rack settings: similar as on newer CL or Rivage desks (or any other desk for that matter), you can change and store all settings via different scenes so multiple operators can all use their own (default) settings on a per-scene basis. iirc you can store 300 scenes on the M7 so this should get you going for a while! additionally, you can of course store scenes on an usb drive - be careful to load only scenes though and not clear the entire desk...!

Ohhh, THAT'S what happened - someone did manage to wipe all the stored scenes once, I had no idea how but it was a pain. I had several settings of my own, I'd carefully tuned the mains and monitors for different scenarios (band, acoustic guitar soloist, duos...) but more importantly the venue had paid me to store different settings for their own use. Naturally the manager and staff don't know or want to know all about operating a console, but they wanted to be able to run it for the functions in that room. They rent it out for dinners, art classes etc and they had these brunch drag shows with just a single mic and backing track, so rather than get an engineer in they had me store presets. Great, until they all got wiped...

That's the venue where I was having a hard time tuning the monitors for certain shows, high gain acoustic stuff where the singer wants to work some inches off the mic, and I bought DPA 2028's in the end for shows like that. So far they've been excellent

Quote:

Fine by me, I've been posting about cabling anyway so it's topical to that.

Quote:

i wanna ask bernie if he's okay with that - after all, it's a bit off-topic and better belongs in the live sound forum...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirjuxtable ➡️

Could you elaborate a little more on this?

Quote:

the exceptions to the rule are of course festivals/live events, specifically in case bands don't bring their own cabling: correctly repatching signals from various subsnakes between bands is one of the most important tasks! - strangely enough, many younger techs no longer seem to be familiar with this process anymore and end up doing weird crosspatches between subsnakes, rather than getting things right in the patch/splitter world...?!

alright then...

i assume you are familiar with the concept of the 'festival patch'*? for me, there is zero reason why not to stick to it - anytime/anywhere! and personally, i don't get why folks use all different channel orders** for various bands (but then, we all have different taste).

anyway, in live sound (and when broadcasting), you absolutely must get things up and running fast - and reliably/correctly: you don't get a second chance! if you mess up a patch, foh, monitor world, recording and broadcasting simply cannot work and you'll quickly get behind schedule...

...which may have terrible consequences on live broadcast of large shows where advertisers book advertising slots for insane amounts of money or simply for logistical reasons on festivals where truck space/manpower is limited and all resources need to get allocated in the right spot at the right time.

___


the way i proceed is this: submulticores (mostly using lk 37's) go to the patchbay inputs, the patchbay outputs (on xlr's) go to the split input (passive or active), the split outputs (on lk150's, harting and whatnot with xlr fan outs) go to the stageboxes of the various departments (foh, monitors, broadcast).

on a festival, you assign one person to do nothing else than patching the outputs from the various subsnakes to the correct inputs of the splitter so that all department get the channels in the exact same order - the idea is that if someone is having an issue (say: "i'm not getting any signal on 27"), you can easily track it down and don't have to guess who's getting which signal on what channel...?!

the same person is in charge when patching signals for bands which carry their own stage sub-multicores and for bands which are using the festival's gear (provided by a rental company), the latter of which probably gets used for the majority of band which don't carry their own stage cabling.

each department then may then use their preferred channel layout on their desk which imo would be by far the most easy, most reliable and fastet way to proceed! - of course you need to advance this information and have a capable stage manager who is prepared to enforce even unpopular decisions...

however, the sad reality today is that unexperienced folks can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that what may work well for them when travelling on their own mostly doesn't work (fast enough) when interfacing with larger setups on festivals - the result is that you have separate people doing the patching for each department which imo is not only a misallocation of resources but leaves you in the limbo if something goes wrong: who's in charge then? how quickly can someone fix things without derailing the rest of the production?

___


even though i personally may use a 'weird' layout based to my personal taste when touring with a band for a long time, i adapt my setup for festivals so if get struck down by a lightening or hurt/killed in a car accident, someone else can walk up to my desk and take over without getting lost deep down in the submenues of the desk - and the signals will show up in the channels and in an order that most anyone else is going to expect.

my channel order has been (more or less) the same for decades: for rock/blues/americana, it's: drums, percussion, basses, guitars, keys, horns, vocals, efx...
...and or for classical: 1st violins, 2nd violins, violas, celli, basses, woodwinds, brass, percussion, soloists, etc.


