For what purpose do you record?

[Mike Gug]

Billster's thread about the "Mind's Ear" got me thinking, what do I want to achieve in recording?

 

Do I want to: do a demo for a record label eventually, record for my kids to listen to when I'm gone, bring originals to the band, amuse myself, waste time...?

 

I feel I need to immortalize my lack of fretboard prowess somehow, but I have been disappointed in how difficult it is to record with the computer: the software, the interface, the compatability issues, mixing levels, final mixes, bringing up the software for a recording session........... ugh!

 

I want to push 4 frickin' buttons and record 4 frickin' tracks, but I don't want a 1980's audio cassette technology. Am I asking too much?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Well, expectations verse reality... hmmmm....

 

Okay, here's the deal. You can get a Tascam US 428 that looks and operates like a PortaStudio, but plugs into your computer and allows you to record in 24 bit quality, have MIDI, and have Gigagstudio instruments, VSTi, etc... you don't HAVE to use those things though, you can run it just like it was a PortaStudio.

 

Couldn't get much simpler. Oh. Unless you went with the Tascam 224. Or the 122. Each one is cheaper, smaller, yet still aimed at the guitar player and made extra easy to use.

 

There is a 4 channel unit that keeps showing up on the banner ads here.... a Prosonus piece... I'm not familiar with it but it os a similar idea.

 

So, you can record in todays technology with a 1980s interfcace.

 

But there is no way around it, when you get into editing (because, after all, though we want to record in a 1980s style, that ususally does not include us being rehearsed well enough to play a whole 3 minute pop song all the way through without making a mistake...)you are going to have to learn to use the software.

 

I still like Band in a Box. I'm not a fan of the light version of Cubase, which is what comes bundled with most of these devices. I like SAWStudio Basic. I like Sonar. I like Samplitude. Vegas is okay. Hell, they all do the job, and we each have our favorites.

 

I've spent many years recording, I know a lot about it, and I've got a lot of really expensive stuff. If you don't, you are limited by your (in)abilities and your lack of quality gear. You'll need to adjust your expectations accordingly. If the first recordings don't sound like Toto, Metallica, or James Taylor, just remember that they hire guys to record them.

 

Bill

[Bbach1]

I record simply for fun. Thus, I have the same problem. I hate all the complications but want a decent sound quality. I bought a bunch of computer recording gear and sold it all just hating the work involved. I want to push "record" and do my thing, but I want to be able to dub lead over rhythm tracks and vocals over those without trying to become a rocket scientist. I have enough to study each day without studying to become a recording engineer. I'm thinking that is what portable recording devices are all about. Hook up the mics and instruments, hit record, slide a few controls, and play.

[Mike Gug]

Good stuff, I'll have to digest it later tonight. Thanks.

[Eric VB]

Well, I think it's beyond '80s cassettes in both sound capture and complexity. I remember trying to "multi-track" in the '80s using two cassette decks; play one through the stereo while playing along on guitar/bass/drums or singing and recording through a cheap mic to the other. Up to the 3rd generation of this it wasn't too bad, and it had this real cool phase/flange effect, but the 4th generation was pretty crappy.

 

"DIY home recording", like DIY anything, means you're comfortable without using someone else's expertise. If your knowledge of the subject is limited, you're willing to stumble along for a while until you learn.

 

Think "DIY transmission repair". Someone without any training is going to take a long time to repair a transmission, if ever, and they actually may make things worse. A friend of mine studied mechanics at community college and worked at various name-brand repair shops; a professional mechanic both in the skilled and payed sense. He wasn't trained at transmissions, though, and would cheerfully pay someone qualified to work on his if the need ever arose. To him, the effort of DIY was not worth it.

 

The other aspect is equipment. Not many people have hydraulic lifts installed in their 5-car garage, full set of tools, etc. If you have the money to burn, though, you can buy this stuff.

