Studio Monitors
Recently I purchased a Zoom HD16CD for multi-track recording my band at our gigs. Now I have a number of hours of recorded music that I need to start mixing down for demo work. I have been using headphones but I can see that will soon be a pain in the neck, literally, if I wear headphones all the time. Plus, I don't know if my headphones are coloring the sound.
I have some money set aside, but like most things, I'd like to get the best deal I can for my money. I have had good luck with Behringer products and am looking at the B2031P studio monitos. http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Behringer-TRUTH-B2031P-Passive-Monitors-?sku=600604 I have an extra power amp in my studio that has been retired since I upgraded to a QSC GX5 Stereo Power Amplifier for our gigs, so I really don't \"need\" active monitors. However, if someone thinks I should purchase active monitors for whatever reason, I'm listening.
The Zoom HD16CD has Master Out RCA's (L/R) and also a Digital Out. I'm looking for something fairly good for my home studio, but I am not making a living doing this stuff, so my hobby budget is limited. I'm not in a great hurry, but would like to get some opinions on what you guys recommend. Then I'll keep my eyes open and maybe get them on sale somewhere (patience is a virtue, and often saves $$$$).
By the way, I really like the Zoom HD16CD. However, it is being discontinued and replaced with a less expensive, less capable, flash drive recorder. So the price is dropping on the remaining stock of HD16CD's. There is a lot of discontent in the Zoom HD16CD user forum about the newer model not being as good as the HD16. Which is sad because so many of us here with GNX4's know that we will probably never see a GNX5 with improvements over the GNX4. Anyway, I am completely happy with my purchase of the Zoom HD16CD and I would recommend that if you are looking for a multi track recorder, you might want to consider the HD16CD. http://www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-ZOO-HD16CD-LIST
I have some money set aside, but like most things, I'd like to get the best deal I can for my money. I have had good luck with Behringer products and am looking at the B2031P studio monitos. http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Behringer-TRUTH-B2031P-Passive-Monitors-?sku=600604 I have an extra power amp in my studio that has been retired since I upgraded to a QSC GX5 Stereo Power Amplifier for our gigs, so I really don't \"need\" active monitors. However, if someone thinks I should purchase active monitors for whatever reason, I'm listening.
The Zoom HD16CD has Master Out RCA's (L/R) and also a Digital Out. I'm looking for something fairly good for my home studio, but I am not making a living doing this stuff, so my hobby budget is limited. I'm not in a great hurry, but would like to get some opinions on what you guys recommend. Then I'll keep my eyes open and maybe get them on sale somewhere (patience is a virtue, and often saves $$$$).
By the way, I really like the Zoom HD16CD. However, it is being discontinued and replaced with a less expensive, less capable, flash drive recorder. So the price is dropping on the remaining stock of HD16CD's. There is a lot of discontent in the Zoom HD16CD user forum about the newer model not being as good as the HD16. Which is sad because so many of us here with GNX4's know that we will probably never see a GNX5 with improvements over the GNX4. Anyway, I am completely happy with my purchase of the Zoom HD16CD and I would recommend that if you are looking for a multi track recorder, you might want to consider the HD16CD. http://www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-ZOO-HD16CD-LIST
Comments
I hope we get some good demo quality tracks out of these recordings. If they turn out good, I'll post some later. We are rebuilding the band with two new members. Lots of potential in the future, but for the moment we are still working on getting tight and solid again. I got a good multi track recorder now, so that is why I'm asking about decent studio monitors. I have read that studio monitors are really \"needed\" to get the best sound for the remix. I'm pretty sure that my headphones are coloring the sound. Plus, I don't want to have to listen through headphones all the time, at least not mine.
Set the NFM's so that they are aimed even (height) with the listener's ears but angled enough to just pass the ear, not directly in front and not directly aimed at the person.
Play back some produced (pre-recorded) cd's of a similar genre. That will help you get used to what your NFM's sound like to YOU. It won't sound like typically hi fi but you will have a better idea and train your ears on what to hear. Always start with a low volume on one or two songs. Then gradually bump up the volume to just past speaking volume, not yelling, but speaking volume. It's all part of training your ears on your system.
The relevant point of high end monitors and to say that they are better is not always necessarily true. Ear training is key to mixing. Higher end monitors may be designed flatter across the spectrum at constant volume or any volume change.. that is one difference but most of the time you will not be cranking NFM's like typical Hi Fi audio systems. Of course there are notable differences in higher end monitors, and most is in design spec of the drivers and materials that better define flatter fields so you can hear details much better. Most home recording guys will not have a pair of Genelec or Adam type mon's. How much better a monitor is really depends on the user as these other eng's once proved that point on very low end speakers. In the proper room design, those high end monitors can show off infinite details and subtleties you won't find in Mackie, Alesis, Tannoy or Behringer. Are the sub $500 monitors enough for most home stuff? Sure they can be. Just like a $8000 monitor can be crap to a poor mix engineer.
