home recording equipment for first timer

  • Thread starter Thread starter KMAN
  • Start date Start date
Richard,

That's been my exact theory, good cheap equipment that I can use even if I upgrade the recorder.

My thoughts on "studios in a box" are that they work the same time, everytime, no matter what. Aside from the hard drive crashing on one, they operate much more consistently than computers do. So from a pure usability standpoint, I think they are the logical way to go. Of course PCs are "more expandable". Yes they are. And they are also a blackhole for your wallet. If you aren't buying more memory or bigger hard disks you are upgrading your DAW software or buying new plugins. Any changes to one portion of the setup usually result in having to tweak the other parts.

In the end it's a wash on your wallet. The upgrades you make to the PC system over time would more than pay for a bigger better "studio in a box". I just prefer to know exactly what is going to happen each time I decide to record. You can't get that with a PC. Their are too many variables to the system.

Just my naive 2 cents on the subject.

Buck
 
I find it Humorous that there have been so many post on this subject already and KMAN (the original poster) hasn't said another word yet. My original comment was intended to say there are so many options they will make your head spin. I prefer the standalone unit "AW4416" with Waves Y56K Card, probably better for mixing , easy to get great sound and lots of inputs, but probably lose a little flexibility for editing (less so with the Waves Card), but I also have a PC for that if I want. In the end its what works best for you and your budget and the time you have to fiddle with stuff. And by the way, hard drives crash on PC's to, not just standalone DAWs take it from some one who works in that industry, but thats why we all backup to CDR's just in case.
 
thank you for the feedback

Thank you all for your feedback. I do admit I have far more research to do on the subject. My starting budget is $1000 and I will be investing more with time into this. My main aim is recording demos of my songs at home which, in the long run will be much cheaper than booking studio time.
I am out of town for stretches of time so pleas bear with my delaye postings. Thanks again to all who posted their sugegstions and I'll be back to get some more.
Have a great day all!
 
The Tascam 38 was notorious for bad solder joints, causing intemittent channel cutouts, meters flaking out, etc. A very budget minded reel to reel, but certainly functional. A computer with a program like CoolEdit, and a inexpensive soundcard will deliver a far superior, cleaner sound in my opinion. The 38 almost required noise reduction, usually dbx, and that had its downfalls too....crappy bass response, for instance. To compare a narrow gauge analog format to current budget digital is kinda ludicrous, imo. Damn, those Fostex 8 tracks were basically unusable unless you mixed to a cassette to cover up the r2r hiss.
 
If you want to go with a computer or dedicated hardware is largely a matter of taste.

If you already have a fast computer, start with that. Get N-tracks or protools free, or some other software, and buy a mic and a preamp (go to the Mic-forum for that).

If you end up thinking this recording business is complicated and that you don't understand the software, get a dedicated digital multi-track. Buy something that you like working with (run around in some shops and do brief tests, so that you understand ow they work).

That, together with the mic and mic-pre, will get you quite far.

Decisons such as analog vs digital, track width, bit-depth and sampling frequency, are all rather irrelevant for a beginner, and if you dwell on it, you'll only end up spending money that may very well be wasted, such as buying a really good sound-card, only to discover that you don't like computer recording in the first place. :)
 
mixmkr said:
Damn, those Fostex 8 tracks were basically unusable unless you mixed to a cassette to cover up the r2r hiss.
Click to expand...

You obviously forgot to turn on the NR. :)
 
Hey KMAN, how fast is your computer? If it's a 1Ghz processor or greater, and you have a hard drive that runs at 7200 rpm or greater, your $1000 will get you far. If it's slower than that, you'll probably want to put together a new computer. You can build a nice system that can yield up to 40-50 tracks with effects for around $400 if you have a monitor. You can get a USB interface with decent mic preamps, the M-Audio Duo, for around $260. You can get a V67, a 603s, and an SM57 for around $230. You can get Cakewalk Home Studio 2002 (I'd recommend N-track, but it was never very stable on my box.) for $90. There you go, you've used your budget of around ~$1000, and you have a nice new computer and great beginning recording setup. You can upgrade as you advance, unlike the "studio in a box" setups.

If you have any questions on putting together your own computer, the people in the computer and soundcards forum can help.
 
Let's be sure to contact Paul Rodgers (Bad Company, Free) and
his engineer Eddie Kramer, and tell them that all those vocals Paul cut on a SM57 were all junk. And that goes for Steve Tyler in Aerosmith too!

Contrary to what's been said here, when the '57 is used with a singer who sounds good on it, and a good mic pre (or better)
it sounds excellent! The recording format is relatively secondary,
unless you're using your answering machine. :)

Read the brillant forward by Tony Visconti in the Tape Op book
sometime and you may be amazed...

Chris
 
The Tascam 38 was notorious for bad solder joints,
Click to expand...
That was during early production. Later models were cured of this problem.

A very budget minded reel to reel
Click to expand...
Not if your budget was $3500 in 1985-88 for just the deck. it may be considered budget now, but it's miles ahead of any Porta and many beginner software packages and soundcards.

For the best S/N ratio NR was alomost a must with the 38 due to tape speed. If they would have bupmed it to 30 IPS, none would have been needed. What's the difference? People have been using DBX, and all flavors of Dolby for decades. I've never experienced any dynamic problems using DBX. If fact it sounds great.

