Help a newbie! Deck cassette recording??

[rogonzab]

Hi, I am new here, and also kind of new to recording.

I want to record an album before the end of the year, I have the musical part 80% there, and now I am thinking about the recording process.

Is going to be an early chicago blues album, so those first Chess records are "my goal". I want that the entire recording chain to be analog. So far this is what i have in mind:

Mics (I have few really old, a few old, and a couples new) -> Shure M267 mixer -> Art tube Mp -> Cassette Deck.

A reel to reel would be nice, but is far to expensive to me right now (I live in Chile), so cassette is my next best thing.

I have to question for you guys:

1- What do you think of my aproach / equipment?

2- I know about the Portastudio, but over here those are also expensive, so I am looking for a deck like this:
http://www.hifiengine.com/images/model/yamaha_tc-720_stereo_cassette_deck.jpg

My idea is to use hi-z output of the Art Tube MP (but sending a low singal) to the the MIC input of this type of decks.

Remember, I am aiming for a lo-fi sound.

Any of you has done something similar? any experience? advices?


I will be keeping this post updated whit the recording process.

Greetings!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

1- What do you think of my aproach / equipment?

Honestly, I think you're way off course.

2- I know about the Portastudio, but over here those are also expensive, so I am looking for a deck like this:
http://www.hifiengine.com/images/model/yamaha_tc-720_stereo_cassette_deck.jpg

I like Yamaha cassette decks, but that's ancient even by cassette standards.

My idea is to use hi-z output of the Art Tube MP (but sending a low singal) to the the MIC input of this type of decks.

Don't. Connect the output of the preamp to a line input on the back of the deck.

Remember, I am aiming for a lo-fi sound.

There are different kinds of lo-fi, and I doubt this is the one for you.

 

[rogonzab]

bouldersoundguy, sorry to bother you, but can you please tell me why I am way off course?

More info:

The band: in some songs, it will be uprightbass, minimal drum, guitar, voice and harmonica (those from the same source, a 50s Kinght tube PA)

Mics: I am a harmonica player, so I have a few 40s and 50s bullet mics, that I am planing on using whit the singer..

Music influences:
This was recorded "using a simple 4 track cassette recorder (used only 2 channels), a very cheap old plastic mic for vocals, 1 small amp shared for vocals and harp, and a small amp for guitar"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKIHORuxVGM

This is also a reference in sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0GDRosrk1w

 

[miroslav]

I don't know what BSG will tell you...but IMO, the biggest aspect of that sound is all the players recording together in a live room with probably a vocal mic and maybe a couple of room mics to pick up the band....everyone placed sorta around the mic(s), letting it all bleed together...and, it's in mono.

That '60s sound that everyone keeps referring to as "lo-fi" is not so much about using lo-grade equipment, though using some period-specif equipment, like the mics, amps and old-school taoe decks certainly adds to the authenticity. I think some of the real old stuff form the '30s & '40s was probably cut direct to acetate....which has its own sound....and then maybe later on transferred...?

 

[rogonzab]

Yes, I should have said something about how I was thinking about recording, not just gear.

I want to record whit a mic for every one (including a single mic for the drum and another single for the upright bass), all togheter in the same room, live recording, what we play is what we get. The mics are going to be the distant to the source (as posible) so they can act also as (kind of) ambient mics.

I have a couple Shure 585 (Sm58 grandpa) that I can USE.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I want to record whit a mic for every one (including a single mic for the drum and another single for the upright bass), all togheter in the same room, live recording, what we play is what we get. The mics are going to be the distant to the source (as posible) so they can act also as (kind of) ambient mics.

Well, pick one, either lots of close mics or fewer more distant mics.

Doing it with lots of distant mics is going to give you a ton of bleed, which is just going to make it sound like a bad demo. Use fewer mics, each one placed to capture one section of the band, as Miroslav described. Or just go for one mic and use placement of the sound sources to adjust the mix. Then there's no bleed, just direct and reflected sound.