Start simple. Maybe 4-6 tracks. Get used to the room and monitors. Then add another track, then another. You will get a better idea of tracking mixes and mix translations. You will be able to hear what frequencies of instruments are masking each other. How certain panning can fit your mix, and most often you will find less is more in these cases.
Certain instruments like a cymbal splash, roto tom etc are going to stand out with panning. Don't pan too much on extended lower frequencies. The muddier mixes come from this usually having very hard panning on layers of tracks in the low mids and extended bass.
Many guys like to stack tracks for definition. This works well when you are only having maybe 8 tracks total. After compiling tracks most find stacking tracks of one instrument in larger mixes (16+) is not that great at all. Where most failed mixes appear is in the dynamics of the mix. So it's really essential on the monitors to have something that sounds not so compressed (as stacked tracks can at times). The reason for this is the next process in mastering will be adding most of the dynamics and eq to relatively flat mix. Mixing is about translation of audible instruments. Mastering facilitates the \"punch\" and as some call the \"fm\" sound. Mastering can also yield the details with subtle reverbs, compression and so on. Just don't confuse the two.
MIX-
Here is where you place the basics of your tracks.
1. Panning
2. Associated track levels
3. Delays (less is more in most cases)
4. Special efx
5. MID band eq- mids can get flushed out so it is essential sometimes to give a slight boost on voc mids, lead guitar. A slight boost in midrange eq on those tracks will help when mastering compression is added later to the entire mix. Especially for classic rock type sound where most likley a vintage compression plugin or hardware application would be used.
6. Backing vocals and stacked tracks- If you stack tracks, set a main track level and only extend the eq in the region as desired when using a track pair or stacked track for any detailed parts. Say you want the chorus of a song to have the guitars punch in. Adjust the eq or pan that track only in that region of the song. If extending the low end, use a slight multiband compression boost on the lower mids. Same for male vocals, and if female vocals extend the midrange at around 2khz (for Amy Lee type voice).
In any home or pro studio, the more time you have listening to source material the better you will be at resolving mixes. I usually listen to a few cd's in that same genre the day before mixing. Wait a while, come back to it. You will notice a major improvement in your mixes.
I would strongly recommend a pair of Audio Technica ATHM40FS style headphones for some excellent reference cans. These style are flat, not as you would find in SENN HD280/ Sony MDR's.. which are not flat field cans. I use the ATHM40Fs cans quite a bit for backing vocal mixes. Seems easier for me to tailor those tracks for mastering.. YMMV.
Mastering- plugins are available for a DAW, but to get the best mastering, send your mixes out to a pro mastering house. They have tens of thousands of dollars in hardware compressors (Manley etc) and other top name reverb hardware etc. The differences on most home recording plugin vs mastering house productions are night and day.
But, I've also mixed in my Sennheiser 455's and was happy with the results; they're very light and easy to wear. Might be a little hard to find these days tho...
But like the others said, Monitors are as subjective as ice cream flavors...everyone has there preference.
I reference all my mixes on everything I can run them through . thats what is important, how does your mix sound on everyday playback devices. these days most people listen on their car stereo or ipod so get your mixes to sound good on devices like that and your gold...i doesn't really matter how you got them to sound that way.
fyi...MF has the passive KRK 6's on sale right now I believe for less than 100 bucks US each....they would be a good bet for someone who has an amp to push them...
they may not be the right tool for the job once you do. On the other hand it could be just the opposite. Just something to consider. Might want to consider building the room first. Depends on how far your willing to go and how much you can afford. But again alot of it has to do with knowing your monitors and what they can and cannot do. Same is true for the room or listening environment.
I am just interested in getting some decent quality near field speakers to help me mix my band's live recordings for demos to hand out to bar owners and managers. Maybe put some mp3s on the internet if we build a web site. I hope to build a work station that is comfortable for me with my equipment. The more I learn (such as having the speakers at ear level) the more thought I put into what a work station might look like. But I can't see myself doing any major modifications to the house for this project.
I gather you are a professional audio engineer from your previous posts, or at least at a level way above me. But there is no way I can afford studio monitors like the Genelecs. I am more in the ballpark of the Behringer B2031P for less than $200 a pair. I think I should be able to put together a modest home recording/mixing center without getting divorced in the process. At least, that's my goal. I am in the process of ordering some books from Amazon.com on home recording studios and a book on using the Cubase software that came with my Zoom HD16CD. I also use PTP with my GNX4 and am happy with that setup.
As far as mics, we have Shure SM58's for vocals and SM57's for amps. I am trying to get the guys to move to DI boxes to clean up our live sound. The SM57's are great mic's, but they also pick up lots of background chatter from the audience, which is OK for the live recordings, but it means that any overdubbing done back at home will sound different than the original track(s). I have a direct output on my bass amp, so if I have to do a bass retake at home, you can't tell the difference from the live recording.
