Chickenthief
76 posts
Feb 20, 2011
12:05 PM
|
If you own an audio recorder or have used anything like that before please inform me.
I'll probably be looking at getting one of those portable recorders the like of which Zoom and Tascam make but I have zero experience with audio recording. Is there a big difference in the audio quality that you get when you spend say 6 or 800 U.S. versus lets say, a Zoom H2? OR, are you just paying for more features?
I could use a reliable device that would for the most part faithfully record the tone and subtle inflections of a solo harmonica or a harmonica being played over a backing track. I need something that could be used and adjusted for acoustic and amped harp.
Again, without going for total perfection, and not having unlimited funds to throw at the thing, how much would you spend if you wanted to be able to get a decent recording that captures the tone and detail in a well played harp? I might be ready to pay extra for better audio quality but not if I can just get 99% of the same audio in a recorder that's 500 dollars cheaper.
I would also be interested in a more wide ranging discussion on this topic that does not neccesarily answer my specific question: what are your experiences with this kind of equipment?
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2011 12:07 PM
|
Matzen
20 posts
Feb 20, 2011
12:22 PM
|
I been using a Zoom H2 for quite sometime with great results. If you are using it to record yourself, the H2 would be more than sufficient. I've used it to record live blues, jazz and celtic concerts.
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2011 12:25 PM
|
waltertore
1097 posts
Feb 20, 2011
12:34 PM
|
Everyone will have an opinion on what sounds acceptable. You can spend a lot of money and time going the asking others route. I would first define what sound quality you want via an example that you like. Find out how it was recorded and evaluate from there how much time and money you want to invest. I started with a mini disc and early zoom model. Both did a great job in some peoples opinions and not good enough in others. Next I went to reel to reel and then dat, then adat. I settled on the computer. The reel to reel was great but tape is real expensive and I had no interest in learning how to maintain it (a must unless you are loaded). The computer offers the most bang for your buck seeing you already have one. The upside of the zoom/minidisc route is it is fairly simple to use and pretty much fool proof. The downside is the sound is what it is. If that is ok for you, then you got a winner. The computer route takes you on more of a traditional recording approach. It will involve preamps, eqs, compressors, mic placements, etc. Mics that sound great on someonelse may not sound good on you. The same with preamps, eqs, mic placements. There is a ton of trial and error in this approach. This is much more an art and takes years to get decent on (I have found out!). I would reccomend anyone going this route buy high quality gear. That way if it doesn't sound right for you it can be sold close to what you paid. Cheap stuff like the zoom/mini disc, cheap preamps, mics, you end up giving away. Good luck and if I can be of any help ask. Walter
PS: One last thing. In the hands of a talented engineer most anything will sound good as a final product and conversely cheap through great gear will not sound very good in an unskilled persons hands. Look at as learning another instrument. It will take decades to really get good at it.
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,600+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2011 12:41 PM
|
5F6H
540 posts
Feb 20, 2011
2:16 PM
|
Another vote for the Zoom H2
|
nacoran
3835 posts
Feb 20, 2011
2:28 PM
|
I've actually got some pretty decent sound recordings with my camera. It's not studio quality, but it's good enough so you can enjoy the recording. Like the others said, a lot depends on the quality level you are shooting for.
----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
|
Aussiesucker
763 posts
Feb 20, 2011
2:32 PM
|
And yet another thumbs up for the Zoom H2. Great little recorder. I download into Audacity and do the editing and add effects & then convert to MP3 using Lame. Audacity & Lame are both free downloads.
|
Jim Rumbaugh
414 posts
Feb 20, 2011
6:14 PM
|
I have heard and seen many good things about the Zoom H2 that was mentioned above. The portablity and the sound quality are great.
I use a laptop, and feed 2 mics into it via a Tascam us-122. I am trying to record our club jams, and need 2 mics spread out.
So what do you plan to record?? One person performing acoustic is different than a band spread out.
----------
intermediate level (+) player per the Adam Gussow Scale, Started playing 2001
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2011 6:14 PM
|
Aussiesucker
765 posts
Feb 20, 2011
6:56 PM
|
Jim > the H2Zoom has 4 mics 2 front & 2 rear ie left & right. You can adjust mic sensitivity from low, med to high gain. You can set the mic pattern to suit what is being recorded ie front 90 for solo instrument or vocals, rear 120 for sterio recording widely with a room audience and, surround in either 2 or 4 channel for band practice ie it then picks up sound front & rear.