 

Are you asking too much to be able to make quality recordings in a DIY setting? Well, do you have the expertise and the tools to do what you want to do? Which is worth more to you for this project, quality, time or money?

 

[edit: of course Bill beat me to the punch line while I was typing this in. If you're really interested in recording, take a peek at the some of the other forums here that discuss it in detail.]

[Funk Jazz]

i got into the DAW thing last year with an Aardark Q10 and Cubase, and within 8 months had recorded one of my bands and released the CD. i engineered, mixed, and mastered the project. i had a decent background in analog recording, so i had a grasp on mic placement and whatnot. total cost for the studio and 1000 copies of the disc was under 3K.

 

technology is so good now, it takes almost no effort to make a reasonable recording.

 

why do i record? mostly just to document a moment in time. sometimes to work out bugs in a composition. sometimes to work on difficult jazz standards.

 

it's an unparalleled creative outlet, and an impressive mirror for seeing the truth about your talent. for good or bad

[Billster]

What FJ said. It's an outlet, and let's you access what you are capable of.

 

The technology today is so good, that if you satisfy yourself (!) you can share top quality with anyone you wish: booking agents, family, potential partners, etc.

[Dr. Ellwood]

I record all rehersals for band evaluation of our total sound and our individual improvement needs. I record live full band things to hear how we sound in front of an audience and also to remember how the audience reacts to the band. My recording is always very low tech, fast and cheap.

[JimK]

Why do I record? It gives me an excuse to by more gear

 

It's also more fun then watching TV, cutting the grass, taking out the garbage, etc. Sure, at times it's hard and frustrating. But, isn't that part of what makes it so rewarding? My stuff isn't "pro" quality, but either is my playing. Both are getting better and I'm having fun along the way.

[Mike Gug]

The reason for posting was me wondering aloud, "Is the effort required worth the ends?" If it's just for me, then eh, no big concern for quality. The learning curve and necessary experimentation seems to be killing me and my precious spare time.

 

On the other hand I DO want SOME record of me being able to hold and play a guitar. Hopefully my kids will be inspired(?).

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by Mike Gug:

The reason for posting was me wondering aloud, "Is the effort required worth the ends?" If it's just for me, then eh, no big concern for quality. The learning curve and necessary experimentation seems to be killing me and my precious spare time.

 

On the other hand I DO want SOME record of me being able to hold and play a guitar. Hopefully my kids will be inspired(?).

I understand that statement about the time and learning curve very well!! You should be able to record enough material and have it be sufficient in quality to make a good record of your playing without getting too technical. The guys here have so much info on how to do these things. The time it takes to really understand recording and all its facets is time taken away from playing, and I dont like that.

[Mike Gug]

I'm telling you... it's looking more and more like the Digitech GNX4 is the thing. I ordered their DVD a while back, and it looked pretty simple. I was just beginning my quest for analog/tube sound at the time, so I discounted the claims of sound quality, but now I'm thinking more about the claims of easy RECORDING .

[Gruupi]

I have recorded for different lots of reasons in the past. At first it was because I had a tape recorder laying around and decided to use it for fun. At some point I used it to keep a record of song ideas and to present these ideas to the band.

 

I have recorded demos in small studios for the purpose of soliciting gigs. The qualities of the recordings we did varied but I was generally unsatisfied both with the sound and the performance from all my paid studio time. First of all there is alot of pressure to go in and perform a perfect take in a very limited amount of time. To get everyone to play a decent cut, especially if you are all tracking together, wasn't something we as a band were up to skill wise. These were situations where the band practiced at most one day a week, we would never really be tight enough to do well.

 

When I started an original band I knew that as part of the songwriting process we would need to record. My brother and I would come up with the basic tracks for the songs, then give a tape to our singer/lyricist. She would have as much time as she needed to come up with lyrics and melodies. It was always a give and take process but without the recordings it would have taken forever. Most amatuer bands just can't get together 5 nights a week to write or practice.

