home recording studio

[olsen]

This is a good place to start. But where can I find a good site with a good free courses the start a home recording studio. I am a beginner who wants to learn online......Perhaps you out there have courses I can download...

 

[brummygit]

home studios

This is a good place to start. But where can I find a good site with a good free courses the start a home recording studio. I am a beginner who wants to learn online......Perhaps you out there have courses I can download...

To be honest, I've learnt most of my tricks from on here - there's always someone here thats at the level you are, whether thats a beginner or advanced that seems to be able to help.
The problem for me when I started putting together a studio is looking at all this equipment in other studios thinkin I have to have all that. It really depends on a lot of things. What type of music? What's your budget? What do you need immediately? You gotta realise that as a beginner, there's a massive learning curve with hardware and software, so its always better to start off small and grow from there. The only main thing I'd say is that you should invest as much into your computer as possible - I have a 2.4Ghz Celeron, 1Gb of RAM, 2 hard drives (80+120 Gb), CD/RW drive, TFT monitor, etc and yet still I find problems in performance when projects get pretty big! Ideally you need (i know now!) a P4 or AMD 2Ghz or better (if using a PC), 1Gb+ of RAM, 2 hard drives a must (1 for the OS, 1 for audio), CD/RW drive, and a good graphics card that will support 2 monitors (1 for now, an additional for when things get cluttered). TFT monitors are generally advised as they cut down on interferance and dont give you as big headaches when you get carried away....As for soundcards? Thats a different topic, but there are some great deals out there but all offer different things, so depends again on what youre recording.

 

[apl]

Hey, Olsen.

You will have a lot of fun!

With all due respect to brummygit, I have to disagree with, "...invest as much into your computer as possible..." I'd say invest as little as possible.

The real critical parts of the studio are the room, the mics, and the monitors, and the interface (sound card). Those are the system components that make the sound what it is. The processor, hard drive, RAM, or case have nothing to do with it. You just need a stable platform to work on.

The power of PCs blew past the demands of digital audio workstation (DAW) software and processing a few years ago. If I were going to get a new PC for recording, I'd call these guys and ask them to spec out their top of the line machine from eighteen months ago. You could probably get that for $500, and then you could add a monitor or two. And there is nothing a beginner would do today that would overwhelm it. For that matter, I'd very surprised if a power user could get it to choke.

Then, you could put the money in things that will last, like mics, acoustic treatments, monitors, preamps, etc. The computer will be in the trash bin a few years, but you'll use the other stuff the rest of your life.

 

[xstatic]

I agree and disagree. I do think that too many people place to high an importance on not just their computers, but also on other equipment. Many people people seem to forget how important good recording technique and musicianship are. No computer can change that.

However, having a computer that is underpowered can be a real issue and can greatly affect other things like performance. I could very easily choke a system from a year ago. The problem is that as computers get faster and more effecient, programs and plugins get better, but at the same time more demanding. I just had to replace a system that was very current and well tuned. It was using 90% of my cpu during mixdowns and was licking and popping some during playback. $1000 later its running perfectly smooth and the new system only uses 35% of my cpu on the same songs.

Personally, I think newbies should start with and 8 channel console, 12 mics, 4 channels of compression, and 2 channels of reverb. This would force you to learn about recording and how different instruments and mics interact. It is so hard to do a really good job this way that it makes you think more about how to do it and it makes you listen more carefully because you can't assume you can just fix things in editing later. After the 8 track is mastered, maybe then a 16 channel rig so that you don't have to submix as much and can be a little more creative with the mic thechniques. Add some more comps and gates, and maybe more FX sends so that the palette can be a little larger. Once tis stage is worked out, then maybe enter the computer realm where your track count and prcessing list is unlimited. At this point however a healthy respect and knowledge of the recording process is obtained and in my opinion a more well balanced and professional engineer is developed.

Basically, we don't just enlist a soldier and hand them a tank or a plane and say go out there and do your best. We teach them other principles first, then we teach them how to master a smaller gun and a knife before we give them a larger arsenal of weapons.

 

[apl]

1. I could very easily choke a system from a year ago. The problem is that as computers get faster and more effecient, programs and plugins get better, but at the same time more demanding. I just had to replace a system that was very current and well tuned. It was using 90% of my cpu during mixdowns and was licking and popping some during playback. $1000 later its running perfectly smooth and the new system only uses 35% of my cpu on the same songs.