I have not had mine long enough to give a full evaluation on all aspects of recording. It is however a quantum leap forward over my old Sony tape recorder which I purchased ca 5 years ago and paid a lot more for.
|
sorin
251 posts
Feb 20, 2011
8:38 PM
|
Chicken the question is : do you intend to use it at home or on the road?
----------
Free video harp tabs and backing tracks
|
Chickenthief
77 posts
Feb 20, 2011
9:54 PM
|
The zoom seems to fit the needs of a lot of different people.
@Walter: Your advise on the computer route sounds like something that I'd better look into. I think that I'm just going to back off for now and wait until I have a chance to learn more about it before I buy anything.
I'm thinking that the zoom might at least be enough to meet my most simple needs and yet if It were possible to not get in over my head pricewise I wouldn't mind being able to make a recording that would sound average/ok on my home stereo.
I ran a friends audio recording (that he had recorded with his video cam) through my stereo awhile back and my stereo seemed to pick out every flaw and shortcoming in the recording and magnify it. Of course we weren't expecting much different. When I played the same tape through a cheaper setup (a boom box) the impression was that it sounded better that way.
I have seen about the same thing happen when i went to upgrade an amplifier and a pair of speakers without replacing an older inexpensive turntable. What was an average sounding turntable now sounds less than mediocre. The sound is thin and shallow.
Buying anything that would approach home studio recording quality would most likely bust my budget right now. I'll probably have to settle for much less. Still it would be nice to be able to make the kind of recordings that would get along with Hi Fi if it were possible to get in at under a grand.
@Jim: "So what do you plan to record??"
Ans.- Ideally I would want to be flexible. Ranging from band practice, to solo harp.
Jim, give me an idea of what your recordings would sound like on Hi Fi please. I know that we are just dealing with opinions and subjective perceptions as Walter pointed out above but I would be interested in what you think of the results that you are getting.
@Sorin: "Do you intend to use it at home or on the road?"
Ans.- Mostly at home, maybe use it over at a friends house ever once and a while.
Last Edited by on Feb 21, 2011 4:38 PM
|
waltertore
1101 posts
Feb 21, 2011
5:47 AM
|
Chickenthief: The zoom is a good entry level product. Don't expect it to sound like a real studio recording. It will give you a much better audio than the video camera. You can sync the zoom recording up with the video. It is a time consuming hassle IMO but worth the results if you want to put out a better sounding video. If the bug hits you it will guide you to the computer. The recording thing is a bottomless pit. there is always better gear to be had. It makes custom harps, mics, amps, look like penny candy. Good luck! Walter
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,600+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
|
toddlgreene
2617 posts
Feb 21, 2011
5:59 AM
|
Yet another kudos for the Zoom products! I have an H2, and owe thanks to several here who recommended the Zoom line-Tooka, HarpNinja, and others whose names elude me now.
Another plus, and one I will be implementing soon, is the ability to use the Zoom as an external mic with any video camera that has an audio input jack, thereby bypassing the crappy built-in mics that most come with.
Walter knows his stuff about the computer recording biz, and I'm sure he could offer tons of wisdom based on his own trial and errors with assorted mics and equipment. I am interested in home studio recording, but portability means more to me at this juncture of my life...plus the fact there is NO quiet in my household-loud wife(God bless her)and three very curious, very vocal and very LOUD kids.
----------
Todd, the conservatively liberal moderate of the moderators
Eudora and Deep Soul
Last Edited by on Feb 21, 2011 6:11 AM
|
waltertore
1102 posts
Feb 21, 2011
6:20 AM
|
Todd: You can get great live recordings if you are willing to spend enough. Good preamps and mics are the key. The high end portable recorders have the preamps (and sometimes the mic) built in. Here is a link to a ton of portable recorders. Walter
http://www.sweetwater.com/c1006--Portable_Recorders
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,600+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Feb 21, 2011 6:23 AM
|
sorin
252 posts
Feb 21, 2011
9:10 AM
|
Chickenthief , so you can have some references , here's how a cheap $135 home setup sounds like : Sample .
This setup consists of Mxl 990 mic and This preamp , all this goes straight into the computer .
This all concept can be extended and turn into a portable solution if you have a laptop and go along this route:you can replace the preamp with This this way you have more inputs , add 2 decent mics and you have a cheap and decent recording device . At band rehearsal you can place 2 mics at different positions in the room , and when you get home you can mix the results or select the one that you like . The down side is that is not as portable as the Zoom solution but it's more versatile .
