Home 4-track demo project (lockdown)

Looking at the manual, page 24, under PingPong recording, it says it can do 3->1, then 2->1, then add 2 more for a total of 7 tracks.

Can you feed the drum track directly into the Yamaha? My first recording with a drum machine was the drum track directly into the recorder, and a mic with me just humming along and making comments like "guitar solo", singing the verses, etc. Then I went back and added a bass track to go with it. From there I had the song setup and could add tracks as need.
(
Have some fun guys!

Well spotted...yeah, seems it is a feature of this model... I'm reading the manual now too. (can't link it because too few posts, but there is a free pdf)

I'll give it a go if I'm feeling bold, but if I can just manage to get a decent sounding 4 tracks recorded and mixdown onto my laptop for my own listening- I'll be quite pleased. All the bouncing down and Ping-pong seems confusing at this stage. Plus, we are only a three piece , so four tracks should be plenty for a simple demo.

Cheers

EDIT-: It looks like the first two tracks have two jack inputs, is it possible to just record the bass and the drum machine into the first track simultaneously? Thereby freeing up an extra track for another guitar. I realise this will mean a drop in quality, but how much? If not much this seems like a simple way to get an extra track or two
 
Last edited:
Go back a couple of pages from the Ping Pong section and it looks like you could actually record all 4 channels at once and feed that to a stereo mix on tracks 1&2 using the pan controls. That means you could hook up the drum machine and bass at the same time and pan both left giving a mono signal. Or, you and the bass could play along with the drum machine if you wanted for a basic track. Lots of options here!

For sure, when you get something, post a copy here if you can transfer it to a computer.
 
I have often been in your situation - that of making the best recording I could get on a limited budget with "simple equipment." I have used direct input in every case where I can. For something like your project, I would first record the drum machine connected directly to the cassette deck. Next, I would add the bass, again by direct patch cord connected to the deck. I would next record the guitar, again by a direct connection to the recorder. Finally, I would record the vocals using the two mikes. I don't know enough about the difference between the Shure 57 and 58 mikes to recommend one over the other; but you could play with those mikes a bit to see if one might be more suitable to one person's voice than the other. You might even want to do a bit of testing with these two mikes before you begin your "main recording project."
Ok, you have from me one plan which would not involve the purchase of more complex and expensive equipment; it also won't involve any fancy recording techniques to be learned. I have recorded enough multitrack recordings first on opel-reel equipment, then on cassette tapes, bouncing "takes" back and forth between two machines, and briefly - even between two CD home recorders - so that I know that you are probably going to make a recording of only demo quality (of course, I am assuming that your recording will be an analog recording rather than something like a DAT or the like). So in my opinion, you need not spend an unreasonable amount of effort worrying about "perfect recording quality." Still, I am not at all a fan of putting a mike against a speaker to record something. In my teenage years at a residential school for the blind, we often recorded from a radio by putting the mike up to the radio speaker and rolling the tape. It worked, but, at least in my opinion, nowhere nearly as good as you could get using a direct cable to connect the source to the recorder. That's why, for my part, I still use direct connection between my music source and the recorder (or at least an input on a mixer). I use a mike ONLY when a mike is the only way to get the signal into the recorder (we obviously cannot connect a human voice directly to a recorder). For me, a guitar might be a special case. I normally connect my guitar directly to the mixer which feeds my recorder; but I sometimes want to capture the acoustic qualities of the sound from my guitar to my recorder, requiring the miking of my guitar.
I wish you the best in your endeavor to record your band, and I hope the information above will at least encourage you in your effort to record simply and with modest equipment. If your work advances further in the recorded music arena, I'm sure you will eventually end up in a recording studio where they have all the great equipment to do a first-class recording for you. But until then, my advice is to use something like the method I have suggested to do the best you can for getting a good recording. If you are running in a cassette environment, even a multitrack cassette environment, there will be at least a minimal amount of wow and flutter introduced by the mechanical transport. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT!!! Just produce the best sound you can. If you do that, I maintain that you will have a product which you can enjoy for years to come. I say that based on my experience: I have some old analog multitrack recordings of my "one-man band" which I stil play from time to time. I went so far as to make up names for my "band" as my music evolved through the years: Cousin Dave and the Pushbuttons, Bistable Flipflop (when I actually ran my guitar through a digital flipflop chip to produce a rough and not-to-reliable divide-by-2 to get the note an octave below the played note), and Hyperventilated Yoga on which I made a few somewhat "psychedelic" experimental recordings during which I actually used hyperventilation during the lead guitar track (mixture bending, as I called it) which among other things modified the "time base" in my mind to affect the rhythm of that track against the steady accompaniment track. BY THE WAY, HYPERVENTILATED YOGA WENT OUT OF BUSINESS VERY QUICKLY FOR SAFETY REASONS, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON. Now, my wife would "have my head" if I did anymore with that "band" at my age of 76. But then, many of us did things in our teens and early 20s which were not in our best interest though they may have accomplished a purpose we thought good at the time. That does bring forth a possible question for others in home recording: In the same way that movie producers sometimes do risky things to make part of a movie, how far would we be willing to go in risky techniques or processes to get the desired effect on a recording? When it's all said and done on your project, though, the main thing is to HAVE FUN!
 