To compare a narrow gauge analog format to current budget digital is kinda ludicrous, imo.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you are refering to the 1/4" format of the Fostex series rather than the 1/2" format of the TASCAM series. That extra 1/4" of width makes a big difference.

KMAN, I'm not going to try and talk you into an analog setup. It's either in your blood or it isn't. But that's where commercial recordings usually start. With tape.

Ask these same guys how to get "that analog sound" in a few months after you're comfortable with your recording software. They'll help ya out. ;) Good luck and have fun. That's what it's all about.
 
chessparov said:
Let's be sure to contact Paul Rodgers (Bad Company, Free) and
his engineer Eddie Kramer, and tell them that all those vocals Paul cut on a SM57 were all junk. And that goes for Steve Tyler in Aerosmith too!

Contrary to what's been said here, when the '57 is used with a singer who sounds good on it, and a good mic pre (or better)
it sounds excellent! The recording format is relatively secondary,
unless you're using your answering machine. :)

Read the brillant forward by Tony Visconti in the Tape Op book
sometime and you may be amazed...

Chris
Click to expand...

90 percent of people will sound better on a $200 condensor than on an SM57. It seems irresponsible to be recommending it as the primary mic in any recording setup, unless the entire budget for the setup is less than $200 or so, IMHO.
 
Well he did say he had $1000, and you can pick up a SM57 along with a Studio Projects VTB-1 (around $180) that works well with it. One of the unusual things about the '57 is that it sounds good on so many different types of singers-it's way above 10%, more like 90%+.
It may not be "best", but it hardly ever "sucks".
Wouldn't have become the "industry standard" for live work if it did.
There's also been enough evidence among end users the Studio Projects C series is the same way (including my own).
Their B series stuff and T3 could well be the same way.
There's enough budget here to get a dynamic and a condenser.

I agree that if you had something like a Behringer mixer, or an
ART Tube MP, the condenser would probably be the way to go.

Chris

P.S. I record better on a '57 than an AKG 414 so perhaps I'm
a little biased. :)
 
Sennheiser said:

Not if your budget was $3500 in 1985-88 for just the deck. it may be considered budget now, but it's miles ahead of any Porta and many beginner software packages and soundcards.
Click to expand...

it is almost symbolic how my Layla unit sits in front of my 38 blocking view to the meters...
Seems I remember scraping up about $2500...but then, I guess the DBX's added another grand.
I've got too many tapes that provide a nostolgic window to the past, to get rid of the r2r, but it doesn't see much action anymore.

ya know, I think my most creative stuff might have been done on a A3340S. You "had to" make quick decisions, with all the bouncing and such.. Made ya "move on", rather than laboring over a computer monitor fussing with details. Admittedly, "rolling wheels" look much cooler than a computer monitor too!;)
 

Attachments

  • 38.webp
    38.webp
    58.3 KB · Views: 124
I purchased a BOSS BR-8 when they first came out, I like it very much for what it's designed for. But our band just recorded a demo at a friend's Home Studio using a Digi-001 setup. I was very impressed with the results. We were able to edit the sound of each track seperately or the entire mix to get the exact sound we wanted. Although we did use an external pre ($70) for the vocals.

So if you already have a computer, the Digi-001 system and an external pre with only cost you $870.00 and still have enough money for an SM57. (not much more than I paid for the BR-8)

I'll keep my BR-8 because I like the portability, which the Digi-001 setup is not very portable. But the Digi-001 is more versital in every other aspect.

BTW, the Digi-001 also has MIDI capabilities.


dcaroth
 
buck78 said:

$149- Rode NT3 (mistake don't buy it :)
Click to expand...

another example of how opinions vary. I *love* my NT3s...I think they are fabulous mics for the price.

If I was buying again right now...maybe I'd consider the NT5s..since it's a matched pair..and I think that they probably have about the same sound characteristics.

but...if they didn't sound like the NT3s...I would still want my NT3s.

Whats your beef with them buck? What would you rather have?
 
You were moving down the right path with the NT5s. The NT3 is kind of a strange mic, it's has 3/4 inch diaphram. It falls in between. I am thinking I would rather have a typical 1/2 inch SD condenser. A pair would be better. I just think there are better mics out there in the prices range.

I don't hate it. I just know that I could spend $149 on a mic that I would like much better. That's all.
 
have you really listened to the other mics?

a friend of mine has NT5s...and I like them fine...*but*...

I am really glad I have NT3s.
 
BTW - in my opinion the 3/4" diaphragm is pretty slick.

I always keep the NT3 in mind as a possible vocal choice...I've gotten some of my fav. vocal takes with it.

hehe, oh well man. you own 'em...might as well like 'em :)

personally i wouldn't say "mistake..don't buy this mic!" or whatever. it's been proven to be good.
 
I personally LOVE the NT-3's in XY on my acoustic.. simply magic.. I put them there and it's all i need to do... just hit record....beautiful
 
ZPphreak said:
I personally LOVE the NT-3's in XY on my acoustic.. simply magic.. I put them there and it's all i need to do... just hit record....beautiful
Click to expand...

a fellow NT3 owner... rock on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top