----------
Free video harp tabs and backing tracks
|
Chickenthief
81 posts
Feb 21, 2011
9:42 AM
|
@ Walter, Todd: Appreciate it. Yeah I'm thinking that I'll just slow down and find out more before I take a chance on something that I don't understand.
Sounds like it could come down to choosing between a decent economical recorder with good portability versus a more elaborate system that would answer to more needs in the long run. I'll just be careful and wait until I know more. "A Fool and his Money" could rightly serve as the title for entire chapters of my past.
|
Joe_L
1089 posts
Feb 21, 2011
11:43 AM
|
+1 on the Zoom H2. For a while, I was using it to record everything. It makes some decent recordings. If you get a Zoom, placement and settings are very important.
----------
The Blues Photo Gallery
|
Chickenthief
82 posts
Feb 21, 2011
12:52 PM
|
@Sorin: I do have a laptop and that Yamaha Audiogram looks like it would be a lot of fun to try out. It looks like owning a Macbook means that I already have a major component that could be used for a somewhat more elaborate system. Which is what I think Walter was saying too.
I'm thinking that something like that might be the way to go, but I can see where a more portable system would also be a good thing to have too. In a rowdy bar type of situation, for taping a jam, that one piece device would be the thing.
Your sample - it sounds like you are getting your moneys worth or more out of that 135 dollar set up. Right now I only have a pair of add on laptop speakers to hear it with, but I could hear detail in your recording. I downloaded it to my computer so that when I get back home in a week or two I will be able to listen to it on some better speakers.
|
earlounge
291 posts
Feb 21, 2011
1:32 PM
|
You should look at a computer system if you want to:
record multiple instruments
multi track (overdub) instruments
use it for song writing
manipulate the audio
sync audio to video
You should look at a Zoom H2 if you want to record:
your self just to listen back
live gigs
audio for video sync
I use Protools with a Macbook Pro, and I have numerous mics and preamps. I can record a full band live up to 16 tracks simultaneously. Obviously I am bias and suggest getting protools if you get a computer. M-box is a great starter system.
Even though I have all this stuff, I still purchased a Zoom H2 to do field recording. It is small, portable and battery powered. It can record with the 2 attached mics (which sound great) or you can plug 2 mics in the back. It will record two stereo tracks simultaneously (4 tracks). It can do limited multi tracking, and technically can be a computer interface (it comes with Cubase software).
The zoom is great, but it is what it is. If you want to ever expand then I suggest a computer system. Questions?
Good luck!
----------
|
toddlgreene
2622 posts
Feb 21, 2011
1:50 PM
|
Good breakdown, earlounge. My thoughts exactly. The Zoom, and Edirols, etc. are GREAT for portability, and for a single-purchase, they're tough to beat, but cheap home studios are fairly easy to make. I was in a band that recorded an album on cubase, and it came out pretty darn good.
----------
Todd
my moderator username is Admin007
Eudora and Deep Soul
|
garry
30 posts
Feb 21, 2011
3:22 PM
|
another vote for the zoom h2, which is a terrific little device. i think for the most part digital electronics are at the point that most anything will faithfully record what you feed it. the issue then is, how good are the mics? i find the builtin mics on the zoom are fine for my purposes. but if/when i have a situation where i don't feel they're up to it, i can alway plug in better ones. thus far i haven't felt the need.
|
Jim Rumbaugh
418 posts
Feb 21, 2011
7:16 PM
|
@Chicken
Per your request, here's a compilation recording of one of our best players.
I use $15 Nady microphones. The MXL 990 mentioned above is much better (in some cases). I put one mic in front of the bass player, with the drummer to the right and the guitar to the left. I take a line out from the PA that is fed by 3 Nady mics. Everyone take turns playing through the mics.
I edit it and compress it with Audacity.
Nady Mics and laptop
Here's a recording done by Charlie Bowen with a ZOOM at his Wednesday night jam. About 5 to 10 of us sit around his dining room table and play. He sets the ZOOM about head high in the middle of the circle. You'll hear me do a brief Happy Birthday.
ZOOM recording of acoustic jam.
Last Edited by on Feb 21, 2011 7:24 PM
|
Chickenthief
83 posts
Feb 21, 2011
8:42 PM
|
Thanks Jim. Who's the harp player?
