Newbie question about sample production

[speakFathom]

I'm thinking about producing samples for distribution by recording strange and quirky sound sources: household items, broken instruments, toys, random audio events, that kind of thing. I am going for high quality and well produced 'lo-fi' sounds, if you know what I mean: clean, pristine, and WAF!

I'm all set on the computer hardware and software front. What is the minimum audio gear I would need to make the kinds of recordings I'm after? Specific makes/models would be great.

I know this is old hat to most of you, but it's sort of new to me, and I appreciate the help!

[thecontrolcentre]

a good microphone and (ASIO) audio interface are the basics ...

[Shabdahbriah]

I'm all set on the computer hardware and software front.

Assuming this means you have an audio interface to your computer, that has a microphone input. And since most of what you mentioned wanting to record, doesn't necessitate 'field-trips'.. the answer to this:

What is the minimum audio gear I would need to make the kinds of recordings I'm after? Specific makes/models would be great.

For many expressed use-cases... a simple Piezo Contact Microphone:

Piezo Contact Microphone Pickup.png

https://www.amazon.com/TraderPlus-Conta ... 0aWM&psc=1

Otherwise, a flexible, inexpensive, and more than halfway decent microphone:

Shure SM57 Dynamic Instrument Microphone.png

And the appropriate cables to attach them to your interface, obviously.

[speakFathom]

Thanks! I have Shure M57 and Audio Technica ATM31 mics, both unused for years, stored well, will they need refurbishment? I also have the portable Zoom H4N, are its mics good enough for high-quality samples? Thanks!

[Shabdahbriah]

Thanks! I have Shure M57 and Audio Technica ATM31 mics, both unused for years, stored well, will they need refurbishment?

"Stored well" implies (to me) that they were wrapped/boxed in some manner that protected from things known to be harmful like excessive humidity/moisture and/or dust, rodent pee, etc. So unless they somehow got severely corroded there should be no "need".

I also have the portable Zoom H4N, are its mics good enough for high-quality samples? Thanks!

I'm a Tascam user/fanboy from way way back, but I know and know of, a whole lot of people who have made sample libraries with the H4N. Go for it.

[elxsound]

Thanks! I have Shure M57 and Audio Technica ATM31 mics, both unused for years, stored well, will they need refurbishment? I also have the portable Zoom H4N, are its mics good enough for high-quality samples? Thanks!

It depends on the noise floor, which was very high on my Zoom H4.

I think they improved the H4N, but the quiet stuff will need a boost in post, so you might need some noise removal.

I've used RX, but I hear the RX Elements works fine. I believe there are cheap to free options, too, but I'm not familiar with those.

Later, you might want to consider adding a shotgun mic. They can be very useful, especially for noise rejection.

[speakFathom]

Thanks, Shabdahbriah and elxsound, for your help!

[speakFathom]

Random questions about producing a sample set, thanks in advance for guidance!

1. Am I right that most people who use samples want them to be relatively free of intrusive fx like n-tap delay and reverb? Should samples be relatively raw so that users can add nuances as they wish?

2. Should all rhythm samples, even 'free groove loops' that do not conform to a BPM/meter, be given a BPM in their name? For example, let's say I have a free groove loop that happens to be 2.19 seconds long. Should I put 110 (or 109.589) in its name even if I paid no attention to the BPM when I played it?

3. Should all samples in a set be normalized to the same peak dB value? What value? Should different types of samples be normalized to different peak dB values? For example, background atmospheric samples to -12 dB, punch beats to 0 dB.

I guess what I'm getting at is: What makes a good sample set (besides good sounds)? Likewise, what ruins a sample set?

[enroe]

1: Yes absolutely!

2: Only if the sample has a strong rhythm, i.e. can only be used in the context of a certain speed, then the BPM number should be included in the name.

3: With individual samples it doesn't really matter. With multisamples, the playing feel should be homogeneous. It is not the peak value that is important, but rather the perceived volume level.

[speakFathom]

Thanks for the response. I'm so used to hearing electronic music all dolled up with snazzy fx that presenting samples dry(ish) is kind of daunting, especially if the samples are rich gooey atmospheric. Makes sense that the BPM is only really needed when it's needed (for a rhythmically gridded passage). I assume you mean use RMS instead of peak? What RMS value should I aim for?

[speakFathom]

Is there any KVR member out there who would be willing to help me out by having a listen to a small test set of samples and letting me know what you find to be their strengths and weaknesses, technically and musically?

[JeffLearman]

Thanks! I have Shure M57 and Audio Technica ATM31 mics, both unused for years, stored well, will they need refurbishment? I also have the portable Zoom H4N, are its mics good enough for high-quality samples? Thanks!

I had some SM57's that I got used that were built in the 60's, never stored carefully, though not dropped on cement too many times. They still worked great 50 years later. I had some inexpensive AT mics I got new in the 70's that still worked just great 40 years later, with no special care.

The mic capsules on the Zoom are the same kind they use in sound pressure meters, so the response is relatively flat, but also relatively unimpressive. That is, they don't tend to be used for high quality recordings. In particular, transient response isn't great. But, given that you're going for SFZ stuff, it's definitely worth a try, and with some careful EQ and compression you might find you like the results. Also, with good mic placement, you'll get a good stereo image from the Zoom. (I use a Tascam DR40 which is, for this purpose, essentially identical to the Zoom. I use it to record rehearsals & gigs. The results don't sound nearly as good as recording off the mixer plus a couple ambient mics, but that's a lot more work. Admittedly a very different application than yours, but it gives me a good idea of the pros and cons of those capsules.)

Record something with the Zoom and then with the the other mics, and compare the results.

As I usually say regarding recording gear: use what you have first, learn what works and what doesn't. Then try some more expensive stuff and see what you learn!

You'll also need an audio interface. The inexpensive PreSonus ones are really quite good. In my experience, the biggest difference between audio interfaces is not the converters, but the mic preamps, and even the Behringers have some decent ones. When I had to replace my gear, I got the Focusrite Scarlett converters due to their mic preamps. But you can improve mic preamps later: Studio Projects makes a terrific mic preamp (VTB1) that you can add to any audio converter, so you can go cheap on the converter to start with. Used, $130 each (you'd need two for stereo), and this is the kind of thing I'd feel fine buying used. The SP VTB1 made my SM57's sound quite a lot better, with a higher signal when recording things like acoustic guitar. But for FX types of things, I doubt it's necessary. For your purposes I'd go with PreSonus.

[speakFathom]

Thanks for the help.