Help: Recording System Needed To Make *real* Album

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lets-Rock
  • Start date Start date
L

Lets-Rock

New member
Hello,

I am brand new to this forum.

I have always made sub-par demo's for the past 10 years and now is finaly the time to record my own real album.

While I do not intend to make something as multitracked and "perfect" sounding as something as say, Dimmu Borgir or Opeth, I want to make an actual album that sounds like a real 4 piece band. (vocals, guitars, bass, drums, synth.)

Production wise, I want this to sound more "live"- as if it's in a big room and less "studio-ish"

Problem: Everyone is telling me conflicting advice on what program to use.

Sony Acid? It's cheap and might do the trick...

Pro Tools?? Or is this a waste of money? (St. Anger- BLAH!)

This question is kind of embarrasing to ask given the amount of experience I have as a musician...it's something I am just starting to educate myself on.

Thank you very much guys.

Lets-Rock
 
To make a "real album" takes a lot more than a lot of nice gear...

And no matter what - It's going to be much (MUCH!!!) cheaper going to a decent studio at $50-75 an hour with a reasonably experienced engineer at the helm.

You could very, very easily drop $50k on a good base of decent quality gear. You could spend $10k and get a "real album" from a reputable studio.

The program has about as little to do with the sound as anything... It's the gear (and the talent) in front of the recording medium.
 
Problem: Everyone is telling me conflicting advice on what program to use.

Sony Acid? It's cheap and might do the trick...

Pro Tools?? Or is this a waste of money? (St. Anger- BLAH!)

It's not really down to the software. If it's down to anything in that respect it you hardware, what converters you are using etc. The software doesn't effect the quality of what you are recording into the computer (assuming you aren't recording at a really low sample rate.)

People prefer different software because they have different ways of working, or a particular piece of software might have a certain feature they like. Try reaper. It's cheap and does a lot. I use Cubase because that what I'm used to, simple as that.

St. Anger didn't sound like crap because it was recorded with Pro Tools. It sounded like crap because it was a bunch of crap songs, recorded really badly by Bob Rock. They had a ridiculous amount of equipment and all the money in the world, and I've made less shitty sounding tunes using Cubase3 and a Delta 44.

Which is where the real important point comes in. All the hardware in the world won't make you a great sounding album. The people recording it, mixing it, and mastering it will. Money and hardware is no substitute for knowledge and experience. I'm pretty sure that a real pro would be able to do way more with my humble home setup than I could do with a multi million dollar studio.
 
I agree, it's not only having decent gear, it's having the know how and experience to use it. As it is often said around here, a good engineer can make good recordings on minimal gear, but a bad engineer will still make bad recordings even with the best gear. If you have time and cash to spend, having your own studio is a great way to go, however if you are in a hurry using someone else's studio is a lot more practical.
 
What equipment have you been using to record your demos so far? What you have might already be good enough.

What is it about your demos that makes them sub-par?
 
The key to a good recording is good parts. If your original sources don't sound, to your ears, exaclty how you want them to, you've already missed it. You need to convey emotion too.

Your equipment is fine. If you want a pro quality recording, you need a pro engineer behind the gear. Software is nothing.
 
"Professional" quality recordings have been produced on 4-track cassette machines.
 
"Professional" quality recordings have been produced on 4-track cassette machines.

Not really. Some interesting recordings have been made on casette with great music but few would call them quality recordings.

The software is important in terms of how you can edit and route things in a mix but has very little to do with the sound or vibe of a recording. We recorded our album on my Radar 24 Nyquist and Ghost 24 mixer preamps with some cheap to medium level mics and mixed the whole thing in Reaper. We tracked most of the basic tracks live and added a bunch of overdubs. The main part of the sound was the room though. I stumbled on a vacant, underground dome house that we rented for 4 months to do the tracking. We also spent about $1200 getting it mastered by a guy with real credits.

You can check it out here www.myspace.com/thefatrhabit
 
reaper is a wonderful software to start out on --

and as far as hardware, you can get some decent stuff for cheap, i suggest the firepod and some decent mics and room treatment/monitors.

with the right technique, anyone can make a "real album" with not too much money spent.

But technique means alot, and a real studio with good rooms may help.

if you are willing to learn, it is well worth it to do some stuff yourself, if not all.
 
St. Anger sounded like it was a project from first week full sail students
 
Not really. Some interesting recordings have been made on casette with great music but few would call them quality recordings.
t[/url]

Well correct me if I'm wrong (and ha, I could be) but wasn't Sgt Pepper recorded on 4 track reel to reel (which yes, reel to reel is a lot different than cassette haha, but i think that's what he meant to begin with) and I think Sgt Pepper was voted album of a century but i'm not sure on that one. But that really gives all us recording guys some faith every now and then ha.
 
Well correct me if I'm wrong (and ha, I could be) but wasn't Sgt Pepper recorded on 4 track reel to reel (which yes, reel to reel is a lot different than cassette haha, but i think that's what he meant to begin with) and I think Sgt Pepper was voted album of a century but i'm not sure on that one. But that really gives all us recording guys some faith every now and then ha.

Sgt. Pepper was recorded on two 4-Track Tube reel to reel decks. A cassette based 4 track is not even analog in comparison to what the Beatles used. There is no contest at all.
 
I think Springsteen's Nebraska was recorded on a four-track cassette machine. If I remember correctly, he recorded it with his engineer buddy in his living room simply for reference in the studio. After going to the studio he realized that the four-track recordings in the living room were the best takes.



I'm just throwing that out there for fun.
 
Sgt. Pepper was recorded on two 4-Track Tube reel to reel decks. A cassette based 4 track is not even analog in comparison to what the Beatles used. There is no contest at all.