The quality of the recording sounds impressive with what I have to listen to it. Even through my chintzy computer speakers I can hear depth and detail. I better listen on some better speakers when i get back home. Theres some beautiful harp playing going on in there.
|
Jim Rumbaugh
420 posts
Feb 22, 2011
5:40 AM
|
The "laptop recording" is of Allan Hatten. He's a local boy that spent the 90's in Nashville. He's back home now and occasionally shows up at the club mettings. He won 1st place in our state competition.
----------
intermediate level (+) player per the Adam Gussow Scale, Started playing 2001
Last Edited by on Feb 22, 2011 5:41 AM
|
acerimusdux
7 posts
Feb 24, 2011
9:48 AM
|
Some of this can get confusing due to the number of options available. But you mostly need to understand that the key parts to your digital recording chain are going to be:
Microphone => Pre Amp => A/D converter => computer/digital media
A device like a Zoom H2 has this all in one. You can't beat it for a handheld all in one recorder, if that's all you want.
If you want more quality, you need to pay attention to the whole chain. For example, a quality dynamic microphone, like a Shure SM57, will often be disappointing when plugged into lower end mixers and multitrackers, because it needs a better pre-amp.
For your purposes, you aren't recording a full band, you don't need 8 channels, 24 tracks, etc. I think Sorin has the right idea above, showing how you can get one good channel, with a decent mic and pre-amp, for under $140.
I'm going to upgrade on that a bit and suggest two good channels:
$099 Shure SM57 dynamic mike
$122 Audio-Technica AT2041 2 mic package (AT2020 & AT 2021)
$135 M-Audio DMP3 2 channel pre-amp
$199 Echo AudioFire2 FireWire Audio Interface (assuming you have a firewire port?)
=====
$555
Even after adding stand and cables, you are under your $600 target there, and that's with:
1 classic dynamic microphone
1 good quality large diaphram condenser (LDC) microphone
1 good quality small diaphram condenser (SDC) microphone
2 channels of one of the best bang for the buck pre-amps
An audio interface with one of the best A/D converters for the price
Recording/mixing software for your laptop that comes with the interface
You really can't get much better quality than this without spending a lot more money. Aside from possibly wanting more channels, someone seriously into home recording would maybe be looking at adding things like an outboard EQ or compressor before feeling a need to upgrade any of this.
|
waltertore
1119 posts
Feb 24, 2011
10:07 AM
|
acerimusdux: I would stay away from that preamp and look at getting a used RNP by FMR. These are great for the price at giving a clear reprodution of the sound. It is hard to find a better sounding preamp in that price range or any up to the $600+ per channel ones. Walter
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,600+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
|
nacoran
3846 posts
Feb 24, 2011
10:19 AM
|
I use Audacity with a Yeti USB microphone. The Yeti isn't really portable, but USB microphones seem to be improving pretty quickly and make getting sound into your computer a snap.
----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
|
earlounge
293 posts
Feb 24, 2011
12:17 PM
|
If you are in the price range of an RNP and a A/D converter, then you should consider the Apogee Duet. It has Pro preamps and the A/D converters are considered some of the best at this level. This unit with the break away cable is super high end but portable option for the laptop musician. Check to see if it works with your audio program.
----------
|
Chickenthief
84 posts
Feb 24, 2011
12:51 PM
|
Thanks all.
That gives me something to chew on and I'll be for sure taking a closer look at all that soon. Just from taking a cursory peek at the current equipment I'm amazed at the facility and range of possibilities now made available in the area of budget recording. It brings to mind 6 or 7 other ideas in which those kind of tools might be used to help me learn. With that kind of gear It looks like it shouldn't be too hard to create ok sounding Cds. I'm old and backward, so it's all still amazing to me.
All of this finding out process tends to eat into my practice time so that
after learning a bit more, I'll probably just have to take a calculated chance and jump into it. Probably have to make a mistake or two. I like the way that the computer route sounds though. "More bang for the buck" is good.
|
Aussiesucker
768 posts
Feb 24, 2011
3:13 PM
|
If I just want to record myself playing I only use the H2Zoom when I'm away otherwise I go direct into my computer. I use a USB mic a Somic V5 (ca $20) and record direct to Windows Recorder.I can have backing tracks playing on my computer going in as well. I add echo in Windows Recorder (no control but seems a good fit) then save and open in Audacity to edit and play around with other effects. Then I convert to MP3.Primitive but cheap. This is one done exactly this way:-
http://www.box.net/shared/klyi9l7v87
|
acerimusdux
8 posts
Feb 28, 2011
8:26 AM
|
@earlounge
Yes, the Apogee Duet looks like a good choice for an Apple user. That might well be a good choice for Chickenthief. Nice pre, nice converters, nice simple easy to use design.