 

So we bought a computer based recording system, the Echo Layla, and Cool Edit Pro. I had never really used a multi-track recorder before and knew next to nothing about recording. I read a couple of books and used my ears and we ended up with a decent recording. Much better than the paid studio recordings we had done in the past. If you are under no pressure, and can take all the time you need to get it right.

 

I also use recording just to make a record of my playing. It is a good evaluation tool. It can be quite a challenge to get a pristine solo guitar take as I have found out recently. It is even harder to play with emotion while recording. But I notice that in the process of recording, I definately get better at playing the song. Not only do I notice passages that I need to work on, rhythmically and dynamically, just the focus needed to record a good take makes me understand the song better.

 

So my latest round of recordings was just to have something to post in the master music thread. That was the excuse I needed to finish polishing off some songs I had been working on for quite some time. Through learning the songs well enough to record and then getting the performance, my playing become much better in a relatively short period of time. It has also exposed some things in my playing that I want to improve.

 

The recording process itself is fascinating. I can't say that it is fun, it is agonizing when things don't go right. Like when you get a good take but you hear a bird chirping in the background hehe. I have also learned alot about sound in general since I started recording and mixing. I hear things on records I never heard before because I listen much more intensely now.

 

Sorry for the long post. Even though I would never want to record other peoples music for a living, especially if I didn't like the music, I have always been a do it yourself type of person. I usually feel if you expend the effort, then you can do a better job than hiring someone that probably doesn't care as much about the result as you do.

[BriBaby]

I record for a few reasons. All the gear I have is only suited for demos really. The handful of originals I have written are mostly for my wife, a few are for friends. So I will record for them and give them a copy. Other reasons are so that I don't forget original ideas that I have and can revisit them later if I want to. Also, sometimes the process is a test to see how I play under the gun, and to learn new things about recording.

[rw2003]

Why do I record? I enjoy the technical aspect of it as well as the control of playing and recording all the instruments/tracks. I really don't have time to devote to a band so its all me or nothing. Its also cool to go back and rediscover something you've done in the past and give it a listen.

 

As a "hobbyist", I use Cakewalk Music Creator 2002 to record digitally into my PC via a mic or guitar through my Korg Pandora PX3. I even manage to record and mix-in tracks created from Band in a Box. Yeah, its a bit dated now but the Cakewalk s/w is easy to use and did not take much time to get up and running. The stuff is barely demo quality (my fault, not the equipment), but it sounds decent enough to impress family and friends. I wish i had more time to devote to audio recording, among other things like playing more guitar!!!

 

I do have great aspirations to build a modest home studio in the future if could only clean out the basement! Would consider getting the entry-level Pro-Tools set up then.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

I record because I want to hear myself and see how I'm doing. And there's stuff I can only do with two or more guitars. I also like putting stuff online simply because if I'm going to do that, it better be at least listeneable. So it pushes me to try a bit harder.

 

I've recently discovered CuBase, but I don't use most of it. I don't have a midi keyboard controller and all that jazz.

 

I find recording pretty simple: you plug your guitar into the PC, choose which track you want the guitar to go on and click on "record".

 

When you finish, you get this rectangular thingie on the desktop. And that's your guitar's wav. You can move it around, copy it, cut it, edit it or whatever. I really like that visual side of it, which a PortaStudio does NOT give you. You can really see each track in front of you. And there's no need to wait for a tape to rewind either.

 

I think that all the stuff one hears about "all the f*cking menus, man..." is a FAD (fear and doubt) campaign launched by everyone who makes dedicated recorders. If other PC recording packages are like CuBase, then I can only ask "WHAT f*cking menus, man?"

[Mike Gug]

Why isn't my CuBase SE that simple? I had to have an interface. Cutting and pasting wasn't easy. Just too much it seemed. I don't want to get into a tutorial thread here. I'm just venting. I'm selling my stuff soon.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Mike Gug:

Why isn't my CuBase SE that simple?