2. I think newbies should start with and 8 channel console, 12 mics, 4 channels of compression, and 2 channels of reverb....we teach them how to master a smaller gun and a knife before we give them a larger arsenal of weapons.

Hi, xstatic.

1. Could you tell us what your before and after computers are, and what software you run, and the demand on the system (number of tracks, plug-ins, etc.)? It sounds to me like your a very high-power power-user.

2. An 8 channel system seems like a sophisticated weapons system to me! I'm using a two channel system (Tascam US122) and I have one good mic (Rode NT3). I use Cubasis and its built in FX. I've got a 750MHz Duron with 256MB RAM running WIN98SE. My recordings are skill and talent limited. I've got a long way to go before my equipment won't be enough.

However, if I were a drummer, and was interested in recording my kit, more channels would be necessary.

 

[olsen]

THANKS FOR your tips

I've read your advice. The info and usage about the mic, studio and computer is very good. With my home recording studio I want to record own songs, singing with my guitar and than mix the music to good quality. I've read online about many programs. Like cubase, cakewalk.....there is a lot to choose.A program I downloaded online is audacity. Free to use. Other information is that you must combine analog mixing with digital mixing cause
digital alone is not so perfect. To start for example i've bought a simple secondhand spirit folio lite mixer. What is your opinion.

 

[apl]

...you must combine analog mixing with digital mixing cause
digital alone is not so perfect....

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If it ends up in a computer, it's digital. But it's analog until it gets to the soundcard. If you mix with a mixer before it gets to the computer, you can't unmix it. For example, if you played your guitar and sang, ran those through the mixer, and then recorded them on the PC, you couldn't make the vocals louder without changing the guitar. Or, you couldn't add reverb to just the vocals. I don't use a mixer, and I don't think I would, even if I needed to do a bunch of channels, I'd rather bring them into the PC individually so I can have control over the mix later. Of course, 8 channels of inputs for the computer cost more than an 8 channel mixer...

Anyway, many great recordings have been made digitally.

 

[vestast]

I use Cubasis and its built in FX. I've got a 750MHz Duron with 256MB RAM running WIN98SE. My recordings are skill and talent limited. I've got a long way to go before my equipment won't be enough.

I dunno about that one apl. Your system is already waaaay obsolete. Check out the minimum requirements for most software today. Cubase SX requires at least an 800 Mhz with 384 Mg of RAM.

What happens when you do expand on your recording and want to run more tracks and effects ? Pretty soon that version of Cubasis is not going to be supported by Steinberg.

Win98 is a crap OS compared to WinXP and probably costs more than WinXP to buy right now.

Hey no offence - But I think it's bad advice to recomend anyone buy an obsolete system for recording, because we are hardly average users... My opinion is spend as much as you can to build a good system now, that you will not have to upgrade for a couple of years. It's pretty much a guarantee that you will have to upgrade every couple of years (unfortunatly ).



Just my opinion.

 

[apl]

1. Your system is already waaaay obsolete...What happens when you do expand on your recording and want to run more tracks and effects ?

2. I think it's bad advice to recomend anyone buy an obsolete system

3. It's pretty much a guarantee that you will have to upgrade every couple of years...

No offense taken! I think this is a useful discussion.

1. Yes it is, but it does everything I ask of it, and would not do it any better if it was more powerful. In my opinion, the place to start is "What do I want to do?" Then pick the software that will get that done, then get a PC that will run the software. When I want to do more, I'll obviously have to get more PC power.

2. I would not recommend my system. I was listing my system as an example to show that you don't need a bleeding edge PC as a newbie. Today, I think a 2GHz, 1GB RAM XP system should be adequate for most hobbyists.

3. That's kinda my point. For example, a bleeding edge PC might cost $5000, while a $1000 PC would do the job for almost anybody. The difference in useful life is not a factor of 5. Remember, the discussion started by someone saying, "spend as much as you can on the PC." The $4000 difference would be better spent on other things.

 

[Bass Master "K"]

Man, you leave for three months and things totally change! The site looks cool and it looks like traffic has really increased here.

I think that people are making good points, and each one is correct and valid to people based on their needs. The original poster didn't give a lot of info about how serious he is and how big of a setup he is looking for eventually.