At any rate, I think I'm going with the B2031P's as they receive high user reviews and they are also within my budget. If anyone has something more to say about the B2031P's, or an alternative within that price range, I am still listening until I place the order. Thanks for the comments guys.
http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/KRK-ST6-2-Way-Passive-Studio-Monitor-each?sku=602270
I would just set up a little area in your \"music room\" to do the mixing, but really consider some sort of treatment for the room. If you guys rehearse there then you would benefit on that front with some room treatment as well.
bass traps and other broadband traps are fairly easy to DIY and I know you like to make your own stuff just like I do. There are lots of places all over the web that get into acoustics and what your room would most benefit from. I wouldn't waste my money on a lot of that acoustic foam that they sell, it usually does more harm than good. A basic frame with some rockwool or rigid fiberglass covered in an open weave fabric like burlap is a much more effective tool when properly installed and correctly placed. most home centers either have acoustic insulation or can get it for you, and the total cost is far outweighed by the benefits you get from a great sounding room to play and mix in. you can almost think of the room as another instrument for lack of a better term, and if you tune the room everything will sound better and your wife and neighbors will love you for it as well
You dont have to break the bank ( although it will bankrupt you if you let it). Just hunt around on the net.....bunches of info out there..........the studio central community forum on tweakheadz.com is a real fountain of info, a bunch of really smart guys there. Happy mixing.
I do have an extra power amp and that is why I am looking at the Behringer B2031P's for my studio monitors. Also, many guys on the forum here say they like their 2031's, so I figure I can't go too wrong.
When I first get into any new project, I tend to buy on a budget thinking that I am paying for the learning experience. It's usually the second purchase that I really know what I want and need and it's at that time I am willing to spend more money on the equipment to accomplish my goal. For example, some people knock PTP as a budget software of what is available. However, I say it's free with the GNX4, so if you are just starting out, learn how to use it and see if it works for you. If not, at least you will know what features you need and are willing to pay for in your second purchase. After all, one software package we have retails for over $700.00, but I still use PTP for most of my humble requirements. Heck, most of the time I'm just fine with recording on the GNX4 OBR itself. Simple, easy, and quick. That has value to me, too.
very nice. JBL is also offering a $200 dollar rebate on them on their website currently. Definitely not as much as Genelecs. Some arguments for powered monitors would be of course each driver has it's own amp and
the protection circuits will be better designed specifically for those individual drivers. You'll have better headroom in the drivers and of course take up less space not having an outboard amplifier. You'll likely have better phase response between the different drivers at the crossover point and as is the case with the new powered JBL's and Genelec's you also have Eq options. But just like computers at the end of the day, you get the most you can afford and adjust to it. Hell my music room still has two bare cement walls and I have three packing blankets draped over boom stands to tame the high frequency reflections. LOL.
Yet another home project that needs to be finnished. Is there enough time in this lifetime to complete them all? LOL. Anyway I'm not gonna be one to say you have to do or not do anything. But I will throw out to you some of the considerations and maybe one or two will be applicable to you or maybe not. Bottom line is there's alot of good stuff out there and you don't need to break the bank to acheive your goals. Theres also alot of good prices on used stuff if you look around abit. I would suggest though that you listen to at least a half dozen different ones with a cd of your own making that has a variety of tracks that you are familliar with. Then you'll have a better idea as to whether or not they will work for your situation.
I will share one thing I do sometimes while recording. That is if I want to get a better ambient sound from something that has been recorded direct
and not have it be just another reverb, I'll put up a room mic and playback
whatever track through my monitors and record it and then mix that in with the direct track. Have gotton some awesome kick drum sounds out of my SR16 that way. It can be a fun thing to experiment with. Playing back guitar tracks this way with the monitor in the tiled shower stall gets some nice sounds also. Don't stress, Have fun and it'll happen.
No offense taken, nothing to feel sorry about. I just wanted to let everyone know that this is not my life's work, and I am working on a budget to get a modest setup working for me. I don't mind the DIY projects when they make sense. I imagine I'll be making my own work center for the mixing gear, monitors, keyboards, etc... But I'm just trying to get a sense of where I need to put my limited time, money, and resources to get the most bang out of my bucks.
I appreciated your comments on the whole sound system is only going to be as good as your weakest link. I agree. That is why I am constantly reevaluating my system and trying to upgrade whatever I think is my weakest link at the moment.
Recently, I joined a home recording forum where someone had posted audio clips of music recorded two ways: (1) on a \"budget\" system consisting of Shure SM58's and SM57's, DI boxes, and basic computer software, etc... and (2) a professional setup with the best mics he could get his hands on, really expensive externally rack modules for sound, and other equipment that I have no idea what he was talking about. Anyway, you took a blind test and had to decided what sounded better A/B/or both the same. There were about 20 different comparisons in the test. My personal results were that I could not tell the difference between the \"budget\" recorded files and the \"pro\" engineered files. When I did pick one sound file over the other, it turns out that I picked the budget audio file over the pro file. So I got to see my results and then the test gave results from all previous tests. Turns out that the majority of people were like me. They could not really tell any difference between the sound recorded on the budget system compared to the pro sound chain processed file costing litterally thousands of dollars more in equipment. Also, when the majority of people did pick one file over the other, turns out they also picked the budget recording as sounding better.
