Buying New Equipment

C

Carl

New member
I am a student musician who records that the band that I am in. In my Basement I have
2 AKG C1000S Microphones
1 Shure SM57
1 Shure BG Vocal Mic
Tascam Porta 02

I need some advice on getting new equipment.
Should I invest in a new combined Mixer/ recorder. Or Buy a seperate Mixer and recorder. I would like to have more production on my recordings like EQ and such.
Does anyone have any suggestions on where to start? My Budget is probably from 600 to 800 dollars.

Any help would be very appreciated
Thank You
Carl
 
I really don't know the costs, but I think you'd be off well enough to buy a Roland digital mixer/recorder. Or if you have a nice computer, you could go that route. But I don't really know the min. cost of that route either; sorry.
 
I agree with the Recording Engineers' recommendation with regard to the Roland digital mixer/recorder. Models 840EX & 880EX offer alot of bang for the buck. A word of caution... you are accustomed to listening to analog recordings as opposed to digital. While the aforementioned Roland units sound quite good (digitally speaking), they still produce the harsh sound inherent with the digital format. Warming up digital recordings is an entirely different subject and one which I eagerly await reading about. I made the jump from a Tascam 38 to a PC based system and really miss the warmth from analog. Of all the digital mixer/recorder units I tested, the Roland 880 is at the top of the list all things consisdered. Although it exceeds your budget limitations it's worth saving for. Good luck!
 
"Harshness" or digital? "Warmth" of analog??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I don't know Lambo, I think you are falling for the same crap to describe two different sound that the old analog guys who are worried about digital recording taking all their business away.

Feel free to go to my website and check out an essay that I wrote comparing analog and digital. www.echostarstudio.com/Info.html

Also, please feel free to download a all digital recording that I have on my website. Tell me about warmth after you hear it.


I was just at a studio the other day that is one of the biggest in town here (Portland Oregon) where I know the owner quite well. He was playing a demo he was working on where one song was a ADAT recording and the other was recorded on a Otari 2" machine with dolby SR on all the tracks. I guessed it all backwards. I though the digital song was the analog, and vice a versa. The digital recording was so much more open sounding, more detailed, smoother, fatter. The analog recording sounding mushy and thin. No real bottom end to it. Kind of sucked.

Anyway, just me blowing a little steam on the one subject that is sure to get me going.

Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com

[This message has been edited by sonusman (edited 12-31-1999).]
 
That reminds me, I read a little thing where Stevie Ray Vaughan and his band were going to record. They absolutely did not want digital. Analog all the way baby! So the engineer or producer recorded them in analog and digital. He played it back for them and let THEM decide (without telling them which recording was which.) The whole band chose the digital version, hands down.
 
I've owned both analog AND digital multi~track recording devices. Digital smokes analog by far.
Also, I don't think that Roland is the "best" choice in digital recorders for everyone. It's just a matter of how many features you want to pay extra for. Fostex and Korg make excellent digital 8~track machines, and let's face it... digital is digital, it records "exactly" what you put into it. The only difference between the machines is the amount of features, reliability, and prices. The recording quality is equal among them.
That being said, the Fostex and Korg digital 8~track recorders are right smack-dab in the middle of your price range for buying a digital machine, and both have excellent reliability. The Fostex FD-8 is probably the better choice for live recording since it has eight seperate inputs, as opposed to the Korg which has only two. And no, I don't own a Fostex machine or stock in the company, I'm just trying to give you the best advice for what you can afford right now.
If you CAN wait, then yes, the Roland is a nice machine with more internal features. But, if you must have it "now", the Fostex machine will not disappoint you.
 
digital is not better, its my opinion. go check out this studio: http://www.sugarhillstudios.com
and tell me if you think they should know how to do the job in digital? (also check their equipment lists) I recorded there in both formats and guess which one sounded better? analog. and all the other studios ive been to i would rate the worst analogue based studio higher then the best digital. Ive read sonusman's little essay and let me say this. Ive recorded on a 1/4" Fostex E8 and would take that over 32 tracks of DA88 any day.

[This message has been edited by kristian (edited 01-21-2000).]
 
I think one thing that is being left out of this eqation is the recording board that is being used in each situation. I think a certain combinations will give you different results. Most studios seem to stock their studio with equipment to support more towards either Digital or Analog... - just my opinion
 
kristian,

I think you need to go back and reread my essay. You obviously missed several key points in it.

Now if you think you can get better sound with analog as I do with digital with the same amount of money invested, well, good luck. If you think you can rent a analog studio that can put out as good of sound as I can with digital, and at the same price, well, good luck again.

Probably the biggest point you missed is that many analog engineers fail to understand how to apply different recording techniques for digital. They just use the techniques they use for analog, find that they don't work, then go on to say that digital sucks.