I have a friend who records mostly one instrument/vox at a time and he is looking to just put stuff onto a medium he can listen to and he wanted something more than a 4 or 8 track. So he got a fairly old computer for $200, I think a little over 1 ghz, and 512 RAM, a little Behringer 4 channel mix box, a cheap condenser mic and a Sure SM58, Cakewalk 9 for $40, and his soundcard is nothing special. He put this together over a few months for less than $500. He is totally happy.

When I got into it, I wanted to be able to produce my own demo's out of my home and not keep giving it to local studios while under the pressure of the clock. I put close to $10K into my home studio. Then I had to spend over a year and a half of reading, recording, reading, recording, asking questions, recording, experimenting, recording. Finally now I am getting results that are equivilent (or very close to) to what I used to be paying for.

So I think that is where everyone's suggestions are good ones. Are you just a singer/songwriter looking to get ideas down recording one track at a time? Are you not concerned about trying to sell your recordings but just looking to do it so you can make a little CD of your tunes? Then you probably don't need top of the line software and computers to do it. Want it to sound decent? Get a decent soundcard. Want it to sound even better? Then invest a good mic or two and learn how to use them. Are you going to be using a lot of soft synths? Well, then your going to need more computer oomph. Going to put out the next great trance/dance album with soft synths...then you REALLY need more computer oomph, these will eat up your CPU very quick. Just using a mic, a guitar, a bass, and a hardware keyboard? Don't need as much. You want to layer 32 tracks of digital audio? Then you need a better computer. So the point is, the computer needed depends on the projects the person is looking to do.

With mics and gear I always suggest get the best you can afford, and don't make the mistake of upgrading stuff one level at a time. ie..if your going to get a mic, don't get something cheap, then realize you want something better and get the next step up, and repeat that over and over. I see friends waste a lot of money always buying something slightly better and then in a month wish they had saved for an even better piece of gear than the "upgraded" gear they just put out cash for.

 

[vestast]

I think Bass Master has summed it up very nicely.

Apl and I are examples of 2 different requirments. Looks like we both have the systems that we need !

Happy recording guys

 

[apl]

I think Bass Master has summed it up very nicely.

Apl and I are examples of 2 different requirments. Looks like we both have the systems that we need !

Happy recording guys

I agree! I hope to get to the place where I really need that RME Multiface!

 

[apl]

Oh, and furthermore regarding digital vs. analog, see Ethan's excellent article.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Man, you leave for three months and things totally change! The site looks cool and it looks like traffic has really increased here.

Welcome Back!

 

[xstatic]

I used to have an Athlon 1800xp+ with 1 gig of RAM, dual monitor card, 120 gig mirrored RAID array, and two removable 160 gig drives. A typical project for me will be about 24 to 48 tracks at 24 bit 44khz, with about 4 to 6 gates, 24 or so EQ or channel strip plug ins, 24 or so different comps, and 2 to 6 different aux sends for reverbs etc. All this is in addition to running at least 6to 8 group busses, and TONS of automation. It is definately a power setup. The thing is though, I really like to over track and cut or blend later. Sometimes what seems right when you track needs to change at mixdown so most guitars get at least 2 mics, some vocals even get 2 mics. I usually run between 8 and 14 drum mics depending on the drummers setup and none of it is bussed. It is all individually tracked.

My new setup is an athlon 3000xp+ (64 bit) with 512 megs of RAM, dual monitor card, 160 gig mirrored array, and two more 160 gig removable drives. I now run, almost exclusively, convolution reverbs with large samples. Anywhere form 2 to 6 instances with no hiccups. Also, both my new and my old systems were fully capable of recording at least 26 tracks simultaneously wiothout any problems.

If my clients could afford it, I would DEFINATELY record on analog tape. The best syatems are comprised of bost digital and analog gear that takes advantage of the best qualities of both. I would choose the sound of analog tape combined with the ease of digital editing, with the familiarity of an analog console (either a great hardware controller or the real deal). I would prefer the good analog console with good digital controls built in.

 

[Bass Master "K"]

Welcome Back!

Glad to be back! I'm happy to see a familiar face along with all these news ones.

 

[apl]

Hey, xstatic,

You are a power user in the 99.9th percentile. No wonder you think newbies should start out with 12 mics.

 

[xstatic]

When I said 12 mics, I was assuming someone was wanting to record entire bands. i did not mean to use them all at once, just 8 at a time with a few options. That way they can see what different mics and placements do. My point was that sometimes too many options or too much power can be more destructive than it is useful.