[i admit that since i have been using very capable desks (which i can configure to have quasi endless amounts of inputs, subgroups, stems, auxes, masters, matrices), my desks' structure has expanded:
for instance, on a very large drum kit or a percussion orchestra, i can have a shell group, a metall group, a crunch group etc. without running out of subgroups - or with an orchestra, i can have dca's of close, section, mains, ambis in addition to dca's of the various sections. and of course subgroups and dca's can get assigned to completely different (or mostly similar) groups/sections of instruments!]

___


* for those not familiar with the term: a festival patch essentially means that based on the riders of all bands performing on the same stage on a festival (or at least on the same day), you define a maximum patch/input list that covers all inputs of all bands; on smaller bands, you then just mute/leave the unused channels alone - pretty neat, innit?

** there was a reason in terms of using a specific track order on some tracks back in the analog days/with tape but we're now definitely off-topic...

I tend to agree but sometimes it's hard to know what is appropriate for a given piece of music. A symphony orchestra performing Beethoven is something that I would want to sound like you're in the actual audience in the actual room. But what about the same orchestra playing a film score?  Do you want it to sound realistic or do you want it to sound the way it did in the movie with sectional miking? And what about the same orchestra playing video game music? The original music in Mario Brothers was very much in your face because that's all that you could do with the 8-bit technology at the time. If you have an orchestra playing that same music, what should it sound like? I'm not really sure and I have been doing a lot of video game orchestras recently which has made me think about that a lot.
--scott

Price should be around 300 USD, if going by the current European prices (€273 ex. VAT).

A lot of things don't change... but speakers change a bit as the surround and spider soften up with the first few days of use. You can leave "Best Of Studio One" playing for a couple of days turned up loud enough that the woofers get some heavy movement. Or at least until "Natty Kung Fu" drives you out of your mind and you need to run away.
--scott

That's what it used to be, but no longer, probably due to cost of shipping for what I imagine is a pretty niche market item. I don't think they keep them in stock in the US they order them direct from Germany.

Wellll, large topic... I over-simplified though, I meant in regards to the regular work I'm doing, not "classical" (I'm just using that as shorthand for many types of music). Truth be told I spend most of my working life mixing covers, either in straight out cover bands, tributes or concept acts. I'll save some time and just say I try to do it in period-correct fashion, so it sounds and feels something like the release did at the time it came out, or at least reminds us of it. Or maybe I'd even try to replicate the big concerts for the acts I'm mixing covers of.

But what you're describing is a different world of music. There has to be some distinction between orchestral music in its own right and for film, theatre, TV etc, I guess I'd call that a "dramatic" application.
For that dramatic type we absolutely do want to emphasise certain parts at certain times, maybe for cues in a movie when the villain or monster suddenly leaps out in front of us, or to make us cry along with the tragic hero at a suitably wrenching moment, or whatever. As opposed to a concert performance where the only drama is in the playing; it might have as much dynamics but it's being used differently, it's not the backing to a visual experience but its own experience alone.

I would think that the production still has to reflect the application - as the dripping alien brain monster slops out of the petri dish we want a sudden, screeching emotive leap to distract us from the cheesiness of the visuals- we're meant to be shocked and petrified, the horror!! - so long as the suspension of disbelief holds (and we need all the help we can get Mr. film score composer). But for the annual endowment committee's command performance of the archangel choir we want a natural experience, without enhancement of anything the conductor didn't wave at. It should be as close as possible to the experience of being there. Rousing John Williams-style opening themes are entirely different, we're emotionally invested in a story and the visuals, not just in the playing. So we want excitement and drama, fidelity and breathing in the first chair's very sweat off his brow during the solo are secondary and an enhancement, rather than the whole experience.
I know I don't need to tell you, I mean I get what you're telling me.

