| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2003 : 13:16:56
|
| I want to start recording music with my band but I don't know anything about recording. I don't even know what the track things mean (I'm guessing it's how many different tracks of music you can do at the same time or something like that). Anyways is there any website or something that explains all this and also, what is a good recorder that I can buy for under about $500 that can record guitar, bass, vocals (preferably at least 2 different vocals), and drums (not a machine, but actual drums) at the same time(if one that cheap exists). My parents have a mixing board that I can use but I don't know how that works or anything. If there is not one that can do all that for under $500 than just the cheapest one available. |
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2003 : 19:40:44
|
download a program like "cooledit pro 2" from kazaa. buy 2 shure SM-57 microphones (like 79$ a piece). get 2 or 3 XLR cables for the mics. install and learn how to use cooledit pro, which is basically a recording program that takes place of a hardware recording device. probably a lot easier to start on ,and defintily a lot cheaper. youll get the hang of multitracking pretty quickly with a program like that. plug mics into mixer. from the out of the mixer go to the line input of your computer soundcard. youll need a quarter inch to 1/8th inch adapter most likely which you can buy from radioshack for 3 dollars. for mic placement and stuff go to www.homerecording.com or go to the messageboards of www.guitar.com or just search for mic placement online, or buy a book about it. other then that just play around with it a lot. but the solution i described above would cost you less than 200, and work just as well im sure.
-miked |
Edited by - mdisanto on 03/30/2003 19:41:06 |
 |
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2003 : 21:36:01
|
| Go to www.homerecording.com. That's all you need to know. For recording your band, starting out small, look at the Tascam Portastudios. They got a good cassette one (424MKIII) and there's also a Digital one if you swing that way...Home recording is a very very expensive hobby, trust me. It's a lot of fun though. I love my Tascam 688 (8 track cassette portastudio). The sound I get out of it is excellent...digital bullshit can suck my dick off. |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 03:45:12
|
hah digital owns anything else in the low budget world. if you have a ton of money to buy good analog stuff then fine, but digitall will suck your dick off for almost nothing.
-miked |
|
|
|
peter radiator
= Cult of Ray =
USA
653 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 05:18:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
I want to start recording music with my band but I don't know anything about recording. I don't even know what the track things mean (I'm guessing it's how many different tracks of music you can do at the same time or something like that). Anyways is there any website or something that explains all this and also, what is a good recorder that I can buy for under about $500 that can record guitar, bass, vocals (preferably at least 2 different vocals), and drums (not a machine, but actual drums) at the same time(if one that cheap exists).
The key here is "at the same time." The suggestions offered so far will be more suited to tracking only one or two instruments at once, which may be problematic for you if your group is inexperienced with that approach.
The more pricey analog cassette multi-trackers will usually allow for around 4 tracks at once which should be enough if you carefully pre-mix instruments like the drums to fit on one mono track. However, if you're gonna spend that much money, you really might as well get one of those Boss or Roland hard-drive recorders. You can get them used for pretty cheap these days.
It's true that analog is always preferrable, but when you're dealing with cheap, knockaround gear at the level you are, you're better off with the digital format, so you won't waste a bunch of money on blank tape, you can easily re-do mistakes, and you'll avoid the inherent problems of s/n ratio and tape hiss.
Plus, by opting for a standalone unit like the ones I've described, you won't have to invest in a bunch of memory for your computer, or have it all tied up while you're tracking stuff.
Just some ideas. By the way - the real question is what's the intended result? Rehearsal demos for your use or acquiring club gigs, decent-quality tracks worthy of MP3 downloads, or creating a finished and marketable CD on your own?
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder |
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 19:11:24
|
| We pretty much just want to record like demo stuff but with the whole band not just like guitar. I guess more of what I'm wondering is if I just got some cheap like 4 track cassette recorder, would it have the ability to record a whole band (once again I don't know anything about recording or I wouldn't be asking this). I know on one of my Sublime albums it says the whole thing was recorded on various 4 track recorders and it also says that the best recorder to get is a tascam 424(??i think that's the right number, I'll have to check). The only thing about this is it says that the drums were programmed on a machine, and I want real drums. What I don't understand is if I do 3 or 5 mics on the drums, is that a seperate track for each mic. If so, would that mean that I would have to get at least an 8-track recorder. Also if Frank Black uses 2-track then how would he do that with all the different instruments or do the tracks mean something completely different from what I'm thinking? Thanks for all the help so far and I'll look into that |
|
|
|
Little Black Francis
> Teenager of the Year <
3648 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2003 : 19:58:42
|
I got the TascamIII for like 400$ new. It's easy to use and it serves its purpose quite well for home recording basically for recreational purposes. If you are super-serious about recording, you might want to look into local studios. But it would probably be a good idea to practice recording your own shit on a 4 track or 8 track or whatever before you go into a studio. It's not complicated at all really. You should have it down in a day or two, and after that you will start to develop your own preferences. The new Tascams are basically the same thing that all albums were recorded on before digital's dick sucking experience began, so if you like the way some Zeppelin sounds on some vinyl, you should be plenty satisfied with a Tascam. And if you parents have a big mixing board, 8 to 16 or 32 tracks or whatever, you can record a bunch of shit onto one track. And you can always overlap. If you want to record live, you can get a decent condenser or cardiod mic for fairly cheap. And if worse comes to worse, there are some decent video cameras out there that record pretty fucking well, and can uploaded onto your computer and henceforth be fucked with by your digital dick sucking machine.
