• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Jam Session Recording

mrbell321

mrbell321

Mar 26, 2012
844
117
N. Colorado
#1
So, I've been looking around and I see lots of posts but either none of them address my thoughts, or I have the wrong terminology, or maybe the wrong approach completely.

I'm very new to recording but here's what I want. I'd like to record some jam sessions and, to me, it seems reasonable to record everyone(guitar, vocals, bass, and drums) on a different track/channel, but simultaneously. Drums present a problem because there are usually more than 1 mic!

Most recommendations on here seem to say "Get a Zoom H2" and record everybody together. I haven't done this, but it seems like a recipe for a muddy mess. I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong here.
My biggest concern is I'm trying to figure out what sounds wrong in a song, I won't be able to bring forward the bass very well to figure out that I'm playing an eighth note ahead or something.

So I want something with many inputs. Most of the affordable PC interfaces seem to have 1, or 2 inputs. There are a few that have 4. But even 4 doesn't cut it with a fully mic'd drum kit, right? Am I missing something here?

Using Glyn John's setup, you could get away w/ 4 mics. My drummer wants 6-8, so I thought for max, we'd say 8. That would give flexibility if we ever bring in keys or anything anyway. So let's say 8 mics, 2 instruments and vocals. 11 inputs. I've seen 1 or 2 12-input mixers, but 16 seems more common. Do I need 16 or am I missing something?

I'm also confused on the difference between tracks and channels and inputs. I think I know, then I run across another piece of equipment that indicates I don't.

I'd like this to be a PC interface. I've seen some older porta-studio type things, but I THINK I'd rather have a PC. Unless the porta-studio's are much simpler than I think they are. I just don't think working on a tiny little text only LCD screen would be all that much fun...

So, tell me where I'm wrong, please!
 
#2
No you're not wrong.

IMO you have two options:
-Get a 16-channel interface. That can be a mixer (we use the Presonus studiolive, Phonic helix board is another one) or a setup consisting of a 8 channel preamp (with digital out) and an 8 channel interface with a digital input to expand to 16 channels (I used a Motu like this once). That's expensive.
-Get a 8-channel interface. Mix the drums on your mixer (since you use vocals I assume you have one) to a stereo signal and connect it to the interface. That allows you to mix every instrument seperately after recording. But you still have 3 channels left. If you need to you can record maybe the bassdrum and the snare drum on seperate tracks. If you can live with having the drums mono you can of course also use a 4-channel interface.

Whatever you get, make sure it has the connection your PC has. Most of the newer laptops (PCs) don't have a firewire port.

And to answer your terminology question:
An interface has lets say two channels. You plug your instrument into the input of one of these channels. On the PC you can assign the channel you're using to a track in your DAW.
Keep on asking if it's still unclear.

And a H2 doesn't have to sound muddy if you sound good, have a good room and know how to place it. But it clearly doesn't suit your needs.

Cheers
 
#3
Tracks exist only in your recording software, or other recording device. Each recorded item, which is separated from others items, will have a separate track. Usually, you create a track for each instrument, or voice. Drums can be thought of as several individual instruments, so drums can have several tracks. You record stuff in separate tracks so that you can adjust any single track without affecting any other track. (If you record into one of those little digital pocket recorders, you can't adjust anything. It puts everything into one track.) Later, you mix all of these separate tracks into one final track.

A track can have one (mono) channel, or two channels, usually left/right, that make up a stereo pair. So channels can be thought of as the signal lines from sound source to the track. Mono tracks will have one signal line. Stereo tracks will have 2 signal lines. Voices, and some other instruments, are single point sound sources. One signal line, one channel. Electronic keyboards often have a stereo output. 2 channels. Drums are often thought of as several mono channels that are then mixed into one stereo channel, that is then mixed with all the other mono channels into one final stereo channel.

In your interface, you will have a separate input for each incoming signal. The inputs then become channels, which are then routed into tracks. A mono track will have the signal from one input. A stereo track will have signals from two inputs.
 
#4
Thanks guys.

I guess I never really got to my point about tracks vs channels. For example:
Invalid Link Removed
says it's 8 track, but it only has two inputs. That aligns w/ nick's statpement that a track is a software thing(unless you're talking about tapes, but the idea is similar).
However, I ran across at least 1 device(which I can't find now) which said it was a 4 or 8 channel interface, but only had 2 inputs.
Which brings up the annoying thing that almost no one lists the number of actual inputs as part of a spec. Seems a pretty important thing to leave out...
 
#5
Try the simple solutions first. I don't think you need to multitrack your jams - just get a high quality recorder and experiment with the best spot in the room to record the jam. I use a Blue mic plugged into my ipod, the singer records straight in to her ipad, both are reasonably good for archiving our sketches.

It's a good idea to at least try this before investing in interfaces, mics, stands..... etc... which you might end up using rarely once you discover how much effort it takes to get it all right for a simple recording.