What I learned from that test/survey, is that it is really amazing what you can record and achieve at home with less than $1000 in total equipment. Or you can spend thousands more and think that you are getting a better system, but really most people will never know, or hear, the difference. The guy who posted that quiz is a professional engineer (or claims to be) and his point was that the best equipment really has little or no additional benefit to the ears of most people over a \"budget\" system that most home recording people can achieve with the workhorse SM58's and SM57's we probably use on stage anyway.
In that same forum, they also have an ongoing debate between 16 bit versus 24 bit audio which is pretty interesting. There are some posts that really deleve deep into the mathematics of the issue. Personally, I can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recorded music. When you look at the math, it seems that 16 bit by itself can capture more than what we can actually hear. So, recording at 24 bit is only capturing more of what we already can't hear. However, some people swear that they can hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. Good for them, I can't.
Back to the main topic, my weakest link at the moment is studio monitors - of which I don't have any. Thanks for all the comments.
I'm always fascinated with how minutely sound is parsed when it's happening at our (OK, \"my\") amateur level.
Now, if you're recording for Geffen and they're sinking 10 or 20 mill into your album and promotion, then yeah, you need every single infinitesimal improvement - the best mics, sound processors, studio, everything.
But when it's just for fun, it's hard for me to understand why a nice Shure SM58 isn't as good for recording vox as is a $5000 condenser. Why a GNX isn't as good as a pedalboard full of $500 stomps. Why a nice Roland Cube or Peavey 30 isn't as good as a $3000 handmade amp.
I guess that's why I hang out with my dog instead of Shania... :roll:
If you A-B an Eventide DSP 7000 or a Lexicon PCM91 against a Digitech Quad or any Alesis, you will Realize the differences. As far as anything I've downloaded off the web, No you probably wont be able to tell the difference. First you need to compare in a more realistic manner and it isn't off the web. There is way to much snakeoil on the web. But once you hear it, you'll never wanna go back. The only way to know for sure is to physically go through the process yourself.
I'm not talking from experience here, just from some interesting articles I came across on the internet recently. That kind of info helps me to keep things \"real\" when I think about my home studio wish list. I've got recording equipment that records at both 16 and 24 bit, but I would not buy a 24 bit recorder if I already had a good 16 bit recorder. Also, I am no longer really inpressed by $3000 mics because when I, and many others, took the blind audio test, we could not hear any difference, or when we thought we had a preference, it turned out more often than not to be the less expensive Shure SM57/58 mic. That test was a real eye (ear) opener for me.
I won't argue with jamminmj. I'm sure you can hear a difference between mics in a studio environment. The point of the test I took was to see if you could hear the difference on the stereo equipment you had at home, in the car, mp3 player, etc.... And, even though you might hear a difference, which did you prefer? When I thought I prefered one over the other, turns out I picked the Shure SM58/57's over the really expensive mics. Also, I did comment on the test in that I could hear no difference on my computer speakers, but also very little, if any difference, with my best Sony and Yamaha headphones. So I reserved some wiggle room in that I thought one might have a different test outcome if provided with studio monitors in a quiet sound room. But that's not where or how I listen to my music.... So I still think the test was useful from its point of view.
It's just all part of the audio evolution and market changeover. The majority of listeners have latched on to Ipods and compression of digital formats. Over time you get used to it, just like earlier comments of ear training techniques for monitors.
Your example for mic's is a good one. In the final product there won't be the distinction on most home gear. In a studio, with tuned rooms, and specific mics for a chosen purpose you will. A vocalist with strong dynamics would be better recorded on a higher end mic. You are looking for details of the vocal instrument other mics may not capture. Now for general purpose vocal solutions, a 58 is fine. A pro vocalist should be able to track well with any mic, the differences among them are vast. A weaker vocal performance will be no better using a high end mic.
Years ago we were tracking vocals in our band. We kept hearing these sizzles/ticks on the vocal track. Everyone was puzzled as to the cause. It was a little brown lady bug in the vocal room. The Neumann being used picked that up. Other mics may not have.
Metallica was going for old school since so many of their fans were requesting a sound more like AJFA, MOP etc. That was all about the mix and actually many people said back then the mix on those albums and guitar sound was horrible. Look what they were comparing it to! At that time mid-scooping guitars in mixes was not the thing to do. Plus to be fair, you can have the same \"sound\" or mix but the music itself has to have that ohhhhhhhhhhh-ness to it. It is not easy to Top several great albums and each will identify with a particular fanbase.
