Home Recording Gear Recommendations

[PortlandBass77]

So my rock fusion band has no studio money, but we still have 5 - 10 we want to record as a demo / EP / album / whatever you want to call it, so we are stuck home recording with low cost equipment. So pretty much I want to know what type of quality we can expect from the final recordings, and if we could upgrade something for $200 or less in order to vastly improve recording quality. We are willing to take ANY suggestions, so here is what we have so far:

For bass:
Bass -[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] - Alto Acom2 compressor - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw


For lead guitar:
Guitar - amp - 2 Nady SPC 15 condenser mics (stereo) - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw


For rhythm guitar:
Guitar - amp - 2 AKG D1000E dynamic mics (similar to SM57) - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw


For Vocals:
This is where it gets tricky as we have a lot of vocal mics, we will just have to test them all out to hear what sounds best....
Mic - Alto Acom2 compressor - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw

For Drums:
The drummer has a bunch of fancy drum mics so:
drums - Mics - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw

We have some nice headphones, and for monitors I talked to some people and they recommended that with out budget we just use multiple different amps as monitors for mixing.

 

[PortlandBass77]

bump?

 

[ddnidd1]

'Generally' you would compress after a raw track has been recorded.

If you compress before the DAW you can't undo it.

 

[PortlandBass77]

'Generally' you would compress after a raw track has been recorded.

If you compress before the DAW you can't undo it.

I have tried that but I don't like the sound for bass and vocals (the band agrees), I prefer analog compression for bass and vocals, for guitars it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Do you know which way recording studios normally do it, or do they have a completely different process?

 

[ddnidd1]

Do you know which way recording studios normally do it, or do they have a completely different process?

Normally they compress, if they do compress, after the track has been recorded so they have total control over the compression after they see how the raw track works in the mix.

 

[Timi]

Normally they compress, if they do compress, after the track has been recorded so they have total control over the compression after they see how the raw track works in the mix.

Pro engineer here, if I'm tracking at a studio that has some nice compressors I would pretty much always compress vocals on the way in, and often bass too. Enough to give it a vibe but without painting myself into a corner. Most other engineers I know do the same thing.

 

[PortlandBass77]

Pro engineer here, if I'm tracking at a studio that has some nice compressors I would pretty much always compress vocals on the way in, and often bass too. Enough to give it a vibe but without painting myself into a corner. Most other engineers I know do the same thing.

Thanks, that's what I have always assumed as I just don't like the sound of heavy digital compression for bass and vocals.

 

[Timi]

Some plugins are better than others, Slate VMR and McDSP 6030 are two that I really like. Also if you're going for heavy compression it's often better to use two stages of lighter compression, a common combo for vocals is an LA2A (smooth) and an 1176 (fast and aggressive). I typically go with the smoother one first but sometimes the other way around works better.

Vocals are often less compressed than you might think, fader rides/volume automation is how you get the vocal sitting perfectly.

 

[NoiseNinja]

By the way, although you probably already know this: Remember to record in 24 bit 96 Khz sample rate, that is the quality professionals record in.

 

[PortlandBass77]

By the way, although you probably already know this: Remember to record in 24 bit 96 Khz sample rate, that is the quality professionals record in.

Yeah, I did know that, but why is that the standard and not something higher? My setup can go to 192 Khz 24 bit.

 

[JFOC]

You could record higher but if someone is listening to a mp3 @ 44.1kHz it wont make a difference.

the bit depth determines how much dynamic range you have (potential soft to loud volume)

Sample rate divided by two is the highest frequency that can be recorded per Nyquist frequency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recording at 96k means you are accurate up to 48kHz, well above our hearing range.

 

[wintremute]

By the way, although you probably already know this: Remember to record in 24 bit 96 Khz sample rate, that is the quality professionals record in.

I did not know that! Thank you.

 

[Timi]

The most common sample rate I see for music is still 44.1, with the occasional 88.2. 48k is the "audio for video" standard but some music people still use it.

Few things,

Many people go with 88.2 rather than 96 for music as it's a simpler down convert back to 44.1 which is still seems to be the standard delivery format for music.

The difference between 44.1 and 88.2/96 (then converting back down) is not night and day.

88.2/96 will double your file sizes and half your processing power.

44.1 vs 88.2/96 is probably the LEAST important thing you should be worrying about when making a record.

The only talk of 192k I ever hear is people who aren't good at engineering looking for the magic beans.

 

[seamonkey]

This is a really good site to dispel a lot of the woo around sample rates and bit depth.
Xiph.Org Video Presentations: Digital Show & Tell

 

[static0verdrive]

I started going down this road last year and ended up with a used Roland Octa-Capture. 8 inputs, outputs to go to a PA or whatever you need, and USB to your PC - and each of the inputs ends up a separate, individual track in your DAW software so you can tweak EQ or volume levels later. It's so easy and small I'm blown away by how little equipment or time we need to get going. My 2 cents.