I think you've identified exactly when and why we'd approach the production differently for the same orchestra - the video game requires sections we can automate to play at different times with dynamics reflecting the action, and the film score is there to enhance the visuals. Whereas the concert performance is best experienced with your eyes shut - the music is the entire experience. There are going to be "expert listeners" at that performers who know every note of the piece and won't appreciate surprises. In those other dramatic applications sometimes we need the maximum musical impact *without noticing it* as possible - no concert is like that.

So you might very well mic up completely differently for those applications, it's not all in the post-production. The reason I just used a pair of room mics for my first church recording was to get closer to the sound we might experience in that space. But we might expect a completely different balance and dynamic experience in the score for an action film, and different again for a tear-jerker. Therefore we really might need sectional miking and even individual spot mics.

What I posted about period-correct production I meant for "bands"; fitting the production to the music to within maybe 10 years or so. I guess that applies to what you're talking about too, whether it's a Decca tree or main pair and outriggers, as opposed to sectional miking for later post production in an editing suite. I would love to know enough about that type of production to make good decisions about it too

I've got til at least Monday and I'm just finishing up a couple of TRS to M.XLR's for those speakers now - I just noticed, the first one they sent me didn't include even an IEC lead, the cheapskates... I thought I'd leave them playing while I go to work, and connect the TV to them while I'm home. I guess it wouldn't really matter that much for a pair of location recording monitors if they change over time, so long as they give me what I need to help me with the mic placement on the day

On a festival stage I'd run "sub-trunks" to the drums, stage left and stage right for guitars/bass/keys/etc, and front of stage for vocals, instrument DI's/mics/more. And they run back to a main stage box somewhere.
As you say it's got to be quick to set up but I would say if it's quick that means it's organised - I want no doubt as to which socket I connect which source to, on which sub-box.

I'd also think about how many connections there are between a mic and its pre-amp or converter input; not because I'm worried about noise but because I want to know that each connection is reliable and won't crackle, drop out or go bang when I switch phantom on/off.

More to post but it's really late, I'll finish tomorrow. I don't see anything off-hand I disagree with though

Production totally fits the music and the feel they're going for in this big Australian hit of the 80's (and this singer I will be seeing at a gig on the weekend)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1meVbrbXGfs

I mean, if you listened to the piano, bass or any other part in isolation you'd think, wow, weird tone, but this mix really works. Someone shaped all those sources to work together expertly. This was 1981 and in its day this was fresh as anything

now (most if not all of) all the above i find "interesting" - as it is diametrically opposed to my experience:

i can accept that this kind of school/tradition exists (and that there's even a market for it) but in my world/for my own work, i consider this way of thinking ('period-correct' gear and practice/'genre-typical' sound etc.) to be total garbage!

literally NONE of the seminal artists/bands i've ever had the privilege of working with in four decades have ever insisted on repeating things in the exact same way as they did in earlier decades - on the contrary: without exception, they all wanted to use the latest and greatest gear, the newest technical possibilities and the modern production styles or then they didn't bother at all as long as you didn't get in their way with any technical stuff - regardless of genre...


___


i do however think that one should create different mixes and masters for different playback situations (which is why i put so much importance to cover all the different needs already at the recording stage), but even with that i seem to have strayed far from the standard industry procedure, which to a large extent still adheres to the credo that a master should be equally suitable for all playback situations - even though what used to be called 'hi-fi systems' in bourgeois circles has long since disappeared from most living rooms...

___


i draw no further conclusions from this, except that it illustrates that we do live in VERY different worlds (and that the times they are a-changin')...

We do live and work differently. A big influence on my "period correct" theory is that I mix a lot of tribute bands, who really want to sound as close to the old releases as possible. That said, for the bands playing covers of many artists, they DON'T want to just slavishly recreate the same old same old, especially for the standards that so many other cover acts play, they want to refresh the sound and I do use a contemporary approach to a lot of it. Eg Whitney Houston, some of those songs have been absolutely flogged to death and the last thing we need is yet another corny old reverb on the same old snare sound. The kids on the dance floor mostly weren't even born when those songs came out (and honestly I have to wonder why it's even in the setlist). Then there are others that are such classics we don't want to spoil them. Yet others are modern enough that they still fit right in with the new releases.

