Seeking tips for budget studio.
Monster Zero
quality recordings with what I have and how I use it for gear. I will
list it below. I am frustrated because I have heard better recordings
than what I can get from people who are working with less/lesser
quality than I have as far as equipment goes. Any advice is very much
appreciated. My recordings almost always seem to have an overall poor
sound quality, hard to describe really just poor overall quality is
all I can think of to describe it. I will post a link to some of it if
anyone is interested enough to give a listen.
Tascam DP-01FX recorder
MXL 990 Condenser
Shure SM57
Yamaha DD65 Electronic drum set
Ibanez SGR bass
Behringer flat response headphones
Various guitars ranging from expensive to cheapies
No rack FX
Fender Twin Amp and sometimes Peavey Ultra 60
Bad Monkey OD pedal
Zoom G2 multi fx pedal
BBE Boosta Grande pedal
Ibanez Weeping Demon pedal
Guitar: Amp is Mic'd with SM57 direct center and about 3 inches from
the speaker(sometimes G2 direct)
Bass: Direct into Recorder
Drums: Direct into recorder via rca cable
Vox: MXL990 direct into recorder.
Post processing: I typically use Cooledit Pro 2.0 and can't count how
many different things I've tried like compression, normalizing,
limiting, eq'ing, etc etc.. like I said I realize if you buy cheap
equipment you get cheap sound but I'm pretty sure I should be getting
better than what I get.
TIA
Arny Krueger
news:438953e7-10a0-4a33...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
If you post a MP3, I'll listen to it, and I suspect others will as well.
One thing you haven't talked about is the acoustical setting that you are
recording in.
Monster Zero
> "Monster Zero" <rockin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
K thanks for the response. I will post em in a bit. The acoustics are
standard bedroom setup type deal. Nothing special everything is kind
of bunched up in the corner of a carpeted 20x15 room.
Scott Dorsey
>I'm hoping some pro's here can give me some tips on getting better
>quality recordings with what I have and how I use it for gear. I will
>list it below. I am frustrated because I have heard better recordings
>than what I can get from people who are working with less/lesser
>quality than I have as far as equipment goes. Any advice is very much
>appreciated. My recordings almost always seem to have an overall poor
>sound quality, hard to describe really just poor overall quality is
>all I can think of to describe it. I will post a link to some of it if
>anyone is interested enough to give a listen.
The most important stuff is the stuff you didn't mention: the room and
the monitoring.
Money spent on room and monitoring improvements will buy you more for your
money than on equipment, and that's true at EVERY level.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike Rivers
> The acoustics are
> standard bedroom setup type deal. Nothing special everything is kind
> of bunched up in the corner of a carpeted 20x15 room.
Working on that room is one thing you can do to upgrade your recordings. The
other is to get rid of the headphones (other than for cue when you're
overdubbing)
and get some decent speakers to use when you're mixing. Ideally you
should also
listen on your speakers while placing mics, but if you're doing the
playing as well
as the engineering, and it's all in the same room, you can forget that
suggestion.
PStamler
sound right," the problem is in the room. Either the room where you're
recording or the room where you're listening.
In this case it sounds like most of the instrument recording was done
via DI, and the amp is close-miked, so while the recording room
doesn't sound ideal, it's probably not the biggest factor in the sound
of the instruments. (Although you might try moving the mic off-center
on the speaker; the tone is often more interesting.)
My guess is that you need, as Scott says, a decent pair of monitors
and some room treatment. Especially for the vocals. While the 990 is
probably not an ideal vocal mic, first get the room sounding right. Go
to the library and check out one of F. Alton Everest's books on
building a small studio (don't get the "Master Handbook of Acoustics";
start with one of the easier ones). Then do what he says.
Also see the thread about impedance loading of microphones, currently
in progress. It may help your SM57.
Also...are you satisfied with the sound of the Yamaha Electronic Drums
by themselves? They may be part of the problem.
Peace,
Paul
polymod
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hd9fgn$kp9$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Aside from the great advice given here, get used to your environment by
playing CD's you know sound good in all systems.
Take many breaks.
Listen to those 'reference' CD's on your breaks.
Listening is the key.
Don't just keep recording without taking many, many breaks listening to
reference CD's.
Poly
brassplyer
> I realize if you buy cheap
> equipment you get cheap sound
Assuming the gear isn't defective, a pro who knows what they're doing
will get better results with modest gear than a hack will with a
million dollar studio. The mics you've listened are more than adequate
to make good recordings.
Also don't discount how much impact the performance has on the overall
impression of a recording. Check these out - crappy webcam audio yet
the musicality of these performances comes shining through.
brassplyer
pointed out a decent set of monitors.