Just for the record, I have nothing against digital, I was just building on the dick joke that had already begun.
Obviously I'm not the expert, but that's how I have started, so from one Newb to another, that is my 2 cents.
"Snooch to the muthaf**kin Nooch" |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 15:15:00
|
Digital sucks. You can do all you need to do with ease with a Tascam 424MKIII. I had one but sold it and picked up a Tascam 688 off eBay with a flight case for around $675. It's an 8 track with a badass mixer (10 mic inputs, hi mid low EQ, meter bridge, lots of fun stuff...I love it, and it sounds great).
Something you need to know...Channels do not mean track. You can have 10 channels and 4 tracks. You route the channel to the proper track. For example, recording drums, you can set up 4 mics...one kick, one snare, two overheads, on channels 1 - 4. You then set them to record to track 1. To answer your question about FB&TC recording to two tracks, they have a reel-to-reel with two tracks on it, pretty much stereo left and right. They have a big old mixer with all the intruments mic'd and hooked up, and the engineer will pan the instruments left, right, or center depending on how they want the "stereo image" to be. This is a great setup for live recordings, but takes extra pre-recording effort, as you're gonna have to set all the EQs and panning before recording as opposed to after (most professional studios, analog at least, will have a 24 track reel to reel. the most common application is one instrument per track, so that once the recording is done, the engineer can tweak the sound of each individual instrument to get the desired effect.)
As LBF mentioned, if you get a good condenser, you can make some badass live recordings with that and a 4 track. With my old band, we did a couple of live recordings with a single condenser setup as a "room" mic, mostly picking up everything, and a mic for vocals. The sound was amazing. With four tracks for a live recording, I would say:
Track 1 = Vocals
Track 2 = Room Mic
Track 3 = Bass (preferably output from the amp, or mic the amp...room mic isn't enough for bass)
Track 4 = Whatever you want
Track 4, you could have a guitar amp mic'd...or if you have 2 amps, have 2 channels set to record to a single track. Hell, you can get another condenser and have 2 room mics...even better!
If you're interested, I can probably post a sample "live" recording to the FTP.
Oh, I should also mention that while the "pre-digital" recording equipment example by LBF is true, they used reel to reel and not cassette. Due to the width of the tape on the reel to reel, you get a more full range of frequency, more tape per signal...that equals a better sound. That's not to say you can get a really good sound out of a cassette tape. I'm confident to say that some of the recordings I've done on my 8 track cassette recorder (which has even LESS tape space per signal...look at how thin the cassette tape is...the 8 track has to fit 8 seperate tracks onto it) would blow you away.
(by the way, the mic I use as a room mic is a RODE NT1, which retails for like, $200. Any good condenser will be relatively expensive, which is why I say home recording is a very expensive hobby)
Analog 4 Life (although I do mix down to the computer) |
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 15:33:37
|
| OK so If I buy a Tascam portastudio 424mklll will it be able to do everything I want? |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 16:16:31
|
| No, it will not make your bed in the morning. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 18:53:06
|
| If everything you want = record your band live and/or multitrack, then yes. The 424MKIII is your lump of clay. It's up to you to master it and do everything you want with 4 tracks. |
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2003 : 19:32:11
|
I too highly recommend the Tascam 424MKIII 4-track cassette recorder, though I see nothing wrong with digital multitrackers (at least the ones with a hard drive and physical inputs to match the number of recording tracks).
So Jim, I've never tried the 688. Does eight tracks on 1/8" tape sound as good as four? |
|
|
|
Atheist4Catholics
= Cult of Ray =
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2003 : 12:56:49
|
Yeah, the Tascam 424 is nice, but I'd get a used Roland VS880 on Ebay instead. It has 8 tracks of digital and a shit load of decent onboard effects, automation, amp simulation, etc. The only thing that sucks about it are the mic pre's, but since you already have a console, I'd just use those pre's instead.