I didn't care for Cubase, either. I've said it before though,... it is like buying shoes or guitars or tennis racquets. There isn't a right or wrong, it is a matter of finding the one that 'feels' good. SAWStudio and Sequoia 'clicked' with me. Vegas was easy to understand, too. I tend to like the 'audio only' programs, as I don't use MIDI anymore.

 

Bill

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Mike Gug:

The reason for posting was me wondering aloud, "Is the effort required worth the ends?" If it's just for me, then eh, no big concern for quality. The learning curve and necessary experimentation seems to be killing me and my precious spare time.

 

On the other hand I DO want SOME record of me being able to hold and play a guitar. Hopefully my kids will be inspired(?).

There seems to be a lot of this going around last several years

 

Most of it is the result of the ITB/working on a shoestring budget approachand expectations for a whole lot of instant gratification.

 

Theres nothing wrong with doing anything as a mild hobbysomething to screw around with in your spare timeyou know, nothing really serious, just a fun thing, until the thrill wears offetc.

 

Butthere is a lot to be said for slowing down and putting the time and effort into stuffeven it requires a lot of time and moneyand scaling a steeper learning curve.

Alsoafter all is said and doneunless you are really willing to close your eyesor I should say, close your ears

quality may not be all that important to youbut lets face it, deep inside, youre always thinking about it, and wondering how the hell do the pros get that great sound quality, and why cant you???

 

Sureputting up a cassette deck and a couple of mics during band practice just so you can evaluate your rehearsalsthats cool. Probably every band on the planet has done that!

 

Butwhen you start writing musicand when your playing is good enough that you can really hear it all coming together in your minds ear

well, at that pointhow many corners do you really want to cut in order to meet your own expectations?

Likewhats the rush?

Why NOT try to squeeze out every drop of quality that you can?

If you current rig aint getting you hardwhy NOT keep building and investing into iteven if it does take some time and money?

Orat least get your ass into a pro studio thats already got it alland do your work there.

 

Seems like deep down insidemost people DO want to get pro qualitybut, they have misled themselves into believing that a laptop, a mic and a soundcardwith a quick read of some basic how-to articles in their favorite audio magazineis going to get them there.

 

NOT!

 

You knowevery time I walk into my studioI ask myself some of these questions.

What am I doing here?

What is the value/goal of all this time & effort?

Why the hell did I just spend another $2-$3 grand on yet MORE equipment?!

Is this stupid song EVER going to sound rightor will it just keep getting crappier, the more time I spend on it?

 

And there are few more

 

Butusually I always settle my ass down after a bit, and realize once again, that its my passionmy lifelong hobbysomething that will hopefully stay with me until I dieand if Im a little lucky, maybe some of it will live on after me.

 

So no matter whatthe goal is to ALWAYS keep on moving forward and improving things as much as I have the time and money to do.

If it takes me 3 months to finish a song because Im just too busy with other things (as we all can be at times)thats cool. I try not to let it dull me outand just keep on moving with it whenever I can.

I have NO expectations other than a desire to write/record/mix my own music to the best of my ability and my gears abilityno matter how long it takes.

Its not a finite process.it just goes on. If I finish a song todaywell, in 5 years time I may record it over if I feel that I can take it to a different level.or, I may never touch it again.

If anyone else ever gets anything out of my musicthats a bonus.

And ifIever get anything more out of it than just the pure enjoyment of the whole writing/recording process

well, THAT will be some serious cream on the cake!

 

Ive tried very hard NOT to set myself up for failure. Its just too easy to do thatespecially when you get creative

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

I didn't care for Cubase, either. I've said it before though,... it is like buying shoes or guitars or tennis racquets.

I bought mine because a friend already had it and I figured I could ring him up and ask for advice and help and so on.

 

 

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

SAWStudio and Sequoia 'clicked' with me. Vegas was easy to understand, too. I tend to like the 'audio only' programs, as I don't use MIDI anymore.