Scott Dorsey
>On Nov 9, 10:22=A0am, Monster Zero <rockin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I realize if you buy cheap
>> equipment you get cheap sound
>
>Assuming the gear isn't defective, a pro who knows what they're doing
>will get better results with modest gear than a hack will with a
>million dollar studio. The mics you've listened are more than adequate
>to make good recordings.
Another point is that a lot of people seem obsessed with buying huge amounts
of cheap gear, when they could have used the same money to buy one or two
good pieces of gear and got more for their dollar.
If you buy cheap equipment, you won't get your money back when you want to
upgrade or change later. If you buy good equipment you can often sell it
for a good portion of what you paid for it, when it comes time. Sometimes
even more.
hank alrich
An FMR RNP (mic preamp) for that rig could improve the quality of tracks
a lot.
What are you using for monitors?
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
Rick Ruskin
wrote:
And I happen to have a new one in stock.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin
Laurence Payne
>Another point is that a lot of people seem obsessed with buying huge amounts
>of cheap gear, when they could have used the same money to buy one or two
>good pieces of gear and got more for their dollar.
>
>If you buy cheap equipment, you won't get your money back when you want to
>upgrade or change later. If you buy good equipment you can often sell it
>for a good portion of what you paid for it, when it comes time. Sometimes
>even more.
But, it must be said, if the piece of cheap gear has the function you
require, these days it my well perform imperceptibly differently from
the expensive equivalent. And generally, I fear, technical gear
doesn't mature and become "classic", it just becomes obsolete.
Swanny
I wonder if any of today's cheap gear will be called 'vintage' in 10-20
years time?
Or will it all be land fill by then.
Mike Rivers
> I wonder if any of today's cheap gear will be called 'vintage' in 10-20
> years time?
> Or will it all be land fill by then.
It depends on where you draw the line for "cheap" but I don't think people
40 years from now will be selling Behringer mixers for more than they
cost new.
Or Zoom pocket recorders. That seems to be how "vintage" is defined now.
They last as long as they continue to work, and then get junked (or sold on
eBay as "condition unknown because I don't have the power supply").
Scott Dorsey
My bet is that most of today's high end gear will be considered vintage
at some point. There will be some exceptions, though.
My bet is that a FEW pieces of cheap gear will become valuable vintage items,
and predicting which ones they are will make you a mint.
In general, items that are highly sought after today were:
1. Originally cheap enough that they were
2. Frequently used on a lot of albums and
3. Have a very distinctive sound.
And that goes in some way or another for everything from the Fairchild 670
on down to the Roland 808 and original Casio keyboards.
Laurence Payne
>I wonder if any of today's cheap gear will be called 'vintage' in 10-20
>years time?
>Or will it all be land fill by then.
Some of it may still just be working :-) Do today's capacitors
deteriorate like the old ones did?
Laurence Payne
>My bet is that a FEW pieces of cheap gear will become valuable vintage items,
>and predicting which ones they are will make you a mint.
Yeah. I (sort of) regret throwing away that Roland drum box. Only
sort of, 'cos it DID sound crap.
Scott Dorsey
That's the thing. The stuff that becomes valuable is going to BE the
stuff that people threw away because it sounded like crap.
Les Cargill
The Alesis ROMplers have a passable 808. It's probably sampled
from one.
--
Les Cargill
Richard Webb
> Swanny wrote:
Beyond that, if it's made with this newfangled lead free
solder required in some parts of the world it's life
expectancy can be quite short anyway. That, and it's for
the most part not made for simple and easy repair in the
field anyway. I'd say you're looking at future landfill.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Scott Dorsey
Richard Webb <Richard.We...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com> wrote:
>On Thu 2037-Nov-12 16:36, Mike Rivers writes:
>
>> Swanny wrote:
>
>>> I wonder if any of today's cheap gear will be called 'vintage' in 10-20
>>> years time?
>>> Or will it all be land fill by then.
>
>> It depends on where you draw the line for "cheap" but I don't think
>> people 40 years from now will be selling Behringer mixers for more
>> than they cost new.
>> Or Zoom pocket recorders. That seems to be how "vintage" is defined
>> now. They last as long as they continue to work, and then get junked
>> (or sold on eBay as "condition unknown because I don't have the
>> power supply").
>
>Beyond that, if it's made with this newfangled lead free
>solder required in some parts of the world it's life
>expectancy can be quite short anyway. That, and it's for
>the most part not made for simple and easy repair in the
>field anyway. I'd say you're looking at future landfill.
This is going to make the few surviving units that much more valuable, though.