@Walter
Yes, the FNR RNP (really nice preamp) seems to be the next step up. But getting out of my price range (for now). Even used, I think that unit goes for near $400.
If I were going to spend though, I think I might be tempted first by the RNC (really nice compressor), which is under $200.
But even without getting into that stuff, the fidelity of sound reproduction you can get for very little money today is pretty impressive. Even very "cheap" A/D converters today are doing decent CD quality sound (16 bit 44.1kHz). And there are microphones for under $100 with very flat frequency response, and very low noise. And even many of the cheaper preamps are OK as long as you don't need to push them to near their maximum gain.
But from there, yes, upgrading the preamp probably does as much (or more) as upgrading the microphones. That seems to be the costliest link in the chain though; it doesn't seem many people really love anything there at less than about $200 per channel.
|
waltertore
1131 posts
Feb 28, 2011
8:37 AM
|
acerimusdux: I keep a close eye on craiglist. Eventually some cool stuff comes up cheap. My ears are saying the RNP is the lowest quality I want to use and hope to upgrade soon. I have 2 RNC and to be honest they are ok, but I get can get pretty nice transparent compression using the universal audio plugin compressors (LA2A and 1176). The universal audio plugins are really great. I use a bunch of them on my recordings.
I have 1 universal audio 610 and 1 vintage altec lansing preamps. They sound so much nicer than the RNP when put side by side. I got the 610 on craiglist for $300. the guy bought it new and couldn't figure it out. He claimed it was all distorting. I use the UA on the vocals/harp and the altec on the snare drum. The hardest part of the puzzle is finding the right mic/preamp combo for your sound. I use a michael joly modified oktava MK219 into the 610. Michael is a good friend and he suggested this mic for combining the harp and vocal on the same mic. I have a beyerdynamic M500 ribbon mic that sounds great on the vocals but not the harp. I have 2- akg c414 mics. They sound great on harp but boxy on the vocals when recording both at the same time. The c414's work great on my ride cymbal and guitar amp. I bought both of them off a guy in the ghetto in Oakland via craigslist. I had to drive about 15 blocks into no mans land. I paid 400 for both of them. He said nobody would come to his place. I proceeded very carefully, scoping out the place a good while before parking my car and brought my dogs and a friend in my pocket. I would not do that stuff anymore. Too dangerous. One can get as deep as one wants with recording. My goal is to someday produce my music to the point that I am totally satified with the sound. No where near there yet, but the journey sure is a blast! I have learned all the instruments I need to be self contained and this is the final piece of the puzzle. Walter
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,600+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2011 9:34 AM
|
garry
33 posts
Mar 01, 2011
4:57 PM
|
the last thing i'd want to bring to a bar is my laptop. too big, too expensive, too fragile, too important. i'll stick with my h2.
|
acerimusdux
9 posts
Mar 01, 2011
5:28 PM
|
@Walter
"One can get as deep as one wants with recording. My goal is to someday produce my music to the point that I am totally satified with the sound. No where near there yet, but the journey sure is a blast! I have learned all the instruments I need to be self contained and this is the final piece of the puzzle. Walter"
Yeah, I can appreciate that. On the other hand, I'm at a stage where I'm almost certainly better off focusing more of my efforts on the learning the instruments (and music) part of it.
Kind of surprised not much mention has been made of the lower end multitrackers in this thread. Maybe a step up from the Zoom H2, less portable but more functional for home recording, would be the Zoom R16, which I see now on Amazon for only $350.
The thing that impresses me, that almost no one else seems to be doing, is that it functions both as a stand alone recorder and as an audio interface and controller for a DAW. I'm amazed that there aren't more devices that do this. The better interfaces already have pretty good converters, why not add a recorder and be able to write to removable media? For a portable USB or firewire type device, that ability to function as a stand alone recorder if needed makes a huge difference in functionality. The only other one I see with something similar is the Roland Cakewalk V-Studio 100.
My only doubts with the Zoom R16:
1. The preamps seem to be underpowered for dynamic mics, should be fine with decent budget condensors. But with 8 pre-amps on a device at that price, you can't expect too much.