 

Bill

I might look into that. Much as I like CuBase, I don't have a MIDI controller, so all the VST stuff is of zero use to me. It just seems a waste of disk space! I also find that a lot of the effects are way too detailed for my taste. In fact, I spend most of the mixdown time futzing with the effects. That's one thing I'd definitely change.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

It's NOT a double post!

 

I'm multitracking, ferchrissakes!!!

[Pappy P]

I started recording because I'm not in a band and I need to practice. My playing has improved greatly because of it. Expecially my ryhthm playing.

 

I had a few song ideas and recording helped me develop those ideas and sparked others.

I think every musicians should do at least some recording.

 

Playing with all the editing and processing features helped me discover some tricks that the pros must use in the studio.

 

Also my over-all tone and dynamic control has improved as well. Being forced to sit and listen to myself play compelled me to improve so I would not torture my self too much.

 

Something Cool: I discovered a friend of mine is a closet recorder as well. We are gonna get together this week-end and try collaborating. Hope it goes well, it should be fun if nothing else.

[EmptinesOf Youth]

i love my presonus firebox....

[A String]

I record because I have to. A song will start rolling around in my head and I have to get it out. I'll do a draft recording of tons of songs over a few months, and then redo ones that I really like and discard ones I don't.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

I bought mine because a friend already had it ....

 

 

I might look into that. ... I also find that a lot of the effects are way too detailed for my taste. In fact, I spend most of the mixdown time futzing with the effects. That's one thing I'd definitely change.

Well, Cubase is the overwhelming favorite in Europe and they have made some great inroads here simply by geting the deal wherein their product is bundled with nearly every piece of hardware that you can buy. If you get the lite version of a program for free, you'll probably upgrade to the full version because you already know how to use it, and you'll want the additional features.

 

I know guys who have bought the Tascam US 428 and put in the full version of Sonar and been very happy, because they liked Sonar better. I know another fellow who put in the full version of Cubase and was happier but quickly outgrew the 428 and moved to an RME Multiface.

 

 

But the Portastudio paradigm was easy for them to grasp since everybody had worked on one at one time or another, so the US-428 was an easy way to get their feet wet with computer based recording, using a hardware system that they already understood.

 

In terms of other softwares, Samplitude is the little brother to Sequoia, and Samp is quite popular in Europe, too. They have recently added MIDI support, but it does not get in the way. I find it a lot easier to use audio programs that have added MIDI, than MIDI programs that have added audio. Different viewpoints, and I am basically a guitarist after all. All that MIDI keyboard stuff just goes over my head.

 

Samplitude is an attempt to be all things to all people, so you can do just about anythign from within it; while SAWStudio is a much more focused product, interested in being the best at what it does. Not that the SAW toolkit is limited, it is just limited compared to some others that are available. Meanwhile, it is very hard to find a program that does the same things and does them better. And NOTHING is as stable as SAWStudio.

 

In terms of effects... stop that! The biggest inhibitor to getting work done is not being able to make up your mind. Limit your number of effects, and learn to use that handful.

 

For me, the trick to getting a good sound (once you have good stuff...) is in the correct choice of mic, the correct placement of the mic, and the correct choice of mic preamp. This eliminates so much messing around with eqs and such. And I also find that less processing is better. Do you need to put 37 reverbs and six gates on a guitar? (Just an example...)

 

Bill

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

But the Portastudio paradigm was easy for them to grasp since everybody had worked on one at one time or another, so the US-428 was an easy way to get their feet wet with computer based recording, using a hardware system that they already understood...

I love PortaStudios. I've had several, over the years. But I've moved onto the PC simply because the sound is cleaner and I can have SO! MUCH! DISKSPACE!

 

And I agree with you about effects. I don't really like them much, beyond a bit of reverb and maybe some aural exciter somewhere in the mix.