Just saying.... people get a bit carried away with toys sometimes and forget what the original goal was.
 
#6
good point vin. to me, a jam session implies a certain laid back attitude that would favor a simple recorder (I use a tascam DR-40 for these sessions). If your group can balance the sound levels so that you all can hear everything, then a well placed single microphone or stereo pair should capture all the ideas well enough to reproduce. I only pull out and live mic a whole band for more serious endeavors as it can take awhile to get the levels all lined up and experiment with mic placement to strategically take advantage of or minimize contamination across microphones. Not to mention keeping the musicians on track throughout this process is like herding cats.

mr bell, what sort of budget do you have? does your group already own a lot of microphones? if not, this could get expensive fast.

re: tracks v channels, channels are how many mics/inputs you can lay down at once, and tracks are the ultimate number of instruments you can lay down on hard disk/tape. you could fill up an 8 track tape deck by doing 8 recordings/overdubs with a one channel preamplifier.

the interface you mention likely only has 2 pre-amps onboard, but could accept inputs in digital or other formats from other devices. this is the situation for something like the focusrite 18i6 (Invalid Link Removed) which only has 2 pre-amps onboard, but can accept 8 tracks digitally via the optical cable. you could get something like focus rite's octopre (or behringer makes a cheaper one I hear), which accepts 8 mics, amplifies them, converts to digital signal, and sends individual tracks to another device.
 
#8
hazmatt said:
the interface you mention likely only has 2 pre-amps onboard, but could accept inputs in digital or other formats from other devices. this is the situation for something like the focusrite 18i6 (Invalid Link Removed) which only has 2 pre-amps onboard, but can accept 8 tracks digitally via the optical cable. you could get something like focus rite's octopre (or behringer makes a cheaper one I hear), which accepts 8 mics, amplifies them, converts to digital signal, and sends individual tracks to another device.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the one. I see now what they mean. Seems kind of... like cheating, but I guess I get the idea.

As for budget, I don't have a specific figure in mind. Maybe less then 400? That mackie is way out. Maybe I'll go w/ one of the single-mic&recorders units afterall.
I have more "don't wants" than wants.
I don't want to buy something and immediately outgrow it.
I don't want something that just doesn't work, but I will acquiesce to the knowledge of TB that the Zoom H2 and others sound fine.
I don't want a difficult interface, but not haven't used anything, I don't really know what that means.
and Finally, I don't want to go broke or upset the wife. :-)
 
#9
I use a Zoom H4n for exactly what you describe, as well as live recordings. The recording quality it really good for such a simple device (relatively speaking). It does a very good job of putting out what you put into it. If your band has a good overall mix, it's going to come across in the recording as well.

It does have the ability to record 4 separate tracks, but it's not the same as a 4 track recorder. You have L/R stereo mics, and then 2 inputs on the bottom. When I use it I pretty much always use the stereo setting with the built in mics and that's it. You could set it in 4 track mode, use the built in mics to record the room, run a DI for bass into one of the inputs, and then use the other input for whatever.

I'm not trying to steer you in that direction. If you're looking for something simple that sounds good, it's perfect (same with the H2n). I know many more units have come out in the past few years too.

If you want to start getting into recording in general, you're probably better off with an interface & DAW setup. But that will cost some serious money for what you'll need to do the job.

The biggest issue with that that I see with that route is if you're looking to record the full band "live" you're going to need a large interface with many inputs. One input for every mic or DI line. You'll also need a relatively stout computer capable of recording many tracks at once.

You can go with a smaller interface and use an external mixer. Basically, you'd pre mix the drums from the mixer and then take the L/R outs and plug them into the interface. Instead of taking up 8 inputs, you take up 2. Of course with that route you need the mixer too.

Don't forget the computer, software (Reaper is excellent and free), mics, cables, etc. too. It can add up really fast.
 
#11
I use one of these with REAPER (which is not free BTW, they just leave it up to your honesty to pay 60 bucks after you try it).

Invalid Link Removed

Now - if you read the reviews there have been some problems. I did end up having to return my first one to GC (luckily it was within 30 days).

Here's a recording I made like this - in the drummer's unfinished basement with crap acoustics.
One SM58 vocal mic, SM57 on guitar amp, bass DI out of GK MB200 head, three mics on the drums- kick, snare, overhead.

 
#12
for under $400 I think you'd be hard pressed to get a decent sounding set of mics and a mixer/interface with enough inputs to do everything your initial post described. Can't speak about the zoom H2, but I've used my friend's H4 (< $300) and my own Tascam DR-40 (< $200) and I think these are a good way to go for the musician new to recording who wants to capture multiple instruments live. Both are pretty similar sounding and in addition to their built in pair of microphones, can handle two additional inputs - whether they be microphones or direct line (off an amplifier or keyboard). These are nice for capturing the sound of those one or two instruments which might be hard to pick out of the ambient mix from the built in microphones. If you are reasonable in your expectation of what these 'field units' can do for you, you likely won't outgrow them.