2. Initially I was concerned that it records only at 44.1khz, but it can still do 24-bit/96 kHZ when acting as an interface to a DAW (which I think is more than enough).
3. My main problem with these devices is I'm mainly a linux user, and they aren't supported there.
So my alternative was to go with a low cost ($90 UA-4fx) USB interface that I know is supported in linux, with some good input/output options, a low cost mixer ($99 Soundcraft notepad) with two pretty decent pre-amps, and then I can always send output from one or the other to a Zoom H1 if I want to record at 24-bit 96kHz. For microphones, I'm starting with an AT 2035, which is very similar to the AT 3035 (which it replaced).
So while I might have preferred the convenience of an all in one type device, it seems I'm getting a bit more flexibility this way.
|
waltertore
1134 posts
Mar 02, 2011
8:50 AM
|
acerimusdux: I can understand what you said about concentrating more on the playing. It must be confusing to newer players today. There are so many directions to go in. Back when I was starting off recording consisted of a $20 portable panasonic cassette recorder/player.
here it is
We had no choices in harps really. It was hohner or nothing. There was no holy grail of tone via multitudes of customized amps/mic manufacturers. The amp/mic combo scene was pretty basic- you got an amp and a mic that worked and you were rolling. If you got popular or were independently loaded you bought a fender amp and a bullet mic. Today the choices can easily lead one to get sidetracked I imagine. I feel very lucky to have come up when I did. Many of the blues greats were still around, they were accessible, and there were so many gigs to play that one really had no time to tinker with so many things that today are so popular in the music scene. Walter
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,600+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Mar 02, 2011 10:26 AM
|
acerimusdux
10 posts
Mar 03, 2011
7:46 AM
|
Well, I suppose the modern equivalent of that $20 Panasonic, after several decades of inflation, is something like the Zoom H1 or H2. Not a bad place to start.
There are lots more expensive options, sure. But there were some then too. They say the Beatles recorded Sgt. Pepper on a 4 track, but it was an expensive top of the line 4-track (and they really had two of them which they bounced tracks between). Now I guess everyone with a computer can try to be the Beatles.
Thing is, if you are going to get into multitracking, mixing and mastering, it does seem the best place to do all that today is on the computer (as you were saying with the compressor software plugins). If you do that stuff analog, you need to get it right the first time; might as well just get clean tracks down, and then do your effects, processing, mixing, mastering with the computer.
But, what makes sense for me as far as workflow is still to be able to record those initial tracks first without having a computer to mess with. From there, it's not difficult to transfer files to the computer later on.
|
waltertore
1139 posts
Mar 03, 2011
9:56 AM
|
acerimusdux: Back then there were killer tape recorders. The problem besides the cost of them was the tape the chain of - board and hardware that was needed to mix it all down and record it right. The studio then was a real studio. I wish I knew then what I know now. I would be qualified to be more involved in the whole process. Luckily my ears remembered alot. Also you needed to send your mastered tape to the record pressing factory. Then you needed to be hooked into a distribution company. All this was stuff was pretty much controlled by the record labels. Very few people had a decent home studio other than guys like willie nelson and they had it for convience. Making a great recording back then meant you, your family and friends, would hear it.
The computer is the easiest way to go today. If you want to record without a computer before mixing the old tape deck, adat, dat, will do it but the maintaince on the tape deck and the high cost of tape makes it not very practical unless one is really obsessed with the analog tape sound. The adat and dat never sounded tape like to me. They were more digital sounding. I am getting closer to a tape sound with using old preamps and the vintage plugins. Universal audio just came out with a studer tape recorder plug in. I think sooner than later it will be hard to tell a pro digital from a pro analog recording. Digital is clean. My good friend Mark Rubinstien is a highly sought after engineer. His specialty is making the digital recordings sound analogue. He has done it on Cher, Natile Cole, and others of this caliber recordings. Mark and I played together a lot in Austin and he was recently hired to run the recording engineering program at Ohio state university. He is only 1/2 hour away and has come by a couple times to help me out. He gives my stuff a good listen and then offers little bits of advice. He leaves it to me to solve the puzzle. I like to learn this way. It all is in the ears. Analog is also noisey as heck compared to digital. All that noise adds to the warmth everyone is after. Walter
----------
walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year.
" life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
2,600+ of my songs
continuous streaming - 200 most current songs
my videos
Last Edited by on Mar 03, 2011 10:05 AM
|
