Which recording setup should I keep?

For a start, your DAW (software) is not tied to the hardware. so you can use Protools or Isotope with the other gear.

Your problem: neither option lets you use 2 mics. The Solo, at least will let you use 1 mic and plug an instrument or line signal directly in. With a USB mic like the Yeti, that's all you can do is record that one mic by itself. Now the good thing is that mic does allow you to use the XLR analog output to a device such as the Solo, but I'd say the Shure is a better mic.
So the best option would be to sell the Solo, and get an audio interface with at least mic preamps/inputs. Unless you need to record remotely, you might want to sell the Tascam, too.
 
mjbphotos said:
For a start, your DAW (software) is not tied to the hardware. so you can use Protools or Isotope with the other gear.

Your problem: neither option lets you use 2 mics. The Solo, at least will let you use 1 mic and plug an instrument or line signal directly in. With a USB mic like the Yeti, that's all you can do is record that one mic by itself. Now the good thing is that mic does allow you to use the XLR analog output to a device such as the Solo, but I'd say the Shure is a better mic.
So the best option would be to sell the Solo, and get an audio interface with at least mic preamps/inputs. Unless you need to record remotely, you might want to sell the Tascam, too.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the input.

I may purchase another interface down the line, but I don't really need to record more than one source at a time at the moment.

I do record remotely so the Tascam will stay.

Everything is new (except the Tascam), so if I sell the Yeti then the IZotope will go with it.

I suppose my best bet would be to sell the Yeti. I could sell the interface as well (while it's still in the box) and purchase something a little better (maybe a 2 input). I like the idea of the Yeti, but really only for YouTube videos because I woulndn't have to figure out how to edit video to be able to sync the audio and video. Which I'd have to do with the Shure through the Scarlett.
 
So will you need more than 2 input channels? You said banjo and vox correct,, then maybe a trio?
I'm just trying to be clear on what you are asking.
 
westsideryan said:
You should try it sometime!
Click to expand...

I have. And after 30 years of recording I have learned that that does not work so well. The sound of the room the instrument is recorded in is very important, as well as actually capturing the performance of an acoustic instrument as the human ear hears it (in stereo because we have ears on both sides of our head) is how it must be done so it sounds natural.

I am not sure why I would try capturing an acoustic performance in mono if I had the choice to not limit myself to that...
 
I've been recording a similar time, and for me - the number of times I record one instrument with two mics is very low. I do it on every instrument that produces sound from different locations that we hear with our ears as blended.

If you set up a stereo pair and view the result on a visual scope it's so easy to see width. Looking at an acoustic guitar from 10ft away, the display looks like the source is around 20 degrees of the full 360. For me, that's mono - a point source. I appreciate that the fingerboard tone is different from the sound hole tone, and if you want that close in, precise and clean sound, then two mics will need to be used, blended together. That is NOT the same as stereo. For years, the BBC would blend mics together to get the balance, for mono. Sure, we can put two mics on a harp and then do wonderful swirls in hard left right 'stereo', but that is an effect, not reality. A swirl from the harpist in it's place in the stereo field of the orchestra is not audible as a left/right shift.

Having two ears means you have the capability to locate in space a sound source. That's it. A guitar in a room is a point source. Not a point source that a trumpet would be, and different to a piano. We're talking about physical width. That's a physical thing. Stereo is in use the other end - any the receiver.

If we wish to record realism, then even with close miking, we need to be careful with panning multiple mics apart. In my head, this means that in the studio when mixing, I close my eyes and use the two pan controls to place the two miked guitar in the right place. Opening my eyes usually reveals they are in virtually the same place - a small difference - never for me, one left and one right, because that creates a guitar 8 ft wide - the distance between my monitors. Context is everything. I tend to record guitars, saxes, flutes, clarinets (because we use them all the time) with one mic - moving it to get the balance right. Drum kits and grand piano have more than one. With both these again the range of the pans is quite limited. Phil Collins might use exaggerated panning on a few tracks for effect, but for the majority of the time, drums are central in most recordings.

I do understand what Jimmy says about the room, though - and I can see that for perhaps recording a classical guitar in a church, an X/Y pair could be really nice - in the studio I wouldn't bother. Ten years or so ago I did a couple of projects with a well known classical guitarist - who cared so much about his tone that his guitar had no varnish or finishing, because he liked the sound and refused to have it finished. He gave me a single, well used AKG 451 microphone. Told me exactly where it had to go, and that is what I recorded. No input from me whatsoever. He was spot on - a wonderful sound. I'd have loved to experiment, but that wasn't going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top