Since this is your first time mixing and editing on a computer, these devices would give you a reasonable number of tracks to start with (2-4). You can familiarize yourself with editing software with the stripped down and free Audacity, or I would second the Reaper recommendation if/when you are up for more of a challenge. If you want to add more tracks later via an overdub, this is where the Zoom H4 is better than the Tascam DR-40. Both can connect to your computer via USB to transfer the recordings, but only the Zoom can act as a recording interface with your computer. Say your bass didn't come through the mix from a recording, but everyone else's rhythm is tight enough you can play along with it. You could hook up the Zoom to the computer, plug a direct line from your bass amp into the zoom, and viola, instant overdub. You can overdub on the actual zoom or tascam devices by themselves, with either the built in mics or external mics/lines, but working with a computer screen and mouse/keyboard is easier than navigating and recording multiple takes on the devices. And if you want to get into more serious recording later, navigating these programs on a computer a good skill to pick up now.

Feel free to send me a PM if you'd like to hear some samples of stuff I've recorded with either the DR-40 or H4.
 
#14
Yeah - I already had the mics.

That DR-40 is pretty interesting. If I had one of those I would probably use the internal mics to maybe record the guitar amp and some ambient drum sounds, then use a small mixer to take like the kick drum and DI'd bass guitar into one of the input channels, maybe run the lead vocals into the other one. Lots of different ways you could do it though. Probably take some trial and error to get a good mix, but could work well.
 
#15
mrbell321 said:
I'm not a singer, I don't play drums. Those guys can buy their own mics.
Click to expand...

:D

you could get an adequate 8 channel interface for that price, but finding 12 channels might be hard. if you want to go that route, be careful not to confuse number of channels with number of outputs a device can send to a computer. a lot of the first gen USB mixers would have 8 or so inputs for microphones, but only send a L-R stereo mix to the computer for recording, so 8 --> 2. you'd want individual control over those channels for mixing after recording, so make sure a device sends as many channels out digitally as it can accept inputs. a USB 2 connection is a safe bet to handle all the data.
 
#17
When you're jamming in a small space, it's likely instruments and cabs will be facing every which way. The simplest way to get a good recording of everyone in that setting is to use a "Blumlein Pair" of condenser mics. The photo shows how they should be hung with two mic stands, placed about four feet high in the center of the musicians and gear. The upside down, off-set positioning of this mic pair will create a perfect stereo sonic image of the entire room. It creates two channels of recording - a stereo pair - so there's no complexity required for input other than the ability to receive two XLR feeds. I've used this technique with great success.

Details are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair

Invalid Link Removed

http://www.emusician.com/techniques/0768/blumlein-pair-stereo-miking/134302

Blumlein Pair.jpg
 
#18
I'm just thinking out loud here... but would not two mics, placed in the same spot, pick up exactly the same thing. Yea, you would have two channels, but each channel would contain the same information. Even if the mics are pointed in different directions, there is still no real difference, since the recording space is so small. Not exactly stereo. My guess is that you can do the same thing with a single mic, then turn that mono track into a stereo track with exactly the same information in both the left and right channels.
 
#19
Definitely going to play with the binaural Blumlein mic'ing sometime soon. We go the direct route with our jam sessions (and we do it on the cheap) so I'll share:

We use a Lexicon Omega USB interface: 4 1/4" inputs, 2 XLR mic preamps on two busses (essentially two different stereo input sets, inputs can be placed on either bus).
We then run the monitor out from the Omega into a headphone distribution amp, just a cheap Tascam unit with four sets of phones.
Each player gets their own track, and because we're all on headphones, we have the option of leaving all the cabinets and heavy amps at home... and we don't bother the neighbors as much.
If your drummer is compelled to deploy a bunch of microphones, you can always have him go back and re-take the drum parts. But, if it's just a jam you can get away with mic'ing him with one overhead condenser.
We use Cubase to track everything and we have VSTs for amp models, pedals, reverb (the Omega comes with an excellent Lexicon Reverb vst), etc.

Lexicon Omega - $80, used
Headphone amp - $30, new or used
4 headphones - depends on what everyone likes, if you've got IEMs it's even better.
 
#20
nick98338 said:
I'm just thinking out loud here... but would not two mics, placed in the same spot, pick up exactly the same thing. Yea, you would have two channels, but each channel would contain the same information. Even if the mics are pointed in different directions, there is still no real difference, since the recording space is so small. Not exactly stereo. My guess is that you can do the same thing with a single mic, then turn that mono track into a stereo track with exactly the same information in both the left and right channels.
Click to expand...

Nick, don't try to outsmart the expert. Blumlein is the guy who invented stereo. I've used this technique for years. Read the links and learn how it works.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back