 

QUESTION: is there anything out there (for PC) that lets you "ride the faders" during mixdown? It'd be soooooo cool if there was!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

... But I've moved onto the PC simply because the sound is cleaner and I can have SO! MUCH! DISKSPACE!

 

QUESTION: is there anything out there (for PC) that lets you "ride the faders" during mixdown? It'd be soooooo cool if there was!

The US 428 plugs into the computer (USB) and uses it's disk space. You can use it's faders.

 

I have the Mackie Control in my studio. That whole idea is a little outmoded, but some can't shake the fader paradigm. For those, there is the Mackie with the expanders, the Tascam US-2400, the Mixed Logic, and a bunch of others.

 

'Riding the faders' is reacting to something that you have already heard. You're too late! Automating the faders is different, and at that point you are basically mixing with the mouse.

 

Bill

[Eric VB]

I record basically for myself at this point, but I'd like to be able to produce "cd quality" (whatever that means) demos of songs. I'm not looking for performance-quality band demos, just songwriter-quality song demos. (Maybe they are the same?) Hopefully I can get there without spending $100,000 on equipment and 10 years perfecting my "ear" so I can master as well as mix. (Maybe if I were a teen again ...)

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

I record basically for myself at this point, but I'd like to be able to produce "cd quality" (whatever that means) demos of songs. I'm not looking for performance-quality band demos, just songwriter-quality song demos. (Maybe they are the same?) Hopefully I can get there without spending $100,000 on equipment and 10 years perfecting my "ear" so I can master as well as mix. (Maybe if I were a teen again ...)

I think that all of that is a waste of time.

 

I think that it makes more sense to do the songwriter demo thing, and use that to get a bunch of guys to make the music. Or do you plan to learn to play keys, drums, bass, etc etc etc... and become a recording engineer and a mastering engineer? All for pennies?

 

Keep your eye on the ball. (Whichever particular 'ball' you happen to be interested in..) if you want to be a writer, write. Keep the demos simple, and move on to the next song. You cannot possibly do it all, do it all well, and get anywhere, unless you have infinite time and money. Should you spend weeks writing a MIDI piano part for a song, or would that time be better spent writing more songs, and just strumming and singing demo tracks, or laying down a simple drum/bass, getting the idea down, and writing more?

 

Bill

[Eric VB]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

I record basically for myself at this point, but I'd like to be able to produce "cd quality" (whatever that means) demos of songs. I'm not looking for performance-quality band demos, just songwriter-quality song demos. (Maybe they are the same?) Hopefully I can get there without spending $100,000 on equipment and 10 years perfecting my "ear" so I can master as well as mix. (Maybe if I were a teen again ...)

I think that all of that is a waste of time.

 

I think that it makes more sense to do the songwriter demo thing, and use that to get a bunch of guys to make the music. Or do you plan to learn to play keys, drums, bass, etc etc etc... and become a recording engineer and a mastering engineer? All for pennies?

 

Keep your eye on the ball. (Whichever particular 'ball' you happen to be interested in..) if you want to be a writer, write. Keep the demos simple, and move on to the next song. You cannot possibly do it all, do it all well, and get anywhere, unless you have infinite time and money. Should you spend weeks writing a MIDI piano part for a song, or would that time be better spent writing more songs, and just strumming and singing demo tracks, or laying down a simple drum/bass, getting the idea down, and writing more?

 

Bill

Er, yes, it's a waste of time and money: that was my point. (Maybe someday I will learn how to communicate better.) Evidently my penchant for sarcasm is getting in the way again.

 

I don't want to be an engineer and I don't want to be the world's best performer on each and every instrument known to man. As you say, there are better uses for my time considering what my goals are.

 

I used to record my ideas to cassette; just acoustic guitar. Not bad for a cheap sketchbook, but of little value otherwise.

 

I've heard some good song demos here, and they didn't involve a boombox cassette recorder. Nor did they involve more arrangement and production than was necessary to convey the song idea.

 

As this moves into a different topic, I'll post elsewhere for more advice.