Richard Webb
>>Beyond that, if it's made with this newfangled lead free
>>solder required in some parts of the world it's life
>>expectancy can be quite short anyway. That, and it's for
>>the most part not made for simple and easy repair in the
>>field anyway. I'd say you're looking at future landfill.
> This is going to make the few surviving units that much more
> valuable, though. --scott
Maybe, but newer bic lighter gear will sound just as good as "vintage" bic lighter gear.
When you can emulate the 808 with software you won't want to buy one. AS for a Mackie or Behringer mixer, you'll be able to get new sounds just as good. WHo's gonna pay vintage
prices for a Behringer mixer? Nobody in his right mind <g..
Laurence Payne
Richard.We...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com (Richard Webb) wrote:
>Maybe, but newer bic lighter gear will sound just as good as "vintage" bic lighter gear.
>When you can emulate the 808 with software you won't want to buy one. AS for a Mackie or Behringer mixer, you'll be able to get new sounds just as good. WHo's gonna pay vintage
>prices for a Behringer mixer? Nobody in his right mind <g..
Great. So we can at last stop pretending it's about arcane equipment
and arcane ways of using it. Just concentrate on the music.
Mike Rivers
> AS for a Mackie or Behringer mixer, you'll be able to get new sounds just as good. WHo's gonna pay vintage
> prices for a Behringer mixer? Nobody in his right mind <g..
Well, I thought the same about the Ampex MX-10 mixer, but it seems that
people
will pay outrageous prices for anything with tubes in it. The ones who
get the
best out of those mixers completely rebuild them - replacing all the
resistors and
capacitors, often the input transformers, leaving the chassis and the
knobs, and
maybe the power supply.
But of course, then they've destroyed the "vintage" value.
Peter Larsen
> I'm hoping some pro's here can give me some tips on getting better
> quality recordings with what I have and how I use it for gear.
As Bracony write in his guitar school: the beginner has enough to combat and
should not also combat a poor instrument, and rather spend the money for a
helpful one, vaguely paraphrased but it also applies for audio gear.
I will
> list it below. I am frustrated because I have heard better recordings
> than what I can get from people who are working with less/lesser
> quality than I have as far as equipment goes. Any advice is very much
> appreciated. My recordings almost always seem to have an overall poor
> sound quality, hard to describe really just poor overall quality is
> all I can think of to describe it. I will post a link to some of it if
> anyone is interested enough to give a listen.
>
> Tascam DP-01FX recorder
No. Get a HD24 or HD24XR while you can. Don't pay for a box full of crummy
effects, pay for whaty you need. Combine with a small 12 channel Soundcraft,
perhaps the one with effects - you might like to work that way, the mic pre
is ok and the board is nice to use and affordable. If you're going to mix
ITB, then get the model without effects, but the one with effects will give
you more options at a quite modest extra cost.
> MXL 990 Condenser
I aim for having at least two of every mic. Get 3 MCA SP1's if you can find
them instead, that will cost approximately as much as 2 of those MXL's.
> Shure SM57
It is a popular item over your way, I'd probably get a cheap Sennheiser
instead.
> Yamaha DD65 Electronic drum set
Quite probably a very good idea.
> Ibanez SGR bass
Not qualified to ocmment.
> Behringer flat response headphones
Sennheiser HD25's or that M50 people raved about some time ago, I think its
a panasonic, or perhaps something Stax.
> Various guitars ranging from expensive to cheapies
No, do not waste initial money on cheapies, remember Bracony's law.
> No rack FX
I almost agree, but I think you should get a couple of channels of rnc
anyway.
> Fender Twin Amp and sometimes Peavey Ultra 60
You can not have an amp sometimes, and a Fender Twin is imo largish in this
context, small and good and with alnico.
> Bad Monkey OD pedal
Solves what problem? - I don't need to know, but you do need to define this.
If it does not solve a problem now, then wait for a problem that needs it.
> Zoom G2 multi fx pedal
Solves what problem? - I don't need to know, but you do need to define this.
If it does not solve a problem now, then wait for a problem that needs it.
> BBE Boosta Grande pedal
Solves what problem? - I don't need to know, but you do need to define this.
If it does not solve a problem now, then wait for a problem that needs it.
> Ibanez Weeping Demon pedal
Solves what problem? - I don't need to know, but you do need to define this.
If it does not solve a problem now, then wait for a problem that needs it.
> Guitar: Amp is Mic'd with SM57 direct center and about 3 inches from
> the speaker(sometimes G2 direct)
Which is to say that you have zero experience with sound recording.
Especially with an open back amp you need distance, put the amp near a wall
but not parallel to it and mic from 10 feet if possible, 0.39 X room size if
not.
