Recommend a Recording Device?
noname
myself on separate tracks, via separate mic inputs, and do it
simultaneously?
I have a Dean Markley sound hole pickup for my acoustic guitar; the
guitar also has its own built-in mic jack, which I can plug directly
into a 1/4" input; and in addition, I have a vocal mic I can point
directly at the guitar. I'd like to be able to compare the recording
results of the SAME performance as recorded by the various mic
methods. With what I have available, I have to record three separate
attempts at performance to compare.
William Sommerwerck
around since the late 60s / early 70s.
John Williamson
There are a number of computer sound interfaces for Mac and PC that will
record four channels simultaneously starting at a couple of hundred
dollars. The Lexicon Omega Desktop Studio is still listed at the bottom
end of that, limited by using a USB interface. It has two balanced Mic
inputs and a built-in DI connection. It's also got a pair of spare line
level inputs to record four simultaneous channels
Recorders that will do the job range from a hacked Zoom H2 for a couple
of hundred dollars plus a couple of hours work, to the likes of the
Sound Devices 744T at many thousands.
--
Tciao for Now!
John
noname
wrote:
With a preferred budget of $500 or less, can you offer specific
suggestions? Or a place where I can do my own research?
John Williamson
> On Dec 19, 12:03 pm, John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> noname wrote:
>>> Is there a recording device out there which would enable me to record
>>> myself on separate tracks, via separate mic inputs, and do it
>>> simultaneously?
>>> I have a Dean Markley sound hole pickup for my acoustic guitar; the
>>> guitar also has its own built-in mic jack, which I can plug directly
>>> into a 1/4" input; and in addition, I have a vocal mic I can point
>>> directly at the guitar. I'd like to be able to compare the recording
>>> results of the SAME performance as recorded by the various mic
>>> methods. With what I have available, I have to record three separate
>>> attempts at performance to compare.
>
> With a preferred budget of $500 or less, can you offer specific
> suggestions? Or a place where I can do my own research?
As I'm in the U.K., I'd start looking to places like Turnkey Music in
London, or DV247, who have branches in a lot of towns. Thomann in
Germany have a good range, but I don't know if they'll ship to the USA.
The Lexicon interface is currently listed as in stock by B&H in the USA
for 160 dollars plus shipping.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=304392&is=REG&A=details&Q=
For a standalone recorder, you just need to be aware that a lot of
"4-Channel" cheap recorders will only record two channels at a time.
The next step up is rather more expensive, as the market's a lot smaller.
Sorry I can't be more help, others may know your market better.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Mike Rivers
> With a preferred budget of $500 or less, can you offer specific
> suggestions? Or a place where I can do my own research?
I'll open the bidding with a TASCAM DP-004. Do you want ot
raise or fold?
http://www.tascam.com/products/dp-004.html
You should really do your initial research at a music store since
you don't seem to have a clear idea of what's out there that might
be what you need.
Mike Rivers
> Is there a recording device out there which would enable me to record
> myself on separate tracks, via separate mic inputs, and do it
> simultaneously?
There are a whole lot of options. You should really visit a music store
that handles recording equipment. Most all of them do nowadays. Get
some idea of what you would like to use first before asking such an
open-ended question. With a more limited scope, including price
range, whether you want to use a computer or want a stand-alone
recorder, and what you want to be able to do with your recordings,
you'll get better guidance.
Since you seem to be quite a novice at this, unless you have vast
aspirations, I'd recommend that you start with a one-box hardware
solution. The TASCAM DP-004
http://www.tascam.com/products/dp-004.html
is an easy-to-use 4-track recorder that will allow you to record two
tracks in a pass and overdub more tracks. For more tracks and
more flexibility for not much more money, you might look at a Zoom R16
http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=2009&brandID=4
Cyberserf
There really are a lot of options these days...You could buy a
dedicated recorder with multiple inputs (Boss, Korg, Tascam, Zoom,
et.al.) or you could get an audio interface with at least 4 in
(Presonus Firebox comes to mind, but there are a tonnes of them out
there...too many to even start a list so do a search or visit your
local music store). Alternatively, you could simply buy a four channel
USB or Firewire mixer (make sure it can record each track
individually...some of them only record the stereo bus). Most of these
options come with recording (sequencing) software (though some of
these limit the number of tracks you can record at once...If you run
into a wall and out of money, there are some free options out there
that are very good value (Audacity, N-Tracks, Muzys, etc...). In this
scenario, you read the manual, then you simply route each input to a
separate track and press record. Caveat, IMHO, if you really want to
AB these different inputs media properly, your big money is going to
be spent on buying some decent audio monitors...you may want to just
rent a small studio for 30 minutes...it'll may be cheaper ;-)
Here a link to a site that might be useful: http://www.wikirecording.org/Main_Page
Regards, CS
Les Cargill
noname
In order to narrow things down slightly -- and I realize my opening
question ranked right up there with "How much does air weigh?" without
any further specifications...