Exactly..the bottom line of 4 tracks is the same. Except im sure the quality of it doesn't suck as bad it does when tracks are bounced with cassette. But the point i was making, was a lot of creativity and experiments were done with just linking 2 tape machines together.
 
Exactly..the bottom line of 4 tracks is the same. Except im sure the quality of it doesn't suck as bad it does when tracks are bounced with cassette. But the point i was making, was a lot of creativity and experiments were done with just linking 2 tape machines together.

They didn't link the machines. They bounced mixes from one to the other.
 
Well, my 2 centavos on this issue:
Software has little to do with the actual source. It would be like working on MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop... yes one will do more things than the other to the image, but if you captured the image with a cheap 1 megapixel cam there's only so much you can do... think of your interface (audio card) as if it was a camera.... better converters mean better "image" hence, better resolution, better colors, more canvas to work with inside your software.

And one issue that hasn't been adressed is the fact that the room where you track in has very much to do with the quality of the recording. Better sounding rooms can be tricky to find (or expensive) as most bands tend to be loud and need to be in a dead-ish environment.

I would recomend trying a studio for 1 track and see if the difference is noticeable...

Good luck
 
well

First dude, what kind of tunes do you have? Are they well written? What style? I wouldnt listen too much too what other people have to say, i mean, some of the advice here is correct, but there is more to it than just regurgitating the last 5 lines that everyone knows.

Listen to your tunes and think long and hard about what type of emotions are really in there. Is it sad? IS it happy? Is it sad and happy together? Is it dumbass done to death rock? Whatever it is emotionally you should strive to represent it that way in production. Because although all these guys here will tell you the professional method and all this professional advice, the general person who is a non musician doesnt care about any of that. All they want is to be entertained, taken to a place in their mind for a moment. Im going to let you in on a big secret:

people dont care about audio quality, only audiophiles and people in the recording industry.

Awhile back i helped out in a project that had strong songwriting but nearly zero atmosphere as far as production goes. I have almost no experience as a recording engineer. I decided to give the recordings character that suited the emotion rather than suited the "state of the art" in fidelity. I cut MASS high end. I cut MASS bass. I turned everything way down until you could barely hear it just "feel" it (except for voice). I didnt even use a high quality mic. When i miced instruments i pretty much just pointed the mic at the sound source with nearly zero time spend moving it around for different "tones". I did everything technically wrong. But you want to know what? The tunes went on the internet, people heard them, and now the musician who i recorded is being called a "genius" and "brilliant" every single day. People are begging, not asking, begging for him to release the album so they can put it on their ipod. Reviewers so far have called the project "instant classics" "neither old nor new" and "guaranteed to be big soon." Younger guys in bands ask us all the time how we got it to sound so good and who we are listening to that is influencing us to sound like nearly no one else thats out currently. I am not making this up. Im actually UNDER stating the compliments we have recieved. People from all over are requesting mp3s so they can play the tunes at lounges and on independent radio. THEY REQUEST US. There is no amount of selling needed if the tunes are strong and the production is creative.

If all of this was simply my opinion then i would be just another dude like all the others. But i say this to you not to stroke my own meager accomplishment, its to finally break down the BS lies people spread about art and music and recording. People WANT something different. State of the art means state of stagnation. I always had felt this was true but now that people have recieved those songs so well i know it to be true. And we get people of all age groups from in their 50s to 15 year old little girls saying they cant stop listening to the songs and when is the album coming out. And all of that using a ten dollar dynamic mic, a half broken ribbon mic, an old teac mixer, a fake bass guitar, fake drumming, a completely ungrounded untreated room, cheap cables, monitoring over an old pair of consumer grade cheapy speakers from the thrift store, and a free digital recording program running on a crappy laptop. I didnt even try multiple mic positions and people are calling it brilliant and begging for the cd. So once again:

People dont care about how something sounds they only care about the emotional content of the song.

Dont spend even 500 bucks recording an album. Its BS. Spend your time working on the songs and make them memorable and stress over that not the fidelity. Everyone thinks you have to put out some million dollar sound just to impress teenagers and stuff but its a lie. You only have to entertain them for 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Save your money, use your creativity.
 
a little real help

OK so a few things i will say you definitely SHOULD do when recording. Go download REAPER firstly. And spend like an hour setting up the interface colors to match the color of the music. If you make it look like an alien spaceship thats how the music will sound. If you make it look like wood thats how the music will sound. So think hard and make it look how you would want the music to be seen (album cover art or whatever).

Use the metronome. Stress over the EXACT speed of the song. Be aware of whether you should set it to 2/4 or 4/4, 3/4 or 6/8. Cause even though they may be similar, the original feel of the click WILL effect everything that comes after it.

And the most important thing you will do; use vocal comping to your advantage. Vocal comping is easy in REAPER you just manipulate the individual takes until you have the perfect performance. Pull individual words if you have to from various takes. Sing your vocals with your throat, then sing it again with your ears and mouse in hand by way of editing. Vocal comping is everything. Use the solidity of some takes and mix them with the character of others.

Dont be afraid to turn everything down to serve the voice. Use the bare minimum of tracks and dont use similar sounding instruments like 4 electric guitars or something (unless youre harmonizing parts like friggin Brian May). Pull everything way back and let the illusion of perfect vocal performance obtained through vocal comping be the center of attention. If the audience doesnt like the voice, there is no riff, there is no synth tone that will correct that problem. No VSTs or dumbass effects pedal or 600 dollar snare will put back in the potential enjoyment the listener gets from hearing a human voice whos implied personality they admire.

If you can avoiding thinking its about instrumental tracks and "gear" you will go far.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top