The SM57 is a safe bet for mics. I once heard a Ms Pigeon album that was recorded using one SM57 - even for the drums and bass and it sounded pretty good. If you want to spend a little more you could try an AudioTechnica 4033 (you'll need phantom power if you get a condenser microphone which the 424 does not have.) Stay away from Marshall Audio, CAD, and most of the Rode mics. If it's really cheap, it probably sucks.
If you have a decent computer already, look into a used DIGI 001 system (probably around $600 - $700) or MOTU system. New models come out all the time, so there's usually good deals to be found on the older stuff.
Basically, you can get by with four tracks, but the key to a professional sounding album (especially rock) is definition. The more tracks you can devote to drums, the better you can isolate each piece of the kit and find the best placement and frequency range for it. This gives your mix more clarity and makes room for the rest of the band. If your drums are all smooshed together and very roomy you have to thin everything else out to make it fit. This is fine if you're The White Stripes and only need room for one guitar and vocal, but otherwise it'll sound mushy.
If you're going to use a 4 track, the key is bouncing. Record Kick, Snare, and an overhead mic to tracks 1-3. Then set the input of track 4 to the outputs of tracks 1-3. Now you can mix your drums down to one track. This frees up 2 more tracks. Record bass next on track 3 and mix those down to track 1. Now you have mono drums and bass on track 1 and tracks 2-4 free for guitars and vocals.
If you have a DAT recorder or a decent computer audio input (M Audio makes good ones), you can record all 4 tracks, bounce it to DAT or computer and then play it back and record it to 1 or 2 tracks on your multitrack without losing very much fidelity. This is a great way to work and makes it easier to have stereo drums.
Anyway, I'm an audio engineer by trade and would be happy to help you out a bit if you want to email me. Basically, $500 is enough to record some demos, but not much more than that. Realistically, making a decent recording is an expensive endevour. There's a saying in the recording industry that holds true - "Fast, cheap, or good - pick two"
www.mp3.com/clootie |
Edited by - Atheist4Catholics on 04/02/2003 12:58:37 |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2003 : 14:26:50
|
| Chris, I have no technical way to prove it or anything, but it sounds just as good if not better to me. I don't know how they do it, but it still just sounds really good. I love the 688, it's so much fun to use. It's got a steeper learning curve due to the "weird" routing process (you route it digitally with this little lcd screen and such...it's weird, very confusing at first, but you get used to it). And I still hate digital. |
|
|
|
bandan
- FB Fan -
14 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 04:24:50
|
Pah! Tape! I use nothing but wax cylinders!
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2003 : 10:31:26
|
Not that I know anything about recording... in fact, I suppose I only know what NOT to do, but where you record also makes a difference, especially if you're going to try to record live. We do it in my garage (for now - not recording anything professional at the moment), which unfortunately has a lot of hard surfaces and you get echos and mush for sound. Also, we're mostly using vocal mics and, again, I know nothing about this, but I assume that the frequency response is for vocals and therefore the sound you get when recording drums with one mic like we have to is not great.
I like the idea of recording the drums with three or four mics separately, but then recording the rest isn't all that easy. We use a 424 (which does an admirable little job) and I'm not quite sure how you would record the rest even if you bounced the drums to track 1, unless you amped the output, but then you have the drums on the other tracks. Or, I guess, you could have the bassist or someone listen on headphones and play, but if the song is complex, well, it can be tough.
All said, recording is hard without the proper (read: $$) equipment and knowledge, but you will do well enough for a demo I think (especially if you have a computer and some software to do some mixing on). I especially liked Atheist4Catholics' quote "fast, cheap, or good - pick two", it's so very true.
Oh, one little piece of advice... if you're using whatever mics you can find kicking around, test them out to see which mic sounds best on which instrument - you'd be shocked how much the sound can improve. And plug the output of the keyboard amp directly into the 424 if you can. I don't know how well this would work for guitars (someone earlier said to record bass directly), especially w/distortion, but I'd be interested to know.
And if you can afford it, it's more expensive, but go with wax cylinders over the 424. :) Nah, the 424's a pretty nice little unit. |
|
|
|
Atheist4Catholics
= Cult of Ray =
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 19:59:34
|
Here's a cheap way to get cool reverb if you have enough tracks available:
Say you want a nice big snare reverb and all you have is a shitty Quadroverb (like me). Well, take a decent speaker and head on down to a church or rec center or concert hall if you got one and blast the snare from one track out of the speaker while recording the room onto another track. You might want to aim the mic away from the speaker to reduce dry snare bleed and phase problems. You can move the mic around and experiment with different placements. Using a stereo pair or stereo mic will make it even better.
www.mp3.com/clootie |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
