The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
audio recording/editing at home
darleysam
On my way toUKRegistered User regular
On my way toUKRegistered User regular
this isn't directly for me, more so for other members in my family, but basically, my younger brother's really getting into his music (acoustic guitar and singing, for the most part), and we're wondering what the best way would be to go about recording things here at home, for a relatively low cost. We're not total novices, there's a bit of audio experience going around, and no-one's afraid to invest some time in learning any programs or equipment that it'd take. As it stands, though, we don't really know what would actually be required, necessary, or feasible. Any suggestions from people who do this kind of thing would be superb, cheers.
Also, i can give some more details if it'd be helpful (just say what you need to know)
edit: would this be better cross-posted in G&T?
Also, i can give some more details if it'd be helpful (just say what you need to know)
edit: would this be better cross-posted in G&T?
darleysam on
0
Posts
If you've never really done audio work on a computer, or you dislike the idea of getting arms deep in drivers and latency and whatever, a hardware multitrack is really the way to go if he's entirely acoustic. Very easy to just cue up and arm/record tracks, and many people who record using computers still use a hardware multitrack as a "sketchpad" as they're usable anywhere there's an outlet, not just a computer room. If you only have one computer, or if he does most of this stuff in his room and there's no computer in there, a hardware device would make a lot more sense. He would also need mics for this scenario as well.
Let us know which you think would be better for your family and brother. One of the things that's nice about audio hardware in general is that there's a solid used market, AND that means that if he gives it up in a year you can actually sell the stuff for a reasonable amount, rather than just let it sit in a closet.
I helped a friend record an album in his apartment for under $700, which included a hardware multitrack, 3 mics, mic stands, cables, etc., and he was really happy with the results. Using software can be cheaper, but most people who say that using a computer for everything is cheaper mean that you can pirate software (whereas hardware is not exactly something you can get via torrent).
I mean, the absolute cheapest way is to get one of those sony 1/8" trs mics used for, like, minidisks, and plug that into your mic input on your current soundcard, and record everything using Audacity. It's kind of a kludge and the quality is generally poor, but it certainly works. I personally feel that if someone is serious about something, though, it's worthwhile to spend a little money and time helping them actually, you know, do a good job at what they're interested in. I think the cheapy version is great if you're just looking to record demos or ideas. If he actually wants to make a song that sounds like something that was at least recorded cleanly, you guys are looking at some decent mics and some sort of audio recording interface, either as a "soundcard" for your computer or as a standalone recording device.
Audacity, which is free, will allow you to cut unwanted parts of a recording and or export audio files. A good mic, headphones, and externally powered speakers will help you in your projects.
As for using either an audio interface or hardware multitrack.. personally i've got no idea. If the multitrack is what i think it is, then my dad (who'd be doing most of the recording stuff) probably knows more about it than i do, and certainly more than the software side of things. Are there any wikipedia links that might educate me a bit more on this?
http://www.alcatech.com/html/index.php
Here's a good article on multitrack recorders and some pros/cons for each system:
http://www.studio-central.com/multi_track_recorders.htm It does get a little advanced (you likely don't need to worry about timecode) but it does separate the systems out pretty well. Also has some pictures.
This is a general wikipedia article about multitrack recording:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitrack
It's the essence of what your brother wants to do -- record himself doing multiple things "next to" each other, creating an actual song.
Again, you certainly can use a cheap mic and audacity or any other recording program to record yourself. Using a computer as a multitrack recorder just takes that to the next step -- better mics, and a program that can record those mics simultaneously, and a soundcard that you plug the mics into AND allows you to record and listen to the music you're recording with no lag or latency, even if you put effects on the signal while in the computer.
The biggest difference between the two is interface. This is true for the vast majority of hardware vs. software issues in music. If using a mouse and looking at a screen is 2nd nature, and you'd rather use your eyes to evaluate waveforms instead of your ears, having an all-computer setup is fantastic. However, if you're more the kind of guy who likes to play with things, use your hands, have different functions mapped to actual buttons, hardware is the way to go.