I said the same thing about many Dream Theater albums. Fans said the same things about RUSH. Some wanted the 70's Hemisphere sound, and others liked Signals or Roll the Bones. As a band, you find something relative but the band basically always sounds the same. Most of the time it's that you are used to a certain sound, and expectations of meeting that same sound need, are trumped by simple vocal parts, tuning changes etc. So we all say...... it doesn't sound as good. If you never heard those albums before, you may think different.
Listen to Journey's albums from Infinity thru Escape. Notice a major difference in the overall mix? Listen to VH1 and pan one side. It's horrible isn't it? Listen the same to Skynyrd, Toto, then listen to Fleetwood Mac (Rumours) then back to Toto or Journey... that is when the majority of mix and mastering techniques started being impacted by the demand of audiophile fidelity versus dime store all in one stereo systems/cassette. Finding a compatibility was a huge problem. CD sort of resolved those issues with its means and now the highly impacted compression of digital file formats have changed the process as well.
I think the best advice one could give or get when it comes to getting the recording process down is educate yourself in regards to the equipment you have on hand...learn everything you can about ALL the gear you have...learn to get the most out of each and every piece. Most times that is accomplished for little or no monetary cost . It does however require a substantial amount of time....something that some of us have more of than others. but in the end the time spent will be far more productive than throwing money away trying to find that elusive piece of outboard gear that makes makes all your tunes sound just like Boston's first record.....Stop searching because it does not exist. That record sounds like it does because of the techniques used to get to the end product by people who really knew what they were doing.
Now that you know all your gear inside and out, you will have picked up a bunch of knowledge on procedure and technique just by reading the manuals . 'Course that is just the beginning of your total education ( which for all but the biggest fools is a lifelong process), read all you can ....the internet is such a wonderful resource for educating yourself in any area. There are many books and DVD's available today on recording technique.... you know what I'm trying to say...learn all you can!!!
For most of us...this is a hobby, obsession, addiction...whatever we choose to call it...suffice it to say we don't make our living playing and recording music. But that is not to say we don't want it to sound the best that we are able to make it. Rooms full of really expensive gear won't do that... a head full of useful information and good practical application will however.
Gtaus, you are definitely on the right track reading up on the different forums and articles and the like.... these are great educational tools for the modern home studio owner. I cant' begin to tell you how much I have learned from reading about others experiences on the various forums that I peruse.....home recording forum, studio central community, ect. ect. .....there is a lot of advice on the right way and the wrong way to go about getting your ideas and songs down on \"tape\", just be careful cause not all of it is good advice. On most of the forums it doesn't take much reading to figure out who the really smart guys are and who are the ones you really shouldn't be taking advice from in the first place. I find most of the forums that I am a member of the contributors are friendly and eager to help. Much like right here at guitarworkstation forum .
Music in general is very subjective. That being said, only the biggest of imbeciles would say there is only one way to make a great sounding recording. Learn your gear and experiment with the things you learn along the way and you will be happy with the end product. And if it sounds good to you chances are it will sound great to most others. We are after all our own biggest critcs, at least most of us are.
Some time ago on another thread there was a discussion on the 16-24 bit topic and you checked out the tweakheadz site I recommended(and I still do).
A lot of this has to do with the Nyquist point.From what I understand,which really isn't that much,on higher end products the Nyquist
point(half the sample rate)occurs where it should where as on lower end products it occurs lower.
For example:on a Motif if you are recording at a sample rate of 44k,you should be getting 20-22k.On my Ozonic,with the same rate,it should
hit at 12-14k.Well at least that is how my sales rep at Sweetwater explained it to me.So if I want to be sure to get the 20-22k,or more,
I have to record at a sample rate of 48k or higher.The GNX4 only goes as high as 44.1k at 24bits but that is a different issue.
As far as top end studios,well,whoever dies with the most toys wins.They are about making money not music.Where as before they used music to make money,
developing artists so they can make more music to make more money and when they are tapped out,then tossed them.
With all there top end tech,they can't make many sustainable acts.
They use software costing hundreds and thousands of dollars to make it sound like it was recorded in a shack out in the woods.OK,that's an exaggeration.
The point is,with some obvious exceptions,we have more recording capabilities than The Beatles did in the mid-'60s.
If you can't hit a golf ball with a set of clubs that cost a few hundred dollars,you are not going to do much better with a set that cost a few thousand.
I am looking at Tascam's VL-A5s for $300.From the research I have done,they are the most attractive to me.You can check them out at http://en.440tv.com
If you go to music shops they have the crappiest budget monitors to compare against higher end models.Doesn't help me.
You can always take your work to a post-production house and have it re-mixed and/or mastered at a later date if you so desire.
It all depends on what your goals,desires,and focus is.
Later.
I don't remember how I found the Tweakheadz site and that discussion on 16 bit versus 24 bit. If it was the link you provided, thanks, because I really found it interesting. That's the kind of info that really helps me now that I am getting into more recording and mixing.
