Please Help!! MIDI Instruments Can Be Recorded As MIDI Tracks Or As Audio Tracks

[Mike Freze]

Here's a good one (I think) for someone to respond to.

I can mic my external keyboard (Yamaha PSR-290) through my good amp (Fender twin reverb, all tube) to record a track in my Cubase LE software program. Then it gets recorded as an audio track, just like vocals, amping my guitar or bass, etc. I want to do this to by-pass a straight midi transmission from my keyboard through my interface to my computer (using midi cables).

Now the question is, will this produce as good of sound vs. my recording the keyboard direct through my interface (which goes to my computer) by connecting my midi cables and all that so it becomes a midi track?

I have never found a plug in/synthesized instrument or effect on my computer that even comes close to the real sound of a "live," real time instrument, amp, good quality mic to record to, etc.

Do you feel the same or am I living in the old days? I still think anything recorded audio far surpasses in quality the sound from midi instruments/effects. If this weren't true, try comparing a real great singer that you record through a mic (audio), which is the only way you can do that anyway, with a synthesized vocal sound. Can't work.

Also, try matching a digital, computerized instrument (with amp simulators and effects, whatever) with the sound of great expensive speakers you record live and there's no comparison with the rich, deep, authentic sound you get from micing live instruments and amps. Do you agree?

You can mic you midi devices this way too to record them as audio tracks (keyboard, orchestra instruments, drum machines, etc.) Again, no comparison when I mic them through a good mic, good speakers, and record them this way as audio tracks (even though they are from midi devices). No computer software program can compare in the sound you record (even though you can do more editiing if you just chose to save the track as a midi recording).

Do you agree or not agree? Hey, 90% of live, big name bands (or solo artists) who play live concerts use 75%-100% of audio-type instruments (vocals, guitar, bass, etc.) when they perform. They don't show up without their gear and just have a computer software program play their parts and they only sing live. Look at Metallica. See any midi instruments when they perform? Answer: none.

I can see where computers can balance sounds vis the digital mixers for live bands, but the actual music is all real, audio sounds.

If this is all true (and most albums/singles involves "real" singers, guitars, bass, sax, keyboards), then why even record in the midi mode?

Can't you still edit, mix, and master with a computer software program with audio tracks as easily as you can if you were dealing with midi tracks? If not, then how do you explain the great vocals from all these great bands or solo singers that have hit records when the vocals cam't be a midi production to begin with? All those vocals have to be edited or mixed as audio tracks, right?

So is it better to record midi instruments (external keyboards, drum machines, vocal processors) as audio tracks (micing the sounds through a good speaker with a good mic) rather than plugging the midi instruments direct through your interface then to the computer where it would be saved as a midi track?

Mike Freze

 

[gecko zzed]

Are you seeking an answer or just asking a question to answer it yourself?

There are advantages of midi:

You can edit a midi file and, say, remove mistakes. Or you can change the chording by shifting notes, or you can decide to change instruments and get a different sound.

There are some poor midi sounds around, but there are also some excellent ones, so midi itself is not an obstacle musicality. Not knowing how an instrument should sound is.

However, midi extends the musical palette into the electronic realm, and there are some incredibly rich and exciting electronic sounds (through, say, VST instruments) that can add extra dimensions to productions.

Midi, though, does not prevent you from making use of your audio set up. For example, you can lay your keyboard, record the midi, fix it up or alter it, and have it play your keyboard through its audio configuration. This gives you the best of both worlds.

While live music is dominated by live instruments, there is a substantial amount of programming that goes on as well, and even more in the studio.

 

[NCmedia]

Either I have things backwards, or you're missing a step.

Midi is only a triggering system. If you're using VST's, then the sounds are already in your machine, and when you mixdown they are laid as played. When you're mixing down anything you've hooked up re midi, you still have to get the tracks INTO your machine, not just have them played/triggered on playback. So when it comes time to mixdown your master, your midi triggers/keyboard do in fact have to be recorded as a wav/aiff/whateva however you do it whether it's by micing the speaker (not sure why you'd do that) or via a mixer that goes to your sound card > to your machine... (keyboard wires out to mixer ((or directly to studio sound card))).

Once you record a final riff from your keyboard into a wav file for instance, no you can't just move notes around like you do with midi, however yes you can still chop/edit/effect/etc. each track so technically you can still re-quantize, pitch shift stuff but that would be silly imo.

Bottom line, anything that is being triggered by midi to external devices, must be recorded as a wav/audio track, or must be recorded along with your other tracks on your final mixdown. Otherwise you're just triggering an external box with sounds to play a sequence externally but not capture the sounds in your daw.