For most people who come into digital music recording from a background of playing acoustic instruments, I pretty much always recommend going the hardware route. It just seems like they're able to pick it up faster, and they end up actually using the stuff they have rather than waiting for a future upgrade. I discovered that I sit uncomfortably between the two extremes -- I love visualizing waveforms and being able to visually see and manipulate tracks. But I really like having some buttons & knobs in front of me when it comes to actual music production and recording. It's bad because you can't just sit comfortably on one side -- I have to merge the two, which, while not really troublesome, can get expensive
So anyway, if your brother is less a computer guy and more a hands-on kind of guy, head to a guitar center and play around in their pro/recording section. You should see a handful of different devices, and see what his reaction is. If you have any sort of music stores around, I would stress not just buying something sight unseen, even if you don't end up with anything you actually play with. When you're starting out, being able to test the waters and see if you really respond well to using sliders to adjust volume, for example, and punching in tracks via numberpad etc, or if he finds it too "fiddly" and would rather just click "arm" and then "record."
Feel free to ask more questions, of course.
edit: i don't know how useful it'd be for this, but my pc does have a Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS card in it (something like that, anyway. I forget precisely what model, but i can look it up when i get home, since it's not listed on their site), which i got as a reasonable means to 5.1 surround, but does have firewire input.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--MDOFTRACKPRO
There are also firewire interfaces that will support more tracks and be generally fancier, but they'll also cost more. Firewire can support more data for longer periods of time, which is why it's very common in the audio world to see audio interfaces that utilize it (compared to USB). For starters or amateurs though, USB interfaces are great because they're cheaper and most amateurs don't need, say, 6 inputs and 8 outputs.
On the one I linked, you'll notice there are 2 XLR inputs (for mics or the "direct out" on many amps) and on the back there are 1/4 TRS for instruments, such as directly recording the guitar. As I said before, most of these things come with software to get started. In this case, that interface comes with Ableton Live Lite. Live is a pretty cool program and the Lite version, well, the "lite" version of any program that comes included with these interfaces is going to be limited in the same way, by reducing the total amount of tracks you can record. Usually something like 8 or 10 tracks. For your bro, that won't be a problem at all.
The nice thing about audio stuff is that it's something you can gradually build up. If you guys get an audio interface and he records some guitar, and the software suits his needs, then there's no need to buy fancier stuff. For singing he will need a mic, and personally I prefer micing acoustic guitars rather than using built-in pickups, since they never sound as good as just putting a mic at the soundhole. He can use the same mic to record vocals as well as guitar, too, by simply singing on one track and playing guitar on the other. or doing both together and putting the mic a little further away.
What's the budget looking like? There's no upper limit on how much you can spend on music equipment, so rather than linking to suggestions that would end up being out of your price range, talk it over with your parents and see how much they're thinking of spending on your brother's hobby. If it's going to be an initial burst of money spent on a solid base of stuff, that's different from the bare necessities with the idea of getting more equipment if he's actually interested.
For budget, firstly we're in the UK, so it's £ instead of $. It's something he's pretty serious about, there's already a bit of local interest just from the open mic nights he's been playing at, and he plans on spending the next year seeing where music actually takes him, trying to get some shows and see what money he can earn from it. It's something we're all interested in helping out with, so i guess the budget would be probably a few hundred pounds (i guess an upper limit of about £500, but that's open to change depending on what's needed).
As a basic reference, here's a site i tend to buy my computer bits from, and a list of what they offer by way of sound equipment scan.co.uk
i've got no idea if anything on there is useful or decent quality, but it'll probably give you an idea of prices and items.
edit: regarding actual over-all quality of the recording (and i don't know how much this is affected by the equipment, so much as what you do with it), we'd be looking for something that sounded more rough and.. well, like it was recorded in a bedroom with some mics and an acoustic guitar. By that, i mean not clean and clinical studio quality stuff, if that makes any sense.
edit 2: the editening - as something to consider, a hardware multitrack solution would record to something like a hard drive, then could be transferred over to a pc afterwards, right? What sort of items and prices would i be looking at for that?
edit the 3rd: so i had a chat to my dad about it, and it sounds like he's more interested in a hardware direction, as mentioned in edit 2 there. Something more portable that could record a number of tracks onto a hard drive, then drop those over onto a pc for any more editing and exporting stuff.
If you go hardware, what you'll need is the actual recording device, cables, mic stands, and a mic.
if you go software, you'll need an interface (which should come with software for recording), cables, mic stands, and a mic.
For hardware, you can certainly take the outputs and record that into a computer. My friend that I mention above says that he's tried to directly transfer stuff via USB, but that due to how hardware units organize takes and tracks, it can be a little messy to directly copy. As with all audio, you can always just plug the output into your computer's input to put an entire track on the computer. Then again, my friend may not have spent much time actually reading the manual on his machine or mixing down a track, so I can't speak for it entirely.