> Bass: Direct into Recorder
Quite probably not or "not only".
> Drums: Direct into recorder via rca cable
I hope I'm not too subtle: RCA phono's are imo electrically good for
permanent hook-ups.
> Vox: MXL990 direct into recorder.
My first choice in a rock context would be the SM57 with foam windscreen.
> Post processing: I typically use Cooledit Pro 2.0
That's stoneage, get AA3 and cut back on physical effect thingies.
> TIA
All of the above just opinion, there is no right or wrong, however:
Soundcraft epm, Alesis HD24/HD24XR, Really Nice Compressor and Really Nice
Preamp all tend to be high on the list of suggested items around here. As
are MCA SP1's, remember to get wire suspension and blast screens.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Scott Dorsey
The sad thing is.... you can emulate an 808 very well with software today,
but the originals are still worth money. I can only observe this, I cannot
explain it.
I doubt the Mackie or Behringer mixer will be worth anything 20 years from
now, but a functioning POD might be.
Swanny
> Laurence Payne <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2009 18:21:34 -0500, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> My bet is that a FEW pieces of cheap gear will become valuable vintage items,
>>> and predicting which ones they are will make you a mint.
>> Yeah. I (sort of) regret throwing away that Roland drum box. Only
>> sort of, 'cos it DID sound crap.
>
> That's the thing. The stuff that becomes valuable is going to BE the
> stuff that people threw away because it sounded like crap.
> --scott
>
Yep. It sounded crap when it was new, it still sounds crap when it's
old. Maybe collector value in an audio museum or suchlike.
david correia
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
My Linndrum, after going down to very little, goes up a little more
every year.
Same thing for my DX7 II.
Very few of the stuff I've bought over the past 30 years are worth more
than what I paid new, especially if you factor in inflation.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Richard Webb
>> AS for a Mackie or Behringer mixer, you'll be able to get new sounds just as
>> good. WHo's gonna pay vintage
>> prices for a Behringer mixer? Nobody in his right mind <g..
> Well, I thought the same about the Ampex MX-10 mixer, but it seems
> that people
> will pay outrageous prices for anything with tubes in it. The ones
> who get the
> best out of those mixers completely rebuild them - replacing all the
> resistors and
> capacitors, often the input transformers, leaving the chassis and
> the knobs, and
> maybe the power supply.
Yah but they're the folks that don't know except they've
heard that "tubes sound warmer" so that's why their
"vintage" gear sounds warmer. THat and other things they've heard but don't understand.
MR. Barnum as talkin' about those folks, right?
> But of course, then they've destroyed the "vintage" value.
<rotflmao!!!>
I note the Yamaha dx7 was mentioned in this thread as well.
Wasn't that impresssed when they were the new happenin'
thing, but then I was still playing a b3 and a real piano.
Swanny
Perhaps that would now be classified as "Nouveau Vintage". Mind you, I
don't see anyone offering big bux for an old MT-32 :)
PStamler
say that the knobs are really, really nice. So are the switches.
Peace,
Paul
Les Cargill
I observe that the POD of the '80s, the Scholz Rockman,
has almost no vintage value:
http://longisland.craigslist.org/msg/1429200753.html
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Fri 2037-Nov-13 16:38, Mike Rivers writes:
> I note the Yamaha dx7 was mentioned in this thread as well.
> Wasn't that impresssed when they were the new happenin'
> thing, but then I was still playing a b3 and a real piano.
>
They were wince inducing. Still are. Nothing else
sounds so dated, not even a plastic '60s organ.
> Regards,
> Richard
> --
> | Remove .my.foot for email
> | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
> | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Monster Zero wrote:
<snip>
>> MXL 990 Condenser
>
> I aim for having at least two of every mic. Get 3 MCA SP1's if you can find
> them instead, that will cost approximately as much as 2 of those MXL's.
>
+1 for the SP1. I still like the Behringer ECM8000, ymmv.
>> Shure SM57
>
> It is a popular item over your way, I'd probably get a cheap Sennheiser
> instead.
>
Or an Audix. But get a 57, too.
>> Yamaha DD65 Electronic drum set
>
> Quite probably a very good idea.
>
>> Ibanez SGR bass
>
> Not qualified to ocmment.
>
I'd recommend a Squier PBass. Put EMG actives
on it. But the SDGR is a nice bass. The reason I
say that is that when somebody brings in an SDGR
style bass, you have the Squier in case their
instrument doesn't cut it.
Don't forget a DI box. The Little Labs Red Eye
sure looks good... but I have a two
channel Samson active that's good enough.