Yeah, I like great toys, but I'm learning that the difference between the highest quality gear and the modest gear that I can actually afford, is really not all that noticable on the music and equipment I play the music on. And, furthermore, as a cover band, we really don't need the highest quality gear to put out good demos of our music to bar owners/managers. If we ever do need better recording equipment than what I have, we could/should go into a professional studio. I just can't see that happening anytime soon. Like you said, I doubt the Beatles had recording gear near as good as what we have available to modest home studios.
I'll check out those Tascam's. Thanks for the link.
I've been doing lots of reading lately on home recording and mixing. You guys here have been a great help. I know I'll take all the advice I have gathered to make the best purchase(s) I can afford for my modest home studio. I have a wish list of some highly recommended books for the home recording engineer, and I will start ordering them soon. There is a lot to learn but as a hobby, I really enjoy it.
I mixed down some tracks I recorded live on my Zoom HD16CD from our last gig and had my brother-in-law listen to them. He actually did some professional studio work on guitar back in the 1980's. He's not an engineer (so I'm not claiming he is an expert), but he liked my mixes, made some comments where the mix/recording was weak, and some suggestions on how to make the mixes better.
As I have been learning this stuff, I had also made most of the same observations about the weak points in the recordings. For example, my drummer needs to mic his whole kit in order to get the sound that we need to take his tracks to another level. Currently, he only had a mic on the kick and snare which I knew would not be enough for good quality recordings. And as he did not have his own drum mics, he borrowed some of my inexpensive vocal mics for his drums. I made the best use of what we had available. There is no doubt that his drum tracks would be greatly improved by mic'ing his kit better. Stuff like that is a no brainer. But also it will cost him money to get a decent mic pack for his drums. At our (pay) level, we don't tell our bandmates they \"need\" to upgrade their equipment. It's just best to let them hear how they sound on the recording and make suggestions on what would improve their track(s). Sometimes you get what you can afford, when you can afford it.
There was some bleed from our instruments into the vocal mics. I don't know how you avoid this with a live recording. But the bleed was not necessarily bad as it really captured the live feel of the band at the gig. I also like the background chatter as it really makes it feel like we were playing to a live crowd, which we were.
Although I had added some delay and reverb to the vocals, it could be improved with some other effects because it sounded too dry to my brother-in-law. He suggested some stereo chorus effect which I will try. At our gigs, the vocals do have effects added on to bring out the vocals and make them sound more wet. However, the recording are taken direct out from the mixing board pre-effects. But that's great to have a dry track because you can remix in any number of effects to get the sound you want.
There are lots of people smarter than me on this stuff. But that's why I ask questions on this forum and appreciate any, and all, comments. Thanks guys.
You are not making a major recording to promote to an industry. What you are going for is a simple cover band demo. The more you doctor it up, the more you will be judged by the venue. Keep the demo as it would be if you played live. I've done many demos for cover bands and they want special efx and other things not in their playing style or sets. I tell them that is not a good idea for this purpose. IOW, over-production will not sell your band if you attempt to make a 4pc group sound like 20.
Start a project and set up your tracks, and track settings. Set your inputs and outputs on each track as needed and SAVE the project. You can create a template from this project. Easiest way in PTP is just open the original project and save \"AS\" something else. Usually name the title of song. Then as you open each song and get ready to record, you have fluid settings and workflow instead of starting over each time and having to deal with track channel I/O, adding tracks etc.
Record- usually preferred method, but you can do what works for you:
Drums
Bass
Guitars
Keys
Solo instruments- guitar, keys, sax etc.
Voc's
Bk Voc's
You can double track guitars to make them fuller. That can be as simple as tracking the guitar once, copy and paste into new track. Then you can do all sorts of things with eq, pans, efx if you like. Always start simple though. If you already have 2 guitarists, get those tracks and go from there. You may NOT need anything extra.
Drums can always be an issue and they will bleed. This is why many will mic every shell of the kit, hats, overheads, and then also have a pair of mics just away from the front of the kit or behind the kit for added ambience. It's not always needed though. Maybe for original bands but again, you are only doing cover demos. In most cases, a pair of condensers as OH's, a kick mic and snare mic will be fine. Put one OH mic above the hats and another between the ride and crash.
If your drummer is not keen on laying tracks alone the best way is provide him with a backing track of the cd etc. If you have songs you changed around from the original, You can either use the GNX for guitar, and a bass direct to give him what he needs or you can record your band playing together. Afterward, pipe that in his phones while you track his drums.
Vocals have to be good. Nail them down. Make sure your mix has enough clarity in the vocals since that is what the mgt is going to focus on in particular. If you are using reverb on the full mix, be careful NOT to use too much on the vocal. Add your delay, or slight chorus (not always needed) if you want. You can also emphasize a certain part of a vocal with multiband compression, but again, if when mastering you are using a compression the end result may not be as good. Always start simple, get a simple mix
Backing voc's can be done separately or you can record them together. I'd probably go individual if you have multiple singers. Usually track those last.