Anyway, the crux of it is that you can definitely do it for under £500. It really just depends on how many tracks you want to record at one time, how many mics you want (different mics record things differently), and the appropriate cables. Unless your bro is a recording savant, the music won't sound like "radio music," especially since the biggest difference between most studio recordings and amateur music is that studios use massive amounts of compression to flatten out all of the dynamics. That by itself will ensure that what your bro records sounds more "indie" or "guy in a bedroom."
edited to add: also, if it's just your bro by himself, he can get by with 1 mic and probably won't need more than 3. 3 mics would be if he wants to mic the guitar in stereo AND record vocals all together. More mics would be if he wants to record friends, etc., all at the same time. My friend I mentioned above does guy + acoustic guitar stuff, and while he owns 3 mics he's only used 2 at a time, 2 for stereo micing the guitar and then another take w/ just 1 mic for vocals. If he didn't want to stereo mic the guitar he could get by with 2, or even 1. I like the idea of at least 2 different mics, so you can appreciate the differences in sound and the different ways in which different types of mics pick up sound.
So it looks like hardware may be the way to go. I assume you mean something like this up to this? The 40gb internal drive does look nice, and i doubt we'd need more than 4 simultaneous tracks.
So just to get a picture, a device like that, a relevant number of mics, cables and stands, and we'd be good to go? Record the tracks onto that, mix and edit as necessary, then drop over onto a pc?
Edit: Also the hardware recorders above record at 16bit, 44.1kHz (CD quality). You'll want to record at 24bit 96kHz and mix down from there to whatever you want, so get an interface that supports this. Most of them should, you just need to avoid the ones that don't as sometimes its not too clear.
edit: looking down this list on that turnkey site, i don't really know what makes are good and that, but there don't seem to be many that do record above 16bit. I know about working at a higher resolution then scaling down, but it might well be something passed up if it means cutting the costs right down. Taking those as examples though, what's actually good, and what should be avoided? Having a built-in cd burner looks a little gimmickey for what we'd need right now.
Honestly, there's so much you can get into with audio that rather than throwing everything at you and ensuring that you're recording with the highest quality possible (at any cost), I'm a firm believer that people should get started actually using stuff, and then be able to evaluate for themselves if they feel that they need an upgrade. It's not like you can't sell music hardware again if you actually end up maxing out your current setup's abilities.
As for your hardware questions, I will agree that a built-in cd burner is kind of gimmicky, especially nowadays, but it's convenient if you want to do everything "in the box." Since you've already talked about moving audio over to the computer, I wouldn't worry about it so much. Really, I think the more important thing you should consider is how many tracks you think your brother will record at once. For instance, the Tascam DP01FX only records 2 channels at a time (stereo), whereas the Fostex MR-8HD can record 4 at a time.
As I said above, I do the computer recording thing and use a fancy interface, and I've got some friends who are also into music. I'm comfortable using computers for recording (although I use a mac due to CoreAudio), and what really convinced me for hardware for getting started was the same friend I mention above, who refers to hard disk space as "memory." He was able to quickly figure out and record himself, mixing and everything, using hardware, due to the fact that it's basically "plug it in and record." While there are features that you lose, that immediacy means a lot, and if your dad has some experience with similar devices (since digital recorders tend to emulate older tape interfaces) it would be a great way to get into recording without spending time figuring out new software and so on.
Of course, buying a hardware recorder now doesn't preclude your bro from going with more software in the future, or mixing the two up. Lots of people use these things for exactly the uses you point out -- recording hard to move instruments or recording away from the computer. One of the things I actually dislike about my current setup is that I can't just set up shop in the kitchen to record whatever.
oops, forgot to add: since you're in the UK, don't neglect to check out Sound on Sound's readers adverts, listed here. There's a lot of good stuff to be found if you keep your eyes open, and it's generally more musician friendly than hunting on eBay.
you lost me here. What's that? Also, would condensers (since we'd get a few mics, rather than just one) be good for vocals too? And would it be worth getting maybe one better one at a higher price, then another two or three at lower, or all the same.
As for microphones, a condenser is generally what is used for singer/songwriter stuff. Between condenser and dynamic, the biggest difference is that condensers generally pick up everything, whereas dynamics are more responsive to differences in pressure. So, for instance, a condenser microphone could pick up the guitarist walking over to his chair, creaking the floorboards as he sits down, picking up his guitar and pick, getting ready, and taking a quick breath. They're sensitive. But they'll also pick up more nuances and depth for the guitar.
A dynamic microphone would be used for percussion, or for singing loudly, or anything where you want the microphone to pick up what you're pointing it at, rather than just "everything."