I've been working with a borrowed Boss BR-8. I like that it offers
eight separate tracks, but it seems to have three significant "down"
sides. First, of course, is that it records to Zip disks, and the
industry left those behind years ago in favor of flash cards, etc.
Second, it does not appear to allow me to record multiple versions of
the same guitar performance simultaneously. Third, while it has a
decent array of accompanying percussion sounds, it does not appear to
allow me to output that as an actual recordable percussion track.
As I stated at first, I have an acoustic guitar with a Dean Markley
sound hole pickup, AND a built in guitar pickup, AND I have the
capability to record from a third microphone (currently a vocal mic.)
Each offers its own characteristics, and I'd like to be able to play
with the effects on each individually...but I cannot do simultaneous
recording from all three sources (and I'm not a good enough musician
to play a song identically three different times.)
As an example of what I want to do... Many years ago I recorded a song
with guitar, and me singing four-part harmony with myself, backed up
by a three-part descant between verses. This was done on what was
(then) a pretty high-class sound-on-sound reel-to-reel tape recorder.
It took four hours to record a three-minute song, with me engineering
myself. I'd like to be able to re-record that song, without all the
layers of "mud" that accumulates with that many passes on a sound-on-
sound tape being bounced consecutively from left to right and back as
many times as was required. The BR-8 offers me tracks enough, but has
the previously-cited drawbacks.
Looking at what's currently "out there" in a cursory search on the
'Net, Boss now shows BR-600 that looks like a reasonable update of
the Br-8, but I still don't know if it will actually output the
percussion.
Mike Rivers
> I've been working with a borrowed Boss BR-8. I like that it offers
> eight separate tracks, but it seems to have three significant "down"
> sides. First, of course, is that it records to Zip disks, and the
> industry left those behind years ago in favor of flash cards, etc.
> Second, it does not appear to allow me to record multiple versions of
> the same guitar performance simultaneously. Third, while it has a
> decent array of accompanying percussion sounds, it does not appear to
> allow me to output that as an actual recordable percussion track.
I thought you might like working with an all-in-one unit like that. Having
it also serve as a drum machine goes beyond the usual "recording"
requirements, but there are some that do that. I'd look into what
Roland/Boss has to offer, and also Korg and Zoom. I don't follow those
things very closely but I know that being able to construct a drum track
and record it has been a feature offered by many of these gadgets.
Of course you could always get a drum machine that you like and just
plug it in as another recording source. It's another box, but it's surely
going to be more flexible than one built into a workstation, particularly
one that's in your budget range.
> As I stated at first, I have an acoustic guitar with a Dean Markley
> sound hole pickup, AND a built in guitar pickup, AND I have the
> capability to record from a third microphone (currently a vocal mic.)
> Each offers its own characteristics, and I'd like to be able to play
> with the effects on each individually...but I cannot do simultaneous
> recording from all three sources
In that case you'd want to focus on workstations (that's what they're
called)
that allow recording on four or more tracks (things tend to be in powers of
two in these things). That little flash card TASCAM I suggested is limited
to recording two tracks at a time, but the Zoom I suggested will, I think,
record eight. .
> As an example of what I want to do... Many years ago I recorded a song
> with guitar, and me singing four-part harmony with myself, backed up
> by a three-part descant between verses. This was done on what was
> (then) a pretty high-class sound-on-sound reel-to-reel tape recorder.
> It took four hours to record a three-minute song, with me engineering
> myself.