I've taken the liberty of spacing out your post; see below. Breaking it up so that it doesn't look like a massive brickwall of text makes it easier to read.

I have often been in your situation - that of making the best recording I could get on a limited budget with "simple equipment." I have used direct input in every case where I can. For something like your project, I would first record the drum machine connected directly to the cassette deck. Next, I would add the bass, again by direct patch cord connected to the deck. I would next record the guitar, again by a direct connection to the recorder. Finally, I would record the vocals using the two mikes. I don't know enough about the difference between the Shure 57 and 58 mikes to recommend one over the other; but you could play with those mikes a bit to see if one might be more suitable to one person's voice than the other. You might even want to do a bit of testing with these two mikes before you begin your "main recording project."

Ok, you have from me one plan which would not involve the purchase of more complex and expensive equipment; it also won't involve any fancy recording techniques to be learned. I have recorded enough multitrack recordings first on opel-reel equipment, then on cassette tapes, bouncing "takes" back and forth between two machines, and briefly - even between two CD home recorders - so that I know that you are probably going to make a recording of only demo quality (of course, I am assuming that your recording will be an analog recording rather than something like a DAT or the like). So in my opinion, you need not spend an unreasonable amount of effort worrying about "perfect recording quality."

Still, I am not at all a fan of putting a mike against a speaker to record something. In my teenage years at a residential school for the blind, we often recorded from a radio by putting the mike up to the radio speaker and rolling the tape. It worked, but, at least in my opinion, nowhere nearly as good as you could get using a direct cable to connect the source to the recorder. That's why, for my part, I still use direct connection between my music source and the recorder (or at least an input on a mixer). I use a mike ONLY when a mike is the only way to get the signal into the recorder (we obviously cannot connect a human voice directly to a recorder).

For me, a guitar might be a special case. I normally connect my guitar directly to the mixer which feeds my recorder; but I sometimes want to capture the acoustic qualities of the sound from my guitar to my recorder, requiring the miking of my guitar.

I wish you the best in your endeavor to record your band, and I hope the information above will at least encourage you in your effort to record simply and with modest equipment. If your work advances further in the recorded music arena, I'm sure you will eventually end up in a recording studio where they have all the great equipment to do a first-class recording for you. But until then, my advice is to use something like the method I have suggested to do the best you can for getting a good recording. If you are running in a cassette environment, even a multitrack cassette environment, there will be at least a minimal amount of wow and flutter introduced by the mechanical transport. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT!!! Just produce the best sound you can. If you do that, I maintain that you will have a product which you can enjoy for years to come.

I say that based on my experience: I have some old analog multitrack recordings of my "one-man band" which I stil play from time to time. I went so far as to make up names for my "band" as my music evolved through the years: Cousin Dave and the Pushbuttons, Bistable Flipflop (when I actually ran my guitar through a digital flipflop chip to produce a rough and not-to-reliable divide-by-2 to get the note an octave below the played note), and Hyperventilated Yoga on which I made a few somewhat "psychedelic" experimental recordings during which I actually used hyperventilation during the lead guitar track (mixture bending, as I called it) which among other things modified the "time base" in my mind to affect the rhythm of that track against the steady accompaniment track.

BY THE WAY, HYPERVENTILATED YOGA WENT OUT OF BUSINESS VERY QUICKLY FOR SAFETY REASONS, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON. Now, my wife would "have my head" if I did anymore with that "band" at my age of 76. But then, many of us did things in our teens and early 20s which were not in our best interest though they may have accomplished a purpose we thought good at the time. That does bring forth a possible question for others in home recording: In the same way that movie producers sometimes do risky things to make part of a movie, how far would we be willing to go in risky techniques or processes to get the desired effect on a recording? When it's all said and done on your project, though, the main thing is to HAVE FUN!
 