I don't just do the retro and period correct thing, even with old songs. The bands might have to make a judgement about whether they want to update the songs, inc. the arrangements, even the lyrics ("ooh I wanna dance with some bastard... I wanna feel the heat with some putz. Ooh I wanna dance with some bastard, with some bugger what luvs me..." Oh the passion!)

I do like to do it with new equipment, mostly, but I also pride myself in not being restricted. I think the best way to operate a large analogue desk is different (obviously) to operating a modern digital desk. The equipment has to have had some influence on the music itself - pre-digital analogue consoles could have mute and flying fader automation linked to timecode. That was potentially powerful in itself, and for its time, but it meant certain limitations, and that influenced the arrangements. You could store fades and so on, but mostly it was a matter of switching between scenes - nowadays you can automate any parameter, PEQ centre freq, send levels, reverb parameters, just to pick a few at random.

I have absolutely no objection to using modern features in a digital console to mix new versions of established songs. Doing it like the old days is a special application, but sometimes that's exactly what the show requires, and I happen to pride myself in it. Obviously some techniques are more practical than others but I also like being the only one who can pull it off - one group wanted a single mic on a mic stand out in the audience, and the 4 of them stood around it singing harmonies. The usual thing would be to just give all four of them a mic each, but this is what they wanted. They originally worked with a touring engineer who suggested it and got it working for them, and they included it in their shows. Then they went to Australia (from NZ) and that engineer couldn't travel with them, and they had a lot of trouble trying to use this technique because most local engineers either didn't want to try it, or simply couldn't do it well enough (or one because of the other). When they got to Perth and I was the local engineer, at least we had time to sound check and rehearse it and got it set up with enough GBF, and they were able to include it in the show again. The audience loved it. But if the room had too many problems or for other reasons, in another application I might decide we'll just do it conventionally with a bunch of 58's.

The Sons Of The Pioneers formed in the early 30's and you can see films of the whole group in front of a single RCA ribbon mic. That group is still going (new members of course) but now they sing into modern equipment with more modern techniques. They might use the single mic technique for a broadcast, but not on stage over a PA. You adjust the production to suit the application, naturally.

Again, I know you know all this inside out, I just want to post some examples.
Because the venue where I work every week still has an analogue console I use a mixing style that suits the equipment. No automation, just hands-on manual control. And I actually enjoy it, it can be like playing an instrument, but it also imposes certain limitations. One song calls for a telephone-like sound on the vocals so I would like to be able to simply switch scenes or switch EQ/FX in and out (I haven't set up a MIDI footswitch to the old outboard FX unit and I don't think I'll bother, I never actually did this before in my life anyway). Instead I just grab the mid EQ gain knob and haul it left and right for different lines of the song. Primitive, but it works. And it's NOT period-correct becuase that's a modern song and would use automation; I haven't got that at that venue. But I still want a period-appropriate sound.

However we get there with whatever techniques is all part of what makes one engineer different from another. Some bands think I'm great and always ask for me, some don't agree with my whole technical approach and use someone else, and I don't have a problem with that. I also don't want to see the whole industry descend into uniform, no-variety operation, with no innovation and no fresh ideas. Good live engineers have to be like musicians in many ways, they have to interpret the music, the application, the technical resources/equipment and make a judgement as to how to get a *musical* result out of it. It's not just "let's get the maximum DR and lowest S/N ratio at all costs", this is music, not just technical optimisation

Another gig diary entry.

Last night I had the same group as last wednesday. These bands often change members at short notice and it caught me out this time. Last week their female lead singer suited an RE520 really well. I'd started her off on a DPA 2028 and it wasn't as good, she really benefited from the presence boost in the EV so I switched mics after the first set. Then last night they had a different singer with a heck of a lot of presence in her voice already, it's almost nasal, and the RE520 was a little much. But it was what I had. I could have probably given her an M88 instead but I was committed by then.

Last night I had 3 mics I couldn't use becuase of my own forgetfulness. I brought a Beta 98AD/C for snare or ride, but forgot the special mini-XLR cable. I brought the mounting and fittings for an ND46 on rack tom because I like the sound I get with that mounting at that distance and angle, but forgot the mic itself! 3rd, I had a condenser I wanted to use for overheads but forgot its clip - multi-dammit!! I live in fear of early onset dementia.