I would say that the 585 could be useful, especially for the vocal if you do the few-mic setup. I've used 545s and 546s for all sorts of things, and I'm currently using a 565 for talkback. That 565 often gets used for scratch vocals in the control room while tracking drums/bass/guitar, and it sounds pretty nice.

 

[rogonzab]

"Well, pick one, either lots of close mics or fewer more distant mics"
There is a point in betwen right? (I am actually not sure, I am not beeing rude, just ignorant)

I always liked the "few inches back" regarding puning mics in front of an amp. It seems to me that the sound that you get is closer than what you are getting in the room. Yes, they are bleed, but a little is not that bad for me.

Getting back to the OP regarding those deck recorders (actually, they seems made for listening rather than recording), do you think that is a valid way to record? I mean, it is doable to send a "mixed" signal (4 mics into one output) to these units?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

"Well, pick one, either lots of close mics or fewer more distant mics"
There is a point in betwen right? (I am actually not sure, I am not beeing rude, just ignorant)

Many distant mics is the least optimal configuration. The bleed essentially creates several multiple images of the same thing, each image being offset slightly in time. That tends to sound ugly. You don't need absolute isolation, you just need to make primary image of each source be sufficiently dominant over the secondary images. Start with the 3:1 mic placement technique and then exploit anything else that will help, including mic polar patterns, source positioning and goboes.

Frankly I never want to go back to mixing live to tape. But it can be done. If I had to record live mixes I'd use a better recording medium. I suspect what you're looking for is vintage sound rather than lo-fi, and I think you can get most of that with mic selection and placement and recording to something better than cassette, like a computer with just about any decent audio interface.

 

[famous beagle]

Many distant mics is the least optimal configuration. The bleed essentially creates several multiple images of the same thing, each image being offset slightly in time. That tends to sound ugly. You don't need absolute isolation, you just need to make primary image of each source be sufficiently dominant over the secondary images. Start with the 3:1 mic placement technique and then exploit anything else that will help, including mic polar patterns, source positioning and goboes.

Frankly I never want to go back to mixing live to tape. But it can be done. If I had to record live mixes I'd use a better recording medium. I suspect what you're looking for is vintage sound rather than lo-fi, and I think you can get most of that with mic selection and placement and recording to something better than cassette, like a computer with just about any decent audio interface.

BSG, I promise I'm not trying to be rude; I'm sincerely curious. Why do you like to hang out in this forum? It's obvious that you don't like recording to tape, and you're often quick to point out the flaw in others' methods when they mention they want to. So why do you come here?

(Again, I'm sincerely curious.)

 

[bouldersoundguy]

BSG, I promise I'm not trying to be rude; I'm sincerely curious. Why do you like to hang out in this forum? It's obvious that you don't like recording to tape, and you're often quick to point out the flaw in others' methods when they mention they want to. So why do you come here?

(Again, I'm sincerely curious.)

I should have said "mixing live to 2-track" because it wasn't meant to be an analog vs. digital statement, just a preference for multitracking. I do agree that analog recording can be a useful part of getting a vintage sound, but cassette is a poor substitute for a good open reel deck and there's no substitute for good mic technique. I think the OP is in a place where a good reel-to-reel deck is going to be near impossible to find so in his case digital might be the best option.

 

[famous beagle]

I should have said "mixing live to 2-track" because it wasn't meant to be an analog vs. digital statement, just a preference for multitracking. I do agree that analog recording can be a useful part of getting a vintage sound, but cassette is a poor substitute for a good open reel deck and there's no substitute for good mic technique. I think the OP is in a place where a good reel-to-reel deck is going to be near impossible to find so in his case digital might be the best option.

Ok, I understand. Thanks for the clarification.

roganzab: How much are you looking at spending on the cassette deck?

 

[Farview]

I am in agreement with the "pick one" statement. Either everything needs to be close miked, or there needs to be a couple room mics.

Even a few inches back is still close miked, as long as the mic for one instrument is at least 3 times closer to that instrument than it is to the instrument next to it. But if you are talking about placing the mics all two feet away from their source, that will be a giant mess.

All of this is do-able with enough mixer channels and enough setup time to get the mix right, before you hit record.