Practically, to use both types on an acoustic guitar, commonly a condenser is placed out a foot or two from the guitar's sound hole so that it captures the entire instrument. A dynamic mic would be placed a few inches away, pointing at the sound hole, and would actually be more "tunable" to get a specific guitar sound, depending on how you angle the mic and where exactly you place it.
My standard starting out recommendation is a pair of Shure SM57s for general, every day mics, and you get a pair so you can record in stereo. And then a decent condenser mic. I'd suggest spending between £75-£120 on the condenser, as a nicer mic will definitely sound better, but you don't want to get close to "silly money" when you're just starting out. What's common is to point the two sm57s at instruments for a baseline stereo recording, and sing into the condenser. Or use the condenser for guitar and vocals and don't worry about the sm57s. The nice thing about mics is that it's not like you can't just buy one later when you feel you need it. So, start with the single condenser cos he'll likely get the most use out of it for acoustic guitar and vocals, unless he really belts it out or strums really hard. I've got a friend who loves recording acoustic guitar in stereo, for instance, and uses 2 dynamics in an X over the sound hole.
Oh, forgot to add: Two of the reasons it's worthwhile to get a condenser and dynamic together is that (a) the condenser will often pick up room noise, making it hard to be "intimate" with the microphone if the room is particularly "live." Think of the way your voice sounds in an empty room. Even with furniture and stuff in the room, those reflections are still present, just not as obvious, and a microphone can be influenced by them. Condensers are loved because many sound very similar to what people hear. However, often you want to just record what you want to record. And (b) you can dual-mic an instrument, with a condenser picking up some room ambience and overall tone, while the dynamic is up close and picking up just the instrument, not the room noise or finger slides or whatever. And then when you mix the music, you can adjust the levels on each track to get a sound you prefer (without worrying about lining up tracks).
A: because it's back from the dead!
so, it's the aformentioned brother's birthday this week, and we're considering getting him a good condensor mic as a present. Taking these as where we're likely to buy from, what on that page (for under the £120 mark) would be a good purchase for the kind of recording we'd be doing (at home/bedroom/maybe out-and-about acoustic stuff)?
Edit: Seems they have it on that page for less than your max. That's my recommendation.
edit: ah, i see they're about as much as the mic itself. So we would need one with the Fostex multitrack to get a decent volume?
http://www.turnkey.co.uk/web/productAction.do?dispatch=showProduct&SKU=ART-TUBEMP&context=WEB
http://www.turnkey.co.uk/web/productAction.do?dispatch=showProduct&SKU=ART-TUBEMPV3&context=WEB
I will echo what sixkiller said about the NT-1. I would spring for that before any other condenser mic on that page. Personally, I have an AKG Perception 200 which some say is better/different than the Røde, but it's not on that page (I don't even see the Perception line on the Turnkey site) so I wouldn't worry about it -- the differences are likely minor anyway, and it's mostly just that different companies will make different mics, just like different headphone companies "sound different." Both are large diaphragm condenser mics at the same price point in the US so the NT-1 would be the one to get from Turnkey. It's kind of a classic low-price condenser, as in many many people have one and are happy with it.
The preamp by itself would be doing double duty if you ended up getting a multitrack recorder with a preamp, but some people like to use separate preamps anyway so they have a little more control over the sound without having to fiddle with levels on the mixer/recording device.
Usually on mixers, anything with an XLR plug will also have a preamp and provide phantom power (switchable, in case you plug something in that doesn't need phantom power, like a dynamic mic). So if you've got the MR-8HD, you can just buy a condenser mic w/o worrying about a preamp. You could buy 4 and record them all at once, actually. In that case, buy the Røde NT-1.
I know it's something we'll do best to play around with and work out for ourselves, but just to get an idea of the setup, will it work best to have a pair of dynamics pointed at the guitar (like, one at the body, and one a little higher up at the fretboard?), and the condenser higher up for recording voice? Or would it be better to use a dynamic each for voice and guitar, and then the condenser for general ambience.
However, that's not to say that learning from the standards isn't a good idea
http://www.humbuckermusic.com/acguitrectec.html
My friend uses the 3rd method and moves it closer to the soundhole, and uses SM57s. The other methods will give a little more variation between the two channels, whereas the X or Y pattern will create more of a "chorus" sound where it's filling up both channels without much variation. Since doing the X pattern is pretty easy, and you can move the mics together, it's a pretty good way to start. That's with dynamics. If you're doing mono recording with 1 mic, I'd say you actually have more options. If your bro is doing it by himself, have him place the condenser mic about 6" away from the sound hole, more towards the neck (so it's not directly perpendicular from the hole). Putting the mic closer to the guitar will sound more quiet and intimate, while putting it further away will sound more full and roomy. The former also will pick up more finger squeaks while the latter will reduce them. If your bro plays more fingerplucking style where it's quieter, you should move the mic closer to the guitar. If he plays more strummy and louder, you probably want to have the mic further away so the chords sound more full.