That's not unusual. Les Paul didn't work much faster than that. ;)
> Looking at what's currently "out there" in a cursory search on the
> 'Net, Boss now shows BR-600 that looks like a reasonable update of
> the Br-8, but I still don't know if it will actually output the
> percussion.
Maybe I don't understand what you're looking for, or maybe I just
expect too much from these workstations, but I can't imagine that
there's built-in percussion that you can't record. It's possible that
it doesn't get recorded in the same form as tracks that you record
with a microphone - it might be a drum machine that synchronizes
with time code that comes from the audio recorder part. But surely
you can include it when you mix the tracks. It just doesn't make
sense not to be able to. These things are designed to help you to
accomlish just what you're aiming at - to be the whole band, including
the drummer.
John Williamson
>
> As an example of what I want to do... Many years ago I recorded a song
> with guitar, and me singing four-part harmony with myself, backed up
> by a three-part descant between verses. This was done on what was
> (then) a pretty high-class sound-on-sound reel-to-reel tape recorder.
> It took four hours to record a three-minute song, with me engineering
> myself. I'd like to be able to re-record that song, without all the
> layers of "mud" that accumulates with that many passes on a sound-on-
> sound tape being bounced consecutively from left to right and back as
> many times as was required. The BR-8 offers me tracks enough, but has
> the previously-cited drawbacks.
>
> Looking at what's currently "out there" in a cursory search on the
> 'Net, Boss now shows BR-600 that looks like a reasonable update of
> the Br-8, but I still don't know if it will actually output the
> percussion.
If you want to record no more than two tracks simultaneously, while
playing back a rhythm section, any of the current micro studio units
will do what you want, with quality sort of according to how much you
want to pay. If you like Boss, then they have a number of units
available. Zoom has at least one, as do Korg and most of the other
makers. Functionality is more or less the same across the board, and the
easiest way to decide which is best for you is to actually see and try
the units you're interested in. Recording more than two tracks
simultaneously is more expensive as it's seen as a high end professional
function by the makers, and the market is much smaller.
If you can live with a budget of 500 dollars and a computer based
answer, then nowadays just about any cheap laptop running XP with a USB
port free will combine with the Lexicon to do what you want and more.
A`DAW program is supplied with the Lexicon, and is reasonably featured
program, supporting playback of already recorded tracks while recording
new ones. The audio track limit is defined by your hardware, and it has
a MIDI softsynth feature that can provide a percussion track, which can
be output to speakers or recorded to HD or both at the same time as a
seperate file as required. If you don't like the interface or the
limits, then Audacity is free and pretty good, and will work with the
hardware, even on a computer as old as a Pentium 500.
M-Audio also make a number of external sound interfaces that will do the
job.
--
Tciao for Now!
JOhn.
yrret
news:61249a5b-f436-4083...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Unless you need portability you can use your computer. Most have a mic in
jack, and many have a line in. For software there is freeware like Reaper
and Audicity.
Your only expense is turning that stereo jack into 2 mono plugs that you can
plug your mic and guitar into. Buy this adapter to plug into that mic
in/line in http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103225
Now connect your mic and guitar plug to one of those phono jacks. If your
using the mic in you can do this buying audio adapters.
If your using the line-in which will give you a recording with less white
noise you need to give those signals a little boost. Cheapest and easiest
for me would be a mini-mixer like this
http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Behringer-Eurorack-UB802-Mixer?sku=631238.
Once connected on the mixer you'll pan guitar right and vocals left to
isolate and use 2 phono cables to plug to the adapter on the computer.
But if you just want to plug in and go I'd get the H4 for no other reason
then it has jacks that can take an xlr mic and 1/4 guitar jack.
Richard Crowley
> "noname" wrote
>> With a preferred budget of $500 or less, can you offer specific
>> suggestions? Or a place where I can do my own research?
>
> Unless you need portability you can use your computer. Most have a mic in
> jack,
The built-in mic channel in computers is likely the worst most
people will ever encounter. OK for communication (Skype,etc.)
but rather dodgy for recording real music.
>and many have a line in.
OK for casual recording, but unlikely to be good enough
for critical use.
> For software there is freeware like Reaper and Audicity.
Audacity is free but may not be worth THAT much (IMHO).