Recording vs. playing live are two different monsters I wouldn't compare them, whether they use midi or not, or to what extent. Notice urban artists usually have a few vocalists with a beat set/dj spinning, rock concerts usually go raw, and high profile vocalists have symphonies/lead instruments to flow with.

.02.

 

[Mike Freze]

Thanks, Guys! Lots To Think About

Thank you so much, guys, for taking the time to give me your advice.

It is making better sense to me little by little (since this is all new to me and second-hand to you).

You still haven't responded to one of my questions before. If you go all audio tracks in a project (I use Cubase LE for now), even if you do mic external midi instruments to keep an all-audio recording with all audio tracks, can the REAL SOUND QUALITY of midi compare to the real instruments, speakers, mics, etc. you use for a recorded project? I have tried a lot of plug-ins via my computer and they NEVER sound as good as real, live instruments (or my external effects boxes, for that matter) after I mic them and record them through good quality speakers.

Am I missing something here? I get the impression that midi recorded tracks are only great for the specific editing and mixing functions that you can do which you can't with straight audio tracks AFTER you recorded your music. But the WAY you get the sound to record to begin with seems to make a big difference in what you hear after recording in order to edit with your recording software program. Simply put, I haven't found one plug-in that matches the depth, richness, or live feel you get from real instruments with real (good quality) speakers.

Show me one plug-in that matches the sound of my classic Fender Stratocaster recorded through my Fender twin-reverb, all tube amp ($1,300 on the market nowadays). I've tried various "amp simulators" and no way do any of them sound like the real deal. If that were so, you would have to spend $5,000 on your computer and the very best on software synths to even come close to duplicating those sounds.

If that were even possible, then nobody anywhere would ever use good quality, live instruments anymore. But obviously that's not the case.

I'm a newbie on all of this but a 20-year, live performing singer/musician. No insult intended, but I'm beginning to think the only advantage to working with midi (as midi tracks) in a program is just the added editing features AT THE COST of the great quality you can't match with good real equipment, speakers. mics, etc. Am I off base here? If I had a choice between great sounds while recording vs. better editing features later on via midi, I'd choose the better sound. You can only "fix" sounds or effects digitally (via a midi track) if you have unreal, synthesized sounds to begin with. Take a poor mic or a poor speaker, no software program will make it sound better than the equality if the recording instruments. Take great equipment and use software effects to enhance them, you still have that initial great sound to work with.

So I'm still thinking that the added benefits of editing with midi tracks is not worth the original sound of real, good quality instruments, speakers, and mics.

Mike Freze

 

[gecko zzed]

I think you are missing something here . . . or perhaps getting a couple of concepts jumbled up. For example, you compare the sound of a strat through an amp with an amp simulator and conclude that the amped sound is better. That may well be the case, but that has nothing to do with midi. Nevertheless, there are many here who would argue the contrary, i.e. that highly credible guitar sounds can be achieved with plug-in simulators. Even if the sounds are not as good, sometimes there are good reasons for making do with less-than-best. For example, if you are recording late and night and don't want to disturb sleepers with an amp going flat out.

Midi does not prevent you from making use of a 'natural' sound. You can use record the midi from, say, your keyboard, edit it, fix up mistakes, then get the midi to play your keyboard, then record its audio (as I mentioned above). Working with midi doesn't have to be at the cost of anything.

 

[dintymoore]

can the REAL SOUND QUALITY of midi compare to the real instruments, speakers, mics, etc. you use for a recorded project?...

My take on that: You'll never find an Elvis impersonator better than Elvis. You'll never take a picture of the Grand Canyon that's better than the real thing.

So if you're asking about MIDI triggered samples of cymbals or guitars... well those are impersonations of the real thing so they will always sound like that. They could still work in a song though.

If you use MIDI to trigger say an Oberheim synth, that's not an impersonation. That's the real thing. So it sounds exactly the same as the real thing. MIDI reminds me of making cartoons. In cartoons you go frame by frame and speed it up and end up with something you can get no other way. With a MIDI synth bass, you do the same thing and can end up with a bass part you could never play in real life. That's the magic part of MIDI, not using it to replace musicians to save money.

But define "good". You can't, and sometimes I want the sound of crap in a song. Sometimes the sound of a TR808 drum machine sounds better than my Gretsch drums and Zildjian cymbals. It's art and the best results for me are when I use all of the above.

What it's all about, the Holy Grail, is not MIDI vs real instruments, or about the best mic... it's about songs. Doing what's right for the song. Led Zeppelin would sound wrong with a drum machine... some music would sound wrong without one.