I started with a Beyer M160 on guitar but I didn't like the tone. He uses some overdrive and whatever and usually this mic works well on those sounds, but I couldn't make it sound good. I changed it for an M88TG after the first set and it made all the difference. I can't really understand why it should have changed it that much as both are hypercardioid dynamics by Beyer - the M88TG has a different FR to the M160 but I was unable to simply EQ the ribbon mic sound into shape. I think the problem was I had the mic too close to the grille, it needs space to work. But the M88TG at the same distance sounded 100% better. They really are a terrific instrument mic.

I also use M88TG's or M88's with the keyboard player as she has the wedge to her side and I find a hypercardioid works best. But I kept getting bad harshness in the 2.5 to 4kHz region, and she asked for enough level that it was feeding back up there too. Later, listening in headphones I realised the problem - there's a large glass wall behind the drums and the drum sound was reflecting off that and bouncing straight into her mic. I noticed all this loud cymbal and snare sound from somewhere even though I had no overhead, then I found it was in that backing vocal mic. It was too late to move her keys and wedge and turn her 90 degrees but we'll set up that way next time.
All I could think of was to use a different mic. I had another RE520 with me so I swapped out the M88 (non-TG 2023 model, which is actually a little brighter in the HMF/presence region anyway) for the EV, and it shouldn't have made much difference but it did.

I think the problem was really the M88TG's off-axis response. The cymbals and snare reflections were at some angle off the mic's axis, and for all the good points of M88's their off-axis response isn't one of them, at least not for distant sounds with a lot of HF in them. It sounded rough as hell to be honest, and caused nothing but problems. RE520's OTOH have no problem with harshness off-axis or with more distant sounds, that's exactly why I bought them to use as choir mics. So it was probably picking up as much reflection but it didn't seem to stand out. Plus I could lower the gain a little and she could still work with it at that level.
ANother mistake was turning up her keys as loud as SHE wanted, not to the volume *I* recommended with the band - truth is she's the least experience member of that band and has learned a lot and worked hard to get up to speed in a short time, to play with experienced full-time professional players. But she still lacks certain experience and made the classic keys player mistake of too much volume. That meant the mic had to have a lot of gain and stage level, and that led to feedback and a distorted wedge monitor. So I not only changed her mic but turned it down.

Last week because of their other female lead I swore to always keep at least one spare RE520 in my mic kit for all gigs. This time I used them and wished I had something else, for such an edgy, bright, nasal female voice I needed something smoother, namely the DPA. Those mics have proven themselves already to be genuine problem solvers. They're not always the ideal, but they can really get you out of trouble too.
Of course, a digital console with fully parametric filters on the monitor sends and the FOH vocal channels could have corrected either mic to the application, either taking the edge off the RE520, or adding the required presence to a DPA 2028. IMO the latter is easier and better - I use cut-only EQ on monitor sends but find it easier to boost presence on a mic.

Even if I'd had digital EQ available, for me (and my personal style and habits) the lesson is to have some options available. My all-round mic kit should include at least an RE520 or two, and a DPA 2028, so I have options for vocals. If in doubt I will grudgingly admit a 58 is still the safest fall-back.

Other points in summary - I think M88's and M88TG's have limitations as vocal mics but so long as the singer and stage suit them they can be terrific on vocals about 75% of the time. But as instrument mics it's much closer to 100%. I will definitely use them on guitar more often. I've been using Beyer M160's only on guitar amp, from now on I'll give myself another option.
I no longer use e906's by choice. I own 2, and I'm going to sell them. The venues all have them for guitar and I'll use them then if I'm not bringing my own mics, but otherwise, no thanks.
M201TG is just as versatile a snare mic, ie it works on as many snares and playing styles, as an SM57, but you have to vary the technique. IMO it needs to be higher above the skin - a 57 goes about 1" above, M201's should be 3 or 4" higher, maybe even more. LOVE that mic on snare!
e904 on rack tom I still think is only average, but so long as they don't mind a modern clear sound I'm happy enough with them on rack toms. THey need to be down close to the skin and aimed nearly straight down, whereas with my own rack tom mics (ND46, Beta 98AD/C) I have them higher and aimed between the rim and centre.
Austrian Audio OD-5 is still my go-to floor tom mic. Great depth and body, clear LMF's. This is a great general-purpose cardioid instrument mic too.