Reaper is NOT free, but both the personal license ($60) and
the full license ($225) are exceptional value for the $$$. I am
a long-time user of CoolEdit (now Audition), but Reaper makes
them look like a poor, second-rate alternative.
> Your only expense is turning that stereo jack into 2 mono plugs that you
> can plug your mic and guitar into. Buy this adapter to plug into that mic
> in/line in http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103225
The line-level input will not work with standard microphone or
guitar output levels.
The standard pink computer mic input jack is NOT stereo.
> Now connect your mic and guitar plug to one of those phono jacks. If your
> using the mic in you can do this buying audio adapters.
If you do this you will be lucky to avoid damaging your mic
guitar pickup. But it has little chance of working as expected.
> If your using the line-in which will give you a recording with less white
> noise you need to give those signals a little boost.
Yes, "a little boost" is the least you will need if you are trying to
feed a mic or guitar level signal into a line-level input.
Devices which connect via USB or Firewire are typically higher
quality than most built-in sound channels in computers. These
can range from simple "cables" with mic XLR connector on one
end and USB on the other ("sound card" built into the cable)
all the way up to very large mixers with built-in digital in/out.
yrret
> Audacity is free but may not be worth THAT much (IMHO).
>
> Reaper is NOT free, but both the personal license ($60) and
> the full license ($225) are exceptional value for the $$$. I am
> a long-time user of CoolEdit (now Audition), but Reaper makes
> them look like a poor, second-rate alternative.
>
Ah its changed some since I last looked in on it.
>
> The standard pink computer mic input jack is NOT stereo.
If by standard you mean SB cards you might be right.
>
>> Now connect your mic and guitar plug to one of those phono jacks. If
>> your using the mic in you can do this buying audio adapters.
>
> If you do this you will be lucky to avoid damaging your mic
> guitar pickup. But it has little chance of working as expected.
>
I've done this setup in the past, aside from hiss had no issues. What kind
of damage was I risking?
Richard Crowley
The "ring" connection of the standard pink mic input jack is
NOT an audio input, it is the power voltage output. Connecting
this voltage to a dynamic mic or to a guitar pickup coil is NEVER
a good idea.
Richard Crowley
>> The standard pink computer mic input jack is NOT stereo.
> If by standard you mean SB cards you might be right.
There is NO pink mic input jack on ANY PC that is stereo.
I've NEVER EVER seen one or heard anyone who has seen
one. It is a universal PC standard, not just Sound Blaster.
Likely written into the AC97 standard by now.
Arny Krueger
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:7prcea...@mid.individual.net...
AFAIK the AC97 standard was pretty well a finished product by 1997 - hence
the name!
http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/ac97_r23.pdf
says that the last revision was in 2002. It is basically chip-level stuff.
http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/ac97_r23.pdf
pages 20-25 describe what the standard audio jacks do, but I don't see any
mention of the *standard* colors of the jack.
I don't know if the standard color for the mic jack is red or pink. I'm
thinking red.
TimR
>
> As an example of what I want to do... Many years ago I recorded a song
> with guitar, and me singing four-part harmony with myself, backed up
> by a three-part descant between verses. This was done on what was
> (then) a pretty high-class sound-on-sound reel-to-reel tape recorder.
> It took four hours to record a three-minute song, with me engineering
> myself.
>
By strange coincidence I did that very thing last night. I had an
unusual arrangement of Amazing Grace with some nice harmonies handy,
and a new Zoom H2 I'm still playing with.
I connected the H2 to an old Toshiba laptop via the supplied USB cable
and started Audacity. It took about five minutes to figure out the
preference settings so that the H2 appeared as an audio input.
I started a click track and sang each part. Four times through the
verse, and I had four harmony tracks. So maybe ten minutes singing, I
was in no hurry. If I'd cared to do a full 3 minute version, and
allow for a retake or two, still nowhere near 4 hours, and the audio
quality on each track is identical. I could have used a microphone
into the sound card, but I wanted to test the H2.
Can't help you with the multiple input thing, sorry.
Trivia: you can sing the soprano and alto parts an octave low, in the
normal male voice range, then use Change Pitch to boost it an octave.
It doesn't change the tempo, but you do get a sort of chipmunk quality
to the tone.