You can use what you have currently and will not need too many extras to get the job done. For example, you will be surprised what the Lexicon pantheon reverb alone can do for your entire mix at maybe a default setting of 7-8% on the mix amt. I'm sure you have enough between the Zoom MTR, GNX, and even Pro Tracks to create a nice demo.
I agree with you totally. As I stated, I take the tracks out of the mixing board pre-effects, so all the tracks are dry. I need to add some of those effects back into the mix to make it sound like us live. Our singer, for example, does not sing into a dry mic. We have effects on the vocals (delay, reverb, chorus) to make them sound better depending on the venue. My bass guitar signal is recorded dry so I need to add color back into that track to make it sound like my stage amp/setup.
Our lead guitarist uses a mic on his amp - so I have left his sound alone because his tracks are already essentially post-effects. Our drummer's tracks are the weakest because you cannot capture his full sound with only two mics. I haven't applied any effects to his tracks, but my comment was that we need to have more mics on his kit to record his sound and present a better reproduction of his drum sound.
As a band, we have already decided that mixing and post production of any of our live gig recordings should only be aimed at reproducing what we actually sound like at a live gig. We don't want to add anything to the mix that we actually don't have playing at the venue. So, we totally agree that filling out a mix to a 20 piece band when we have 4 on stage is not in our best interest.
The only thing I am doing that is not \"true\" to our live show is that I am adding some panning to our instruments in the stereo mixdown. I have the lead guitar panned 40% panned right, rhythm guitar panned 40% left, backup vocals panned L/R depending on how many of us are singing. Bass guitar, kick drum, and lead vocals are centered on the mix. When we play live, our sound is, of course, mixed mono out of the board. But a mono mix on a stereo recording sounds flat and I personally feel cannot do justice to the band as we sound different on stage anyway based on where our amps are putting out the tone, the placement of the drummer, etc.... So panning is the only liberty I have taken on our live tracks at this point. But I don't consider that a sin or false advertising for our purposes of a demo.
We are very aware that post production of our live recordings should not enhance our sound where we don't sound like us. But, at this point, I am just trying to get the mixdown to sound like the band live. That alone is a trick due to our limits on capturing our sound on only 8 tracks. We could probably use that many tracks for the drums alone. If my drummer buys himself a mic package for his drum kit, my next step would be to mix the levels on my board and assign the drums to a subgroup. Then record that subgroup(s) on my multi-track recording for his track(s). I think I got the theory part down, so now I just need to route everything correctly on the board.
I have learned a few tricks to improve our sound such as you have suggested with doubling tracks, but those will not go into our live demos. At this point, my only goal is to make the recording sound as close to possible as we sound live in the venue. We don't want to sell what we can't deliver. So I am in total agreement with you on that point and hope that nothing I wrote lead you to belive anything else. Take care.
I remember back in the '80s reading an interview with Brian May discussing how they tried everything in the studio to re-record it but they
could just could not recapture the feel that was on the demo,so they stuck with the demo and it still rocks.
I only want to encourage you that you can take your limitations and use them to your advantage,within reason of coarse.
As for myself,I think it will be Christmas before I can afford any monitors.One step at at a time.
Best of luck to you.
This story reminds me of how RUSH recorded \"Xanadu\", a complex, multi-movement, nearly 12-minute song in ONE take, on the first try, when they were in their 20's. Awesome.
in knowing where to place them, the second is knowing how to compress the overheads. It also used to be that you could tell in what studio a recording was done . This was for the most part due to bleed. Insted of fighting it, learn how to use it to your advantage. While in a live situation this is more difficult, in a home studio you can create a live guide track and then everyone can redo their parts separately. You can also make baffles to put between amps and the drum kit to calm it down. It's done all the time. I would much prefer to listen to an imperfect live track than something that has had the life taken out of it. To name a few, The Allman Brothers live at the Fillmore. Johnny Winter And Live, Michael Schenker Group live in Tokyo 1997.
Food for thought.
What I meant by Live is the live condition ie when you guys are jamming a place say like in a soundcheck before patrons arrive.
The important first step is tracking the drums. Even if all you have is 4 SM58's and a condensor, do your best to get the drums as full as can be. If your dummer has one of those CAD mic kits etc, those will work for your purposes. If you have access to a D112, beta 52 Kick mic, or similar kick mic, use it. You can try a basic dynamic mic, but don't expect the greatest of results on the kick.
You can also try with limited gear depending upon the room where you rehearse. Send the basic instruments through one of your mixers to get the sound to your drummer's headset. Direct for bass, and use the GNX for the guitar. Once you have the drums down the rest of the instruments should not be an issue.