I have often been in your situation - that of making the best recording I could get on a limited budget with "simple equipment." I have used direct input in every case where I can. For something like your project, I would first record the drum machine connected directly to the cassette deck. Next, I would add the bass, again by direct patch cord connected to the deck. I would next record the guitar, again by a direct connection to the recorder. Finally, I would record the vocals using the two mikes. I don't know enough about the difference between the Shure 57 and 58 mikes to recommend one over the other; but you could play with those mikes a bit to see if one might be more suitable to one person's voice than the other. You might even want to do a bit of testing with these two mikes before you begin your "main recording project."
Ok, you have from me one plan which would not involve the purchase of more complex and expensive equipment; it also won't involve any fancy recording techniques to be learned. I have recorded enough multitrack recordings first on opel-reel equipment, then on cassette tapes, bouncing "takes" back and forth between two machines, and briefly - even between two CD home recorders - so that I know that you are probably going to make a recording of only demo quality (of course, I am assuming that your recording will be an analog recording rather than something like a DAT or the like). So in my opinion, you need not spend an unreasonable amount of effort worrying about "perfect recording quality." Still, I am not at all a fan of putting a mike against a speaker to record something. In my teenage years at a residential school for the blind, we often recorded from a radio by putting the mike up to the radio speaker and rolling the tape. It worked, but, at least in my opinion, nowhere nearly as good as you could get using a direct cable to connect the source to the recorder. That's why, for my part, I still use direct connection between my music source and the recorder (or at least an input on a mixer). I use a mike ONLY when a mike is the only way to get the signal into the recorder (we obviously cannot connect a human voice directly to a recorder). For me, a guitar might be a special case. I normally connect my guitar directly to the mixer which feeds my recorder; but I sometimes want to capture the acoustic qualities of the sound from my guitar to my recorder, requiring the miking of my guitar.
I wish you the best in your endeavor to record your band, and I hope the information above will at least encourage you in your effort to record simply and with modest equipment. If your work advances further in the recorded music arena, I'm sure you will eventually end up in a recording studio where they have all the great equipment to do a first-class recording for you. But until then, my advice is to use something like the method I have suggested to do the best you can for getting a good recording. If you are running in a cassette environment, even a multitrack cassette environment, there will be at least a minimal amount of wow and flutter introduced by the mechanical transport. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT!!! Just produce the best sound you can. If you do that, I maintain that you will have a product which you can enjoy for years to come. I say that based on my experience: I have some old analog multitrack recordings of my "one-man band" which I stil play from time to time. I went so far as to make up names for my "band" as my music evolved through the years: Cousin Dave and the Pushbuttons, Bistable Flipflop (when I actually ran my guitar through a digital flipflop chip to produce a rough and not-to-reliable divide-by-2 to get the note an octave below the played note), and Hyperventilated Yoga on which I made a few somewhat "psychedelic" experimental recordings during which I actually used hyperventilation during the lead guitar track (mixture bending, as I called it) which among other things modified the "time base" in my mind to affect the rhythm of that track against the steady accompaniment track. BY THE WAY, HYPERVENTILATED YOGA WENT OUT OF BUSINESS VERY QUICKLY FOR SAFETY REASONS, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON. Now, my wife would "have my head" if I did anymore with that "band" at my age of 76. But then, many of us did things in our teens and early 20s which were not in our best interest though they may have accomplished a purpose we thought good at the time. That does bring forth a possible question for others in home recording: In the same way that movie producers sometimes do risky things to make part of a movie, how far would we be willing to go in risky techniques or processes to get the desired effect on a recording? When it's all said and done on your project, though, the main thing is to HAVE FUN!

That's interesting...obviously straight into the 4 track would be nice and easy. At the end of the day it's more about the performance I'm thinking, i.e. a well mic'd amp with a crappy performance is a worse than a DI with a great one.

My plan was along the lines of what you said, though I was definitely planning on micing the Fender Twin Reverb for the amp. It's all old beaten up one, half the valves are gone, but it has such a singing reverb and that's a big part of our sound. I think i'd be hard-pressed to replicate it using the preamps for with the MT400.