 

[PortlandBass77]

I started going down this road last year and ended up with a used Roland Octa-Capture. 8 inputs, outputs to go to a PA or whatever you need, and USB to your PC - and each of the inputs ends up a separate, individual track in your DAW software so you can tweak EQ or volume levels later. It's so easy and small I'm blown away by how little equipment or time we need to get going. My 2 cents.

Wow, that is probably the most impressive interface I have ever seen, though it is way over our budget, so unfortunately not an option.

 

[Luke19Boarder]

So my rock fusion band has no studio money, but we still have 5 - 10 we want to record as a demo / EP / album / whatever you want to call it, so we are stuck home recording with low cost equipment. So pretty much I want to know what type of quality we can expect from the final recordings, and if we could upgrade something for $200 or less in order to vastly improve recording quality. We are willing to take ANY suggestions, so here is what we have so far:

For bass:
Bass -[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] - Alto Acom2 compressor - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw


For lead guitar:
Guitar - amp - 2 Nady SPC 15 condenser mics (stereo) - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw


For rhythm guitar:
Guitar - amp - 2 Invalid Link Removed dynamic mics (similar to SM57) - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw


For Vocals:
This is where it gets tricky as we have a lot of vocal mics, we will just have to test them all out to hear what sounds best....
Mic - Alto Acom2 compressor - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw

For Drums:
The drummer has a bunch of fancy drum mics so:
drums - Mics - Invalid Link Removed USB interface - Mixcraft daw

We have some nice headphones, and for monitors I talked to some people and they recommended that with out budget we just use multiple different amps as monitors for mixing.

Hey PortlandBass,

I think that to answer "what quality recordings you can expect?" is much more dependent on your skills (from songwriting and arranging, playing, recording techniques, mixing, etc) than on your gear. Graham at The Recording Revolution recently completed a 300$ studio challenge, where he recorded an EP with 1 mic, and gear costing under 300$ (with surprisingly good results).

Check out his videos here: recordingrevolution - YouTube (scroll down a little bit to see how he recorded each instrument on the EP I mentioned)

I don't know how into home recording you and your bandmates are, but take a look through some of his videos - he emphasizes techniques over gear (and working on a budget is a huge theme), and has helped me get much better recordings and mixes.

I guess to answer your question, you should be able to get a pretty darn good mix with your modest setup, but you will need to spend time learning how to properly record/mix the tracks (or know someone who will do it for you on the cheap).

Best of luck!

 

[ScottTunes]

Some great records have been made with some crappy equipment!

The 2 most over used and misunderstood FX in recording are reverb and compression.

For clean comp/limiting, keep it low/easy going in (preferably with one or two compressors @ 2:1 or 3:1 with soft knee). If you can hear the artifacts of compression, you're applying to heavily - unless that is the sound you want.

There are a few "compander" software programs that will allow you to "un-do" a bit of compression. IMO, it sounds worse than using less comp going in to begin with.

Best advice I got when I started was, "get the sound you like, then put a microphone (any mic) there and record it." If you keep your recording mechanism (DAW, tape, whatever), clean and simple, that will provide the best recordings to work with, whether mixing "in the box" or not.

If you enjoy the recording process, purchase a coulple of old, but well kept reel to reel tape decks and practice your recording techniques. Keep in mind that this is how the earliest Beatles' records were made - using a couple of 2 or 3 track machines! But the other gear they used was top notch! Still quite primitive compared to what's available today!

Lots to learn! Just have fun with what you have for now. I've been recording for several decades, and STILL learn something new every time! And I have some great gear too! Honestly, it's really NOT the gear (sshhhhh!!! Don't tell GearSlutz I said that!! Haha!). It's how you use it that matters!

Enjoy! And post what you end up with!!

 

[And I]

My advice: do not stereo mic the lead guitar. Do not use the Nady condenser mics on guitar cabs. Don't use them on anything if you can avoid it. Use one of those AKGs on each guitar cab. Move the mics around to find the sweet sounding spot in front of the speaker. If you want a stereo effect on the lead guitar during solos, a little bit of stereo delay will do nicely. Having stereo guitar tracks is going to make it difficult to mix (unless you are to pan both of the mics to the same spot or very close to each other). Compression during tracking is pretty standard in most "pro" recording setups. But make sure to be gentle with the ratio / subtle with the amount of gain reduction unless you're sure a more aggressive compression approach will work in your mix.

 

[static0verdrive]

Regarding mic placement - when micing a cab, don't point it at the center of the speaker cone - aim for somewhere between the middle and edge of the cone. You don't want it too far away because of the possibility for other stuff to bleed over onto this mic's track, but too close isn't good either. I think mine are usually about 3-4 inches away. Use your ears, you'll hear what I mean.