If you are looking to do a LIVE demo of an event for that purpose, a decent recording of the PA mix can work. Now you are not going to have a bunch of tracks to play around with later, but for demo purposes, it may be more economical to do it that way.
Again, this one of the reasons people go to studios is they do not have access to required mic's, specific rooms, specific mix applications for tracking etc. Where you can certainly do a lot of things with home recording DAW's, the biggest problems come with the expenses in the hardware required to get those tracks... specifically drums, where to capture as you really want them may require some expense on mic's, hardware etc. A D112 kick mic is above $200, but also is a great LIVE kick mic and most drummers should have something at least similar and dedicated for kick drum applications.
You can use Beta 57's, SM57's, Audix i5's on most toms and snares. If on a budget, the PG series from Shure are not too shabby and will get the job done.
OTOH, you may be able to find a suitable studio or Pro Sound co that will be able to track from your gig, or at least track your band instruments and vocals.
I've had bands come in on low budgets. They have a DAW and only want to track the instruments. If they are greatly polished on their songs, I can track them in studio just a few hrs. The cost is less than a pair or condenser mic's. Then they can take those files and mix them down to their hearts content. That is one of the advantages.
If a band wants to record their live venue mix, there are number of ways to do that, and bleedover is not usually their concern since mics across the stage will no doubt pick up everything. So if a couple crazy patrons blurt out some profanity, there is little that can be done to squash it out of the mix entirely. It really all depends.
Considering a studio or pro live recording, ask these basic questions:
1. What are your demo intentions?
2. What is the comfort level of the band in doing studio recordings?
3. How polished is the band on the material? Since time is money, if you know your tunes enough, you should be able to track 5 songs in less than 2 hrs studio time. For example, you can get drums and bass down and say THANKS.. we'll do the rest ourselves. Most will not, but in some cases I have had that request and artists tracked bass and a 9 pc kit, w OH's/etc for less than $400. IIRC that was about 14 tracks of drums alone each song. This band, did not want to spend heaps of cash on microphones, stands, cables and recording interfaces.
4. What is your total budget?
5. Do you want to spend more on hardware, or go to a place that already has the tools required?
Again, you have the suitable hardware for tracking, but you indicate you lack the mics in order to provide the level of tracks you intend. In this case you may consider tracking at least the drums in studio and the rest you can do yourself. Your upfront expense on recording drums may cost more than you want.
A BIG CHANGE in E DRUMS is happening. Many drummer are utilizing Edrums to trigger PC based Software with excellent results. I have seen and heard many on simple Yamaha DTX, Roland and even the $500 Alesis kits. Trigger the midi via Session Drummer, Superior Drummer, EZD, BFD, Steven Slate Drums, Addictive Drums, they all sound great! Advantage there is no live mic's tracking anything.
Many drummers have gravitated to E drums for the same expense reasons and having the ability to control their sound with uniformity. Consider a basic E drum kit and software and a midi cable may cost $600, it is still far more economical than buying a D112, Beta 57's, Condenser OH mics, and all the mic stands, cables and audio interfaces required to track drums that will bleed over kit mics.
You may want to consider E drums since the upfront costs to getting those tracks down are your biggest areas of interest and budget that may require larger expenses on mics, hardware to get you there.
You can also consider studio tracking the drums and maybe bass, and then do your guitars, vocals and so on yourselves on your DAW. At this point you have many options to consider.
So far I have only recorded us live at one of our gigs. Our singer, of course, is facing the audience as we all are. I am not complaining about the bleed from the mics, only explaining. Your points are well taken if/when we move into my home studio for recording. That's not high on the list at this point, however. We are just working on our live demos to promote the band.
If we record anything not live, I think I'll probably use some sort of drum machine to get a cleaner sound. I have learned how to program the GNX4 midi drums - and to humanize the output - and I personally think they sound much better than what we could expect to get by mic'ing an acoustic drum kit.
As a cover band, I don't expect that we will ever spend money on professional studio time to record cover songs. That just doesn't make sense to me. Most of our purchases for the band are for our live stage shows, and if they are good enough for recording in the home studio, that's great. Which is why we are pretty much staying with the Shure SM58's and 57's for stage and (home) studio. The drummer does not have any mic's for his kit, and I hope he will soon buy a package. Maybe when he hears the limits on his recordings from the live gigs, he will make the sacrafice and lay down some cash on a decent mic package for his kit.
Our drummer does not wear a headset, but we do have a monitor in the back for him. I just got a 32 channel mixer this year and our sound guy should be able to mix the drums for the front of the house. The next step is to learn how to assign all those drum channels down to one or two subgroups and use that signal for the recorder's drum tracks. It should not be that hard, but I'm dealing with a new 32 channel mixer board, a new drummer who has never even mic'd his kit before, and also a new sound guy, who, although he learns fast, has no experience on these boards. (Sound guy also plays trombone and sings on a couple songs for us). So we are moving forward in baby steps.