I was going to just DI the bass like you said, then a guy I follow who does this and owned a MT400, I got chatting to him and he said this;

"The inputs of the MT400 are too low impedance for a bass to sound good plugged in directly. For this I'd use a microphone on the amp. It doesn't really matter much which one, the 57 and 58 have the same capsule, the only difference is the grille (people claim subtle differences between them but here it doesn't look like you're going for subtle anyway)."

So it made me think just mic the bass cab too. We'll see. This guy is not an amateur he is a sound engineer, so grungy lo-fi to him is probably anathema whereas to people like us it is part of the charm.


ANyway, thanks for the kind words of advice. I'll probably just DI the bass if I'm honest, because I want to just get moving rather than fussing about with mic placement etc (I'll be spending enough time doing that for guitar anyway)
 
If you feed a regular guitar into a low impedance (for passive guitar. 10k Ohms is a medium impedance) you do indeed lose some treble, the gitists call it "tone suck" . I would not think it is such a problem for bass unless you want a really sharp 'snappy poppin' tone?
In any case you can give the bass a high impedance input by using a guitar pedal. Any pedal that is NOT of the daft 'true bypass' type will have a buffer to present a high impedance load to guitar/bass and a low source impedance output that will allow a long cable without causing hum and HF loss.

Dave.
 
In your situation, I've done one track at a time with good results. But let me suggest another option to try...
Plug the drum machine and bass into the the PA. You can use the Channel EQ for the drum machine and bass, or you can run out of the bass amp and utilize the amp EQ. Then mic the Guitar amp and plug that into the PA. If you have a stereo PA with panning, you can submix and run from the PA line out into your recorder onto 2 channels. That would give you a Stereo rhythm track and 2 free channels to record vocals or additional instrumentation.

I used to mic up everything, including drums, and record entire bands this way.
Below is a link to a band I played in and recorded to a 4 track back in 1996.
YouTube
 
If you feed a regular guitar into a low impedance (for passive guitar. 10k Ohms is a medium impedance) you do indeed lose some treble, the gitists call it "tone suck" . I would not think it is such a problem for bass unless you want a really sharp 'snappy poppin' tone?
In any case you can give the bass a high impedance input by using a guitar pedal. Any pedal that is NOT of the daft 'true bypass' type will have a buffer to present a high impedance load to guitar/bass and a low source impedance output that will allow a long cable without causing hum and HF loss.

Dave.


Sounds about right then - guitar is mic'd because I want that sweet Fender Twin Reverb sound...but bassist can just make do with the DI haha.

We definitely aren't looking for a "sharp snappy poppin" tone as you put it. Bass sounds we emulate would be like Jesus Lizard or something like that, a deep growl bass tone.

For example:

YouTube


Obviously this was recorded by a master (Steve Albini), so I know our crappy little first attempt won't come close. But no, just stressing the point we don't like that bright snappy bass. So yeah, DI.

The objective of our band (especially live, but I hope to bring to a recording) is a tight rhythm section, basic beats, nothing funky or showy on the bass - which provides a canvas for the guitar to freak out, semi-improvise, do it's thing. I suppose it is the same for all rock bands. But if we can get a solid sounding bass and drums, to me that's more than half the battle.
 
Last edited:
In your situation, I've done one track at a time with good results. But let me suggest another option to try...
Plug the drum machine and bass into the the PA. You can use the Channel EQ for the drum machine and bass, or you can run out of the bass amp and utilize the amp EQ. Then mic the Guitar amp and plug that into the PA. If you have a stereo PA with panning, you can submix and run from the PA line out into your recorder onto 2 channels. That would give you a Stereo rhythm track and 2 free channels to record vocals or additional instrumentation.

I used to mic up everything, including drums, and record entire bands this way.
Below is a link to a band I played in and recorded to a 4 track back in 1996.
YouTube

Got to say that all sounds pretty complicated. The PA we have is just a little portable one because we usually just use the house PA for gigs, so not sure how that would factor in.

But I would be happy if we could get something like those results in your recordings, that has given it a Live sound which would be good. In fact, your band's sound isn't too dissimilar to ours...but we are a bit more British sounding if you catch my drift haha. Only thing is we are going to have to use a drum machine, which we've never done before. We usually have a live drummer. You lose something of the organic rock feel with a drum machine imo.

Anyway, thank you for the suggestion. I'll look into that.
 
i used to use a fostex mr-8. it was great being able to bounce the tracks onto the 5/6 track to free up four tracks for further use then mix it all onto the 7/8 track.
 
Back
Top