Username: Password:

Author Topic: Another home recording topic  (Read 2241 times)

Dave_the_rave

  • Flyweight
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Another home recording topic
« on: March 20, 2008, 01:23:20 AM »
Hi guys, proving my idiocy here, what would you guys say the best at home recording solutiion is concerned. I'd like to be able to record guitar and bass sound, preferably with the amp sound as opposed to a modelling but im not opoosed to it, and create a rhythm section as well. I'm not looking to spend to high heaven as im only a poor student, but i can stretch a bit. Whaddya reckon? BKP Team, Assemble!

JJretroTONEGOD

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1358
  • JJ Retro w/Mule + BKP90
Another home recording topic
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2008, 09:17:14 PM »
Here's what I'd get if I was you:

PC
Soundcard
Small mixer w/XLR ins
DAW
Decent Headphones
shure sm57 mic (for guitar amps)
balanced connections to eliminate hum (from the mixer to PC)
studio monitors.
microphone stand.

the combined cost is affordable but not  mega cheap, I find that I need all these things to be able to get good sounds. Dont bother getting a cheap sm57 clone either as they sound rubbish compared to the real deal.
listen to my music for free here:
https://soundcloud.com/bentyreman

Scotty477

  • Lightweight
  • ***
  • Posts: 750
Another home recording topic
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2008, 12:00:44 AM »
I use a Boss BR-900CD





http://www.absolutemusic.co.uk/shop/view_product_large.php?product=bosbr900cd

It's easy to use after you get used to it. It has drums and bass built in as well.

All you would need to add is an SM57 and a stand, for miked amp recording, although it does have a line in for an amp line out.

hamfist

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
Another home recording topic
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2008, 11:38:05 AM »
Quote from: JJretroTONEGOD
Here's what I'd get if I was you:

PC
Soundcard
Small mixer w/XLR ins
DAW
Decent Headphones
shure sm57 mic (for guitar amps)
balanced connections to eliminate hum (from the mixer to PC)
studio monitors.
microphone stand.

the combined cost is affordable but not  mega cheap, I find that I need all these things to be able to get good sounds. Dont bother getting a cheap sm57 clone either as they sound rubbish compared to the real deal.


Agreed, that's pretty much the minimum you need to do PC recordings of any quality. It's all quite expensive to set up, but infinitely more powerful and flexible than an all-in-one recorder like the Boss, mentioned above.
  I would however disagree about the SM-57. You can get cheaper mic's that do a very good job. I have a Beyer TG-X 58 which is an excellent "do-it-all" mic that works well for vocals, guitars, anything really.
  For those who are not familiar with this sort of thing, a DAW is a Digital Audio Workstation. It's just software really, a recording studio on your PC. Allows you to multitrack, has loads of effects, has virtual drums, bass and all sorts of other instruments. Cubase or Pro Tools are very powerful and popular examples of these. Cubase SE3 is a very cost effective version, and sells for less than £100 in the UK.

Scotty477

  • Lightweight
  • ***
  • Posts: 750
Another home recording topic
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2008, 03:58:13 PM »
Just out of interest how is the setup above infinitely more powerful than an all in one recorder?

I'm not being narky here  :D , I'm just genuinely curious as to what that setup has that something like my Boss unit doesn't?

silentrage

  • Featherweight
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
Another home recording topic
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2008, 04:11:55 PM »
Quote from: Machinehead
Just out of interest how is the setup above infinitely more powerful than an all in one recorder?

I'm not being narky here  :D , I'm just genuinely curious as to what that setup has that something like my Boss unit doesn't?


I'd like to know the answer to this one as well.
I'm contemplating whether to get an all-in-one recorder or a setup myself.

psy

  • Featherweight
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
    • Me singing & guitaring
Another home recording topic
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2008, 04:31:42 PM »
I don't know what you can do with one of those all in one units as I don't have one....

But in Cubase you have lots of build in effects like compressors, reverbs, delays, modulation, distortion etc... and can expand what you can with extra effects plugins & virtual instruments.

For example the Melodyne plugin lets you correct the pitch of say a vocal.  (comes in really handy for knocking up quick harmonies too)

An example of a virtual instrument would be EZdrummer which is quite a convincing sounding drum kit.
Cold Sweat set in Mockingbird NJ Classic > Boss GT6 > Sansamp PSA > VHT 2/90/2 > Zilla 2x12 cab > =D

hamfist

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
Another home recording topic
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2008, 05:15:40 PM »
Quote from: Machinehead
Just out of interest how is the setup above infinitely more powerful than an all in one recorder?

I'm not being narky here  :D , I'm just genuinely curious as to what that setup has that something like my Boss unit doesn't?


Good question.

Firstly, a PC-based DAW will give you proper virtual drums, bass and all sorts of other instruments. These are all programmable using MIDI on the PC. THis is a very, very powerful way of programming virtual instruments. You can do things like build your drum patterns from the ground up, with a lot of the delicate nuances and "feel" of a real drummer programmed in (if you learn how to program like that anyway - just like owning a drum kit doesn't make you a drummer !). the Boss machine just seems to have 294 pre-programmed patterns, which you put together to make a drum track.
  I spend a lot of time programming drums when I record a song. IMO, the feel, and variety of the drum patterns, and little nuances of the drums are often what really picks out a professional sounding recording, rather than just someone else's home studio effort.
   Also, using a PC-based DAW, you could also choose to construct your drums around the millions (probably billions) of sampled drum loops that are out there. the sequencing possibilities are so powerful.