How about you point me in the direction of some of the work that has been done at Sugerhills Studios. I want to compare some high res MP3's (192kbs or better please) to what I do at Echo Star. PROVE TO ME THAT ANALOG IS BETTER THAN DIGITAL WHEN COMPARED ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD!!! Nobody else has proved it yet, I doubt that you will either.... :)

But don't feel bad. Your experience with analog vs. digital is typical. But mark my words here friend, analog is a dying format. It is dying very quickly. A keynote speech by Bob Ludwig (the biggest mastering engineer there is!!) that I was listening to yesterday convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that analog is going out fast.

My friend, embrace digital. It is going to be around as the predominant recording format for the rest of your hopefully long life. Sticking your head in the sand and saying "Analog rules!!!" is not going to help you learn about using the obvious superior features and fidelity of digital.

Of course, maybe you prefer an unnatural, limited dynamic range, biasing for eq type sound....Maybe a colored sound is what works for you. Who know?

Peace.

Ed
 
You're right Fishmed.
And kristian, we're talking about low-cost home studios here, not a professional facility with hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to spend.
What the rest of us are saying here is that the average person will get better recording quality for an "affordable" amount of money using digital rather than an analog.
Tascams' best analog 8-track can't even compare with a Roland VS-880EX or a Korg D8 for sound quality and being user friendly. Digital units offer so much more "for the money" than analog, and you won't spend half of your studio time rewinding and fast-forwarding tape.
 
Digital cant touch 2" tape through a vintage analog board. I paid $50 an hour to record at Nickel and Dime studios in Atlanta where a few gold records have been recorded (Indigo Girls is the only one I remember).
We banged out 4 songs in 4 hours and then came back the next week and spet another 4 hours mixing. $400 for 4 songs that sound as Ballsy as any store bought CD...
One of the tunes was posted on my X-drive but I don't think it's there anymore.
 
Carl... Are you a North Sider or South Sider? Maybe I could hook up with you when it's convenient so you can check out the quality of a good digital home-recorded cd firsthand. I might also be able to help you with getting equipment cheaper than the advertised sale price... Let me know...
 
Update on the cost of Roland VS units:

VS-840ex $1000
VS-880ex $1700
VS-1680HD $2300

If one is fortunate, he or she may nab a used one on perhaps E-bay for $750, $900 and $1700 respectively. A fostex FD-4 may be more in the budget at $450 new. Or perhaps a Korg D-8 for $800. Also the MD (mini disk) recorders are a touch cheaper than the hard dive deals. But reviews all vary as you can see.
 
Opinions are like assholes... And I'm showin' ya mine!!! Anyone who isn't using a DAW will eat my dust... 2" tape is too expensive... and ADAT is... well... ADAT.
The gap is closing bit by bit every day... The day is coming when the only thing standing between a musician and a hit song is TALENT...
If a poor-ass, white-trash bastard like me who cant even make $8 per hour can produce the music that I have been... The industry better be scared...
And they ARE scared.
 
Some people like records over CD's, some Ford's over Chevy's, come on. Forget this digital vs analog debate. It makes me ill. What really bugs me is people who complain about analog and people who complain about digital. I do prefer CD's over tape, and neither car references. Although most of the music I listen to is in the analog days, so I gravitate to it. New music, if it's good I could care a less if it was recorded on a getto blaster.

A lot of warmth with analog "these days", has to do with the style of music, and not the technology behind it at all, this doesn't apply to older classic recordings. Just a frame of mind, an association. This is not to say that analog doesn't have its merits, because it does. Just as digital does.

There are 2 formats, now, and for a long time to come.


[This message has been edited by Emeric (edited 01-22-2000).]
 
So what was the per song budget on that recording kristian. Looking at the rates of that place I would say you got ripped. I have heard way better sounding recordings out of little analog studios here in Portland where they only charge half what those guys do.

I found it to be quite noisy. Probably no noise reduction. Typical of analog recordings, it really lacked detail. But it did sound analog..... :)

I think you still need to go re-read my essay. You only got out of it what you wanted based upon your bias. I think you need to check out some 24 bit systems too. For that matter, the 20 bit ADAT's have a killer sound too.

Emeric, as always you have a nice diplomatic post. Peace you peacemaker..... :)

I will not respond to S8-N's post because I am not going to start a pissing match.

Ed
 
I DLed the "Girlfriend" mp3 and it sounded good, but i still prefer the im not you mp3. I think that is partly from the type of music and singer.
The entire 13 song cd was recorded and mastered with $2700. If you walk into a studio like that forget everything else and get recording and mixdown in four 8 hour sessions then master, it doesntt cost that much for something that sounds awesome.
 
I think that Buck62 and Sonusman pretty much sum it up. For the same amount of money you can get better results from digital than analog providing that the engineer on either system knows how to work with their format. Again the key point here is: "FOR THE SAME MONEY". Look at it this way, for the same amount it would cost to buy just the 2" 24 track analog recorder, most of could repurchase our personal studios several times over. (Not to mention the maintaince cost involved in keeping that machine in perfect working order.)
Most recording projects (10+ songs) take longer than 24 studio hours for recording, mixing, and mastering unless you use studio musicians. This limitted amount of time is reasonable for a great DEMO project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top