Digital Newbie Question

C

Chazinmo

New member
Hi guys,

I did not put this in the Newbie section as I am not new to recording, just to digital. I have not recorded for many years (pre-digital era) and am getting back into it.

Suppose I want to record something in a tight four part harmony (like a trombone section) by myself. On tape I would lay down a track, rewind, pop on the headphones to listen while playing the second part (second track), etc. I have heard that some computer recording systems have latency problems that would make this impossible. That is, if I am playing in perfect time with what I am listening to, there is a lag between the time I hear the beat from track one and the system records what I am playing for track 2.

I assume this problem does not exist in professional studios. So my question is, can this problem be avoided in a reasonably priced home recording setup? If so, what do I need to look for?

Thanks for any help!
 
how many tracks do you want to record at the same time?
and what are your pc's specs?
Also you will need proper mic's and cables.
And whats your budget?
 
I generally record one track at a time (I usually play all the parts).

I have been using a 4-track on tape, and I ping pong quite a bit.

For example, I will put a click track on track 1. Then I listen to it and play bass onto track 2. Then I play keyboards onto track 3, then I put percussion on track 4.

After that I mixdown 2,3 &4 onto 1. Then I listen to 1 (the rythmn section) while i record horns on 2,3,&4 (one at a time).

If I could record 8 tracks seperately without the ping-ponging, that would be great.

I have an IBM Thinkpad T-42 with an 80G Hard drive, 1.8 Ghtz Pentium processor, and 2GB of RAM

I do not yet have a sound card.

I do not really have a budget. The more it costs, the longer it will take me to get it. I am doing this primarily to get my music recorded so other musicians can hear it. If i ever get to the point of producing something commercially, I will bring in other musicians and find someone who knows a lot more than I do to record us. If I could get something acceptable for a few hundred dollars to get started that would be great.

Thanks for all the info.
 
look for a usb unit, that includes software..........

Chazinmo said:
I generally record one track at a time (I usually play all the parts).

I have been using a 4-track on tape, and I ping pong quite a bit.

For example, I will put a click track on track 1. Then I listen to it and play bass onto track 2. Then I play keyboards onto track 3, then I put percussion on track 4.

After that I mixdown 2,3 &4 onto 1. Then I listen to 1 (the rythmn section) while i record horns on 2,3,&4 (one at a time).

If I could record 8 tracks seperately without the ping-ponging, that would be great.

I have an IBM Thinkpad T-42 with an 80G Hard drive, 1.8 Ghtz Pentium processor, and 2GB of RAM

I do not yet have a sound card.

I do not really have a budget. The more it costs, the longer it will take me to get it. I am doing this primarily to get my music recorded so other musicians can hear it. If i ever get to the point of producing something commercially, I will bring in other musicians and find someone who knows a lot more than I do to record us. If I could get something acceptable for a few hundred dollars to get started that would be great.

Thanks for all the info.
Click to expand...


look at all the tascam and maudio units, compare features, included software and price, then check back here about your selection and see if anybody has had a bad time with it.

just about any system will be so much better and easier than what you have been doing, you won't be able to imagine. you might want to get a book on computer based recording, so you don't wind up using your system as a 'computerized tape system' and reall dig into the features you will have available. your workflow will probably change a lot.
 
On tape I would lay down a track, rewind, pop on the headphones to listen while playing the second part (second track), etc. I have heard that some computer recording systems have latency problems that would make this impossible. That is, if I am playing in perfect time with what I am listening to, there is a lag between the time I hear the beat from track one and the system records what I am playing for track 2.
Click to expand...

It's not at all a problem. The recording system compensates for this when you overdub. The only time latency becomes an issue is when you try to monitor what you are recording through the recording software rather than the source, or monitoring the outut of software effects plug-ins in real time, or if you are triggering a software synth with MIDI messages in real time. Even for these cases, with modern systems and fast ASIO or WDM drivers the latency can typically be low enough to be negligible (under 10 ms). That's on the order of the difference between what a drummer five or six feet away from you hears when he hits his kit as opposed to when you hear when he hits his kit, because of the speed of sound.

If you monitor just the playback signal of what you already recorded, and sing along with it, the second track will be as perfectly in synch as you are able to pull off...
 
It sounds like the technology is more accurate than I am. :)

I guess the latency problems I have heard about involve monitors during live recording. That makes sense (so many people record at home and in the studio, and I figured they must be overdubbing).

Also great advice to really learn about computer recording so I am not trying to duplicate analog methods in a digital environment.

Thanks again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top