For singing, since your bro probably doesn't have a lot of experience singing into a microphone, you should create a makeshift popscreen. You can buy one if you want to be fancy, but you can also make one with a wireframe clotheshanger and some old pantyhose. The idea of a popscreen is to diffuse focused blasts of air from K's, T's, and other consonants and sibilant noises, as well as keep the vocalist a set distance from the mic. Usually set up about 6" or so from the mic if it's a condenser, closer if it's a dynamic. When singing loudly, the vocalist should naturally move back from the mic, and when singing quietly or speaking should be closer. It's difficult to get used to at first but should become 2nd nature with practice.
As I said earlier in the thread, if you do record both guitar and vocals together, you probably want to close-mic both the guitar and your bro, so that there's less sound bleeding into each mic. What your bro can also do is record himself doing a full song, and then listen to the tracks he's recorded as a guide for playing the guitar by itself and then singing by itself.
We've been using the recorder for a while now, and want to improve things a bit. We ended up not getting the Rode mic, we managed to borrow some decent (but not exceptional) mics for what we were recording, and that's gone over okay. We're now looking at getting this one, and a compressor too. Now, the thing we're puzzling over is how it all sets up. The compressor goes between the mic and the recorder, right? How does this work out with phantom power and the likes?
If you're using a mixing board, put the compressor on one of the effects sends so you can easily mix in the amount of compressed signal vs dry. Set the compressor to 100% wet if you do this.
Generally, you record the vocals "plain" and then play back the audio through an output (an effects send, since you're sending the audio out to effects) and it then returns (through the effects return) to another track. Since this new track is just for the effects, you can fiddle with the volume of the effect to make it more apparent (wet) or less (dry).
For the Fostex, I don't recall if it has a dedicated effects send, but typically the low-tech way of doing it is to mute the non-compressed tracks, playback the track you want through the outputs, into the compressor, and simply re-recording that.
Now, you certainly can record straight through the compressor, depending on how much you want to muck around with the audio. If your bro simply wants to set up a good setting (say, just some light compression most of the time), he should be able to get away with recording straight through the compressor. However, compressors are typically made to work in conjunction with a mixer, in the send/return setup Six and I mention. Therefore, they don't usually have a preamp built into them for a microphone -- you'd need a preamp to plug the mic into to get it to line level, and then plug it into the compressor, and then plug that into an input on the Fostex. A lot of people use the preamps on the mixers/HD recorders so they don't have to get a new preamp for each channel they want to record, but it is necessary if you want to run a mic through effects.
i bought an imac 1 and a half years ago. my main use? recording. This imac, along with a $98 snowball mic has given me more recording opportunities out of the box than i could have imagined.
i'm just throwing this out there. Garageband is a wonderful tool.
How does that affect things if the track's already peaking out and clipping? I was under the impression that a compressor helps stop that, but it seems like it's too late by that point. I expect I'm grossly mistaken somewhere here, which is why I'm asking.
http://www.turnkey.co.uk/web/searchAction.do?dispatch=fullSearch&subCategory=Compressors
Any suggestions? We're not looking to spend stupid amounts of money, and will likely be getting the Rode NT1-A to go with it. I guess we'd be looking at up to £100-150, but probably lower for the compressor (but I really don't know what's necessary or not).
I personally have a Behringer Composer Pro-XL. It's all manual, no MIDI control, but that doesn't affect you. It's not a "omg wow" compressor but it does a very basic job well; I've been happy with it for most everything I've sent through it. It supports two channels, both separate and linked in stereo, and since it's a tube compressor and analog, you won't have to worry about much latency.
Again, you don't HAVE to do it in the "proper" order. You can record music perfectly well by breaking the standard studio "rules," and remember that studios also have much greater facilities and more mixing options -- recording everything to its own track, running it through numerous effects, and recording all of those back to their own track, and then fine tuning everything together is trivial. You're using an 8 track. So if your bro wants to record through the compressor, great! Just start by using a small amount of compression to get a feel for it and "fix" the problems he's running into, and then if he feels that he needs more compression run it back out to the compressor.
Or play with the effects out and have fun