I still really need to try an OD-5 as a kick drum mic. It's got the LF extension and SPL handling, but no self-EQ / in-built tone shaping. WHich is good! I like "flat" mics and prefer to do my own EQ. I usually use a TGD70 and I do like it on kick a lot, but I wish it didn't have this self-EQ so I could do it myself. It's an M88TG capsule in a cheaper housing and with a hypercardioid pattern that is almost bi-directional / figure-8 as the rear lobe is almost as large and broad as the front, however this might be to reduce the sound from internal reflections inside the shell. It has LF boost and LMF cut, plus I think a slight HMF boost. All of which you could easily do yourself on an M88 / M88TG, but they cost 2x as much now

Re. the sounds of certain eras, and whether or not we want to recreate them.

Here is an example of a great drum sound from the early 90's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ptL6Xc4f_M

I love it *except* for the snare reverb. During the chorus it's mostly obscured, so I guess it's there mostly to add content in a certain range, but the reverb tail is long enough to hear it long after the dry snare sound. I don't like it much, for starters I would have turned the treble right down on the reverb, and/or shortened it so much we don't hear that tail very much. Longer reverbs can work well on toms, esp. a deep floor tom sound, but I think it's a corny cliche on snare.

So if I were mixing a tribute band for this group I'd deliberately recreate that late 80's / early 90's exaggerated snare reverb. But if it were a band playing their own new material and maybe one or two covers of songs just because they love them, and included this one, there's no way I would use the same treatment on the snare reverb. I'd modernise it somehow.

For the rest of the 90's the drum sound changed and IMO that defined the fashion for rock drum sounds now. This recording has quite a "roomy" drum sound, to me it sounds like the kick and snare might be close miked but the rest of it sounds like a combination of overheads and a smaller amount of room mics.
The Grunge movement used quite a natural drum sound - sometimes there were close miked toms for effect but as a rule they moved to a quite realistic drum sound. The fully close-miked, very dry drums sound always seemed like a 70's thing to me; for a while the fashion was for a super dead and flattened sound - eg some of those 70's Stevie Wonder albums used it, as did many disco hits.

For live music of course you base the drums sound on close miking but I try to use overheads too, even in relatively small rooms that normally wouldn't suit it. But it only works with the right overhead mics when the rest of the backline is so close. I've had excellent results using X-Y stereo miking with MK-102's, then I tried something else and it didn't work out. Strangely the cardioid X-Y pair sounded more focused on the drums with less spill from the rest of the stage than when I used hypercardioids instead (shrug) no idea why. But I probably had them too high above the drums too

Speaking of analogue multicores and other cables, I'm selling more than I expected. I bought a 100m roll of nice 4ch Canare star quad, I wanted at least 4x 15m looms out of that and ideally more too. I sold 4x 10m but now people want to order more, so I'm going to have to get another reel. That's fine because it'll make a profit in the end but first I have to cough up nearly a grand for the reel. Plus more for connectors, heat shrink tube, sleeving for the ends, refills for the hot glue gun... and for the label maker, and for Velcro cable ties, and travel time to go pick it all up... welcome to manufacturing business!

I made cables for stereo keyboards from 2-way cable with 2 straight and 2 right angle 1/4" TS plugs, good Neutrik black/gold ones. I make them for myself and take them to work but the keyboard players always ask me "where did you get that cable?" They always sell well and they generate referrals too. Someone wants 2x 20' ones, I've only made them long enough to reach a DI on the floor until now. But this customer wants to run them across the room to his recording interface, straight into the line inputs.
IMO this is a good way to connect keyboards - line outputs should connect to line inputs if possible, without a DI and not entering the mic preamps. He doesn't know if his keyboards have balanced (TRS) outputs or not.