  The other huge advantage is that something like Cubase SE3 (pretty cheap !) will give you up to 48 tracks of simultaneous playback for audio tracks, plus an unlimited number of simultaneous MIDI tracks at the same time.
  THe Boss machine is effectively an 8 track recorder in terns of real-time playback. This would be hugely limiting, unless you are producing just a very simple, basic demo.
  When I record a song I'll easily use about 10 guitar tracks, about 8 vocal tracks, 3 or 4 for bass guitar if I'm not using MIDI'd virtual bass. At least 2 MIDI drum tracks, about 3 or 4 separate MIDI'd keys tracks.  I'm no professional, but I've been doing this for quite a while and I fully recognise the benefit of having so many tracks available.
  if you can only spare say 4 tracks for guitars in a recording, you might fit them all in on those tracks, but the EQing would have to be the same. Changing levels between different parts of the track would be a complete pain. having loads of tracks makes it flexible, powerful and quick. When you're doing a final mixdown, you can really finetune everything with so much more precision.
 Effects-wise, I'd guess the Boss machine and a basic version of Cubase, like SE3, is pretty comparable. But, again, the PC-based DAW wins again, as you can add whatever extra effects you like by getting new plugins, which will seemlessly incorporate themselves into your DAW.  Also, I am sure that Cubase allows you to use what effects that are there in a much more flexible fashion - like if you want to use 4 send and 4 insert effects at the same time (can't imagine you would wnat to do it often !), you can. I am certain the Boss machine doesn't have that ability.

  if you look at JJretroTONEGOD's original list, in this thread, of basic things needed to build a recording setup, the Boss machine would basically just replace the DAW, the mixer, decent soundcard and connections (I'm assuming most folks have access to a reasonable PC - I use an old 1700MhZ processor computer, and it works just fine for me.)
So, if we're pricing that up compared to the £350 Boss BR900CD :-

   DAW - Cubase SE3 - £90
   mixer - Behringer Xenyx 802 - £46
   Soundcard - M Audio AUdiophile 2496 - £48
  Leads - lets say £50.

Do the maths. If you have that PC already, buying stuff to build a PC-based setup is actually cheaper than the Boss machine.
  With the Boss machine, you would still need some sort of monitors (and I would strongly suggest that you need nearfield studio monitors. Hi-fi speaker or h'phones are a very poor second best !), reasonable headphones, a mic and a mic stand.

Oh, also, the Boss machine only samples your recordings at 44.1kHz. Cubase will do it at 96kHz. This gives a perceptable increase in general sound quality of everything.

  this is all just my opinion and experience. I hope the info gives you something to think about.
  I've answered this question before on other forums, where people ask about cheap setups. In the end it can all become rather expensive.  :cry:

Dave_the_rave

  • Flyweight
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Another home recording topic
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2008, 05:51:21 PM »
hmmm very interesting. i think the solution for me may be something like the boss - simply because its easier-ish for me, and im not concerned with getting lots of multi-tracking, just simple recording at good quality level. effects etc im not too concerned about, i'd want to look at micing up my amp and recording that, and i'd assume just a simple mixer attached to a decent mic going into my pc would be a solution. any thoughts?

Scotty477

  • Lightweight
  • ***
  • Posts: 750
Another home recording topic
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2008, 05:55:18 PM »
Cheers for that.

Yeah it looks like a PC setup may have the edge on an all in one.

There's a few points that may redress things slightly though.

Each track on the Boss unit has the capability to record 8 tracks (called virtual or 'V Tracks'). Effectively you have 48 tracks.

You can manually programme the drums. You're not stuck with existing patterns.

You can indeed mix onboard effects with line in effects on the Boss.

Patches are released with plugins from Boss. Only 2 so far but I assume more will follow.

I'm assuming that both a PC setup and an all in one will need nearfield speakers, quality headphones, stands etc?

The 96KHz is an obvious advantage, although I haven't heard a comparison to be able to tell what difference there is.

I like the Boss as it's a standalone unit, that does most things a PC setup can do.

Portability is also a factor here. Unless your PC setup is on a laptop, then you're pretty much stuck with it in your house. A stand alone can be used anywhere basically.

Both have their respective good points but I suppose in the end they do a very similar job. I simply preferred the more 'hands on' feel of the Boss.

hamfist

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
Another home recording topic
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2008, 09:52:22 PM »
Quote from: Machinehead

Each track on the Boss unit has the capability to record 8 tracks (called virtual or 'V Tracks'). Effectively you have 48 tracks.


You really don't have 48 useable tracks. The way I understand it, once muliple tracks have been "mixed down" into virtual tracks, you're then stuck with that mix. All level changes, EQing etc on the master track will affect all it's virtual tracks. You will not be able to tweak the individual virtual tracks at all.  Not a useful feature at all, if you ask me.

  But ultimately the Boss machine will suit some users better than a PC setup. Just try and be aware of the pros and cons of each.