>> Behringer flat response headphones
>
> Sennheiser HD25's or that M50 people raved about some time ago, I think its
> a panasonic, or perhaps something Stax.
>
>> Various guitars ranging from expensive to cheapies
>
> No, do not waste initial money on cheapies, remember Bracony's law.
>
>> No rack FX
>
> I almost agree, but I think you should get a couple of channels of rnc
> anyway.
>
>> Fender Twin Amp and sometimes Peavey Ultra 60
>
> You can not have an amp sometimes, and a Fender Twin is imo largish in this
> context, small and good and with alnico.
>
I use a Fender Super Champ XD, and it serves well as a
studio amp. Works very well with a cabinet.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Richard Webb
>> I note the Yamaha dx7 was mentioned in this thread as well.
>> Wasn't that impresssed when they were the new happenin'
>> thing, but then I was still playing a b3 and a real piano.
> They were wince inducing. Still are. Nothing else
> sounds so dated, not even a plastic '60s organ.
Yah, I could handle the old cheaper FArfissa's, some of that stuff like you said. THis guy got me to show up for a
session wehre they wanted rock keys and didn't want me to
bring my hammond. I brought my ROland sh101 which would do
single oscillator stuff and do some pretty cool things, but
I couldn't get a sound out of that dx7 that didn't suck. I
ended up doing production on their album and I insisted I
bring the hammond in for that one, and by then I had a Korg
poly 800 that I"d customized some patches for that weren't
all that bad.
hank alrich
> Richard Webb wrote:
> > On Fri 2037-Nov-13 16:38, Mike Rivers writes:
> <snip>
> > I note the Yamaha dx7 was mentioned in this thread as well.
> > Wasn't that impresssed when they were the new happenin'
> > thing, but then I was still playing a b3 and a real piano.
> >
>
> They were wince inducing. Still are. Nothing else
> sounds so dated, not even a plastic '60s organ.
Heh. I have #9559, and I really like it. Nothing else sounds like it.
Besides, it's brown.
Of course, most of my internal sound got reprog'd by David Roach. Who
else has "Riley Organ"* on their DX7?
*Riley Osbourn
> > Regards,
> > Richard
> > --
> > | Remove .my.foot for email
> > | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
> > | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
>
>
> --
> Les Cargill
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
hank alrich
Monster Zero
Some very good info Peter. I will definitely consider the HD24 but I
had a budget and already spent it but it will definitely be considered
on my next budget list, BTW I do not use the FX in the Tascam at all,
all my FX timebased and otherwise are all done in CEP 2.1.I did demo
AA3 and for whatever reason it constantly crashed on a very robust and
modern PC running XP with SP3.
Thanks again for all the info.
Monster Zero
I have a DOD for D/I (can't get the model # right now) model 250 I
think it's called? Seems to work pretty good when I do use it.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard Webb wrote:
>>> On Fri 2037-Nov-13 16:38, Mike Rivers writes:
>> <snip>
>>> I note the Yamaha dx7 was mentioned in this thread as well.
>>> Wasn't that impresssed when they were the new happenin'
>>> thing, but then I was still playing a b3 and a real piano.
>>>
>> They were wince inducing. Still are. Nothing else
>> sounds so dated, not even a plastic '60s organ.
>
> Heh. I have #9559, and I really like it. Nothing else sounds like it.
Yup. When it was cast, they broke the mold. By court
order. Villagers, pitchforks, torches... naw, it's a
revolutionary product. But you know what they say
about revolutions....
> Besides, it's brown.
>
This is true. But it correlates very highly with everything
that was painful in the '80s. I was retro at the time,
and you couldn't stir 'em when we played. And I hadda
push the B3, too.
> Of course, most of my internal sound got reprog'd by David Roach. Who
> else has "Riley Organ"* on their DX7?
>
Heh. So many products doomed by lousy default patches....
> *Riley Osbourn
>
>>> Regards,
>>> Richard
>>> --
>>> | Remove .my.foot for email
>>> | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
>>> | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> I have a DOD for D/I (can't get the model # right now) model 250 I
> think it's called? Seems to work pretty good when I do use it.
260? It's a passive. The problem with cheap passives is that good
xformers aren't cheap.
It's probably fine. I did completely without one for a long time, but
man it helps to have one. Gets you much closer to perfect for
direct stuff, especially with passive pickups. On steel it makes
a big ole difference.
The Red Eye is also a reamp box, which is an idea which intrigues me
now. And Little Labs is a fairly uncompromising company - they're in
it for the sound.
The dual Samson active was only like $40. I really got it for
keyboards - cheap mixers don't always have good line ins, and I
ran into problems that away. You wouldn't think that, but there it is.
--
Les Cargill