Any money I make on these cables will go towards my next SDC's for recordings. I'm aiming for something high end, DPA, Schoeps or Sennheiser MKH-series. In the last couple of months the profits and labour on cables have probably let me save up about 20 to 25% of a good pair of Schoeps SDC's

I hooked up those Tannoy Gold 5's, so far they're great though lacking bottom end, of course. Which is fine for what I'll be using them for.
But I realised I'm probably going to need a monitor controller, something with a volume control and the ability to switch between 2 or 3 outputs

I need to make so many cables I'm starting to run out of time to do them all, on top of work

Anyone been watching the price of Bitcoin? I bought some on the 15th of Jan, if I'd waited a few more days I'd have made 33% on that by now. As it is I've *only* made 23%...

It's those crazy kids using those weird big fortepianos on Bach fugues again. Just wait, next up are going to be those fiddles with vibrato....
--scott

That would be a nice diecast box with some unbalanced connectors on the back, a DPDT switch and a dual 10K log pot. Get a switch with gold contacts designed for low level signals and a pot that at least mentions tracking accuracy on the data sheet. If you want to go balanced all the way through the price of the switch doubles and the price of the pot goes up by a factor of 20 (because 4-gang pots that track well are not common items) but for unbalanced this is a thing you can build yourself with parts from Radio Spares.
--scott

Those Tannoys will be right in front of you, so a passive monitor controller will be just fine. The TC Electronic Level Pilot is a cheap and cheerful dual balanced pot with XLR I/O that won't slide around on your desk. That's what I use on location.

Sounds fine to me, I'd be more than happy with a little box like that. I had no idea about that grade of pot though, might be hard to track down never mind the price.
It's not so much for the recording monitors, later on once I find out what's what I'm going to want some decent mixing speakers and I'll want to be able to switch between some options. I don't want to get rid of my existing stuff but I'll need to use something more appropriate for audio projects

Thanks for the tip, I probably wouldn't have thought of doing my own. A box like that isn't difficult to put together and I've got the tools and stuff - my problem is more having a place to work but I've always found a way

What a cute thing! That would do just fine for a single pair recording on location. It doesn't switch sources but with a switch box like Scott described that would be a good way to add a volume control to the output
Thanks, I've seen plenty in stock locally nice and cheap too

i remain true to my approach and recommend NOT buying any additional gear that you can't use live and in the studio...

...and that's why i recommend one of the better interfaces from RME, not only because of their excellent sound quality, exceptional driver stability, many years of support and low latency, but also because they now also have so-called 'Room EQ' and a crossfeed matrix.

or you could get the Radial MC-3 - or then follow Scott's or David's instructions!

I had in mind going a little more up market, something like this maybe:
https://www.thomann.de/intl/heritage_audio_baby_ram.htm
Simple, just two ins and two outs, should be enough. Rather than ganged pots it has trimmed fixed volumes on a 24-position switch.
There are bigger better options but this would be fine for me

For unbalanced stereo it is easy and inexpensive:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/320816794159
--scott

That Heritage unit is pretty cost effective for something with stepped gain control. I think the Radial Engineering unit Didier mentioned has been replaced by a new one, just announced at NAMM: the Nuance Select. I'm sure it's rugged as heck but, at that price, I'd probably go with one of the SPL monitor controllers, depending on which features you care about.

I thought tomorrow's gig was just baby sitting for the visiting touring engineer with a duo but I'll be setting up and mixing the support act too, a local duo who are old friends of mine.
This is the venue with the M7CL, and it's also the place that made me decide to get a couple of better vocals mics - I eventually settled on DPA 2028's but I also got e965's, which I've yet to spend much time with at that venue. I might see if I can get there early to have a play with them.
They'll have 2 acoustic guitars so I'll take PZ-DI's. The house kit has some decent passive and active DI's custom made for the PA company, but I'd rather use mine.
This will be perfect to try the DPAs vs the e965s, it's a quiet show with singers who tend to work off the mics a few inches and require high gain. No IEM's. So I'd like to spend some time testing and tuning the sends for the show.

This is also the venue I set up my free-standing RTA for - a Zoom recorder as a USB interface to an Android tablet running the Spectroid RTA app, which I've been impressed with so far. I've also installed the Sound Analyzer App David recommended, since it can display a 1/3-octave RTA. The weak link is my cheap Superlux Pink Stick noise generator but Spectroid can also generate noise in software, and the tablet can transmit it by Bluetooth to my little receiver which I can then route to the monitors. It'll work.