My Situation.

  • Thread starter Thread starter sacredrealm
  • Start date Start date
S

sacredrealm

New member
Hi everyone,

I would like to explain my current situation and get some advice.

I have spent the last year or so building up a "home studio" type setup in the basement. I recorded all the songs I wanted for my album on a Fostex E16. However I realized I had been using a fake Shure SM57 (which sound bad compared to the real ones apparently) on the snare drum, and on my amp. I couldn't really tell anything was wrong at the time because when I think about it that room I was using isn't a great sounding room. Its not "treated"anyway.

I then started to redo the drums with a real SM57 with the intention of redoing the other stuff I'd used the fake mic on over the top. However I started getting complaints again from the neighbors about the drums.
So I decided it was time to find somewhere else to do it, which is part of my quandary.

The two options for that Ive been thinking of is renting a rehearsal room long term which you share with another "band" as in you use it on different days to each other, for £100 a month.

My other option I had in mind was getting a "soundproofed" pod for the garden, which would be a lot more expensive and I'm not sure just how soundproof it'd be. However at least that would be "mine".

While Ive been having this forced break, Ive been re considering my equipment as well.

Ive been wondering if I should save some money and get a wider track width machine or not, or just use what I already have again.

I have also considered paying for studio time where they have a 2" machine, to track the tracks, then dub them to my Fostex to mix in my own time. But I wondered if that would be worth it, I.E would it retain the same quality or end up "narrow" anyway?

Anyway sorry for such a long post, feel free to give any advice on any aspect. If you don't want to, that's fine haha.

Thanks.
 
it depends if it is a one off project. If it is not i prefer to own my own stuff :) but that is just me. You can move up to a 1" machine if you need 16 tracks. (Tascam MS16) or an 8 track machine 1/2" tape.
 
For the drums, if you have issues with the neighbors.....two words....

"Superior Drummer"

AFA the 2" tape deck thing.....well, it's a committment, and could also be a lot of work unless you buy a deck that's running well and has a lot of life left.
I used (and still have) a Fostex G-16 for mnay years, and I loved that deck, but now I have a 2" Otari MX-80, which has preety much put the Fostex on an extended vacation. Yes, it's a different sound quality, but you would want to mix off the 2" or transfer the 2" tracks to a computers (which is what I normally do)....but transfering them to the 1/2" is a waste of time, and you would be adding one generation of tape noise and frequency loss with that.

AFA the fake VS real SM57.....honestly, I don't think it's going to raise your sound quality all that much. You may want to look into some additional, better quality mics altogether.
 
fgonza2 said:
it depends if it is a one off project. If it is not i prefer to own my own stuff :) but that is just me. You can move up to a 1" machine if you need 16 tracks. (Tascam MS16) or an 8 track machine 1/2" tape.
Click to expand...

It's not going to be much of a lift in quality.....going from 16-track 1/2" to 1". The 8-track 1/2" is a nice format, but you only have 8 tracks. I wanted to go that route at one point from my Fostex G-16, but decided to get the 2" 24 track which gave me more tracks & wider tape width....and I'm very happy with it...but of course, a 2" deck is a bit of a monster compared to your "desktop" 1/2" decks....so you need to room, and tape is more expensive with 2"...etc....but like I said, I've been very happy with my MX-80 so far.
 
miroslav said:
AFA the fake VS real SM57.....honestly, I don't think it's going to raise your sound quality all that much. You may want to look into some additional, better quality mics altogether.
Click to expand...

That being said, many, many producers and engineers have used the 57 on snare and guitars throughout the years. If you're not able to get a good sound from a 57 on snare or guitar, I would check the source (i.e., drums and guitar rig) and your miking technique first before blaming the mic.
 
Yes.... I've heard that at least thousand times about the 57, it's a common audio forum comment...but a lot of it is also good marketing by Shure.

Point being, there are much better mics out there, and you would be surprised how many great snare and guitar tracks were NOT done with a 57. ;)
 
Well thanks for the replies so far.
I appreciate every one in some way.

About the drums, I definitely want to play real drums, so I guess I just need to decide myself which one of those 2 options are best for now.

And maybe the overall quality wouldn't be that much more noticeable to people if I re-did the bits that had used the fake SM57. But I guess its just one of those things where I would think but "what if" I'd used the real one? (which I now have).

Its the fact that Ive heard the fake ones are basically cheap karaoke type mics that made me seriously consider re-doing.

And interesting to hear about the Otari 24 track. Do you find it that much of a good step up from the Fostex?
I know of a shop selling one of those for about £4,000. But I'd have to save up for a while to get that.

I also came across a Soundcraft Saturn 24 track on ebay that went for £300 and something. The transport apparently needed work on though. I actually bidded on it because it was so cheap, but was out-bid last second.

Anyway yeah, I guess I ask about the tape machine to know as much as I can and avoid wasting my time doing something that won't get good enough results (to me).

It seems opinions on machines are very divided on (certain) forums. Some say narrow track machines can get professional results if used well, and some kind of say you're inevitably going to want a 2" in the end. (or at least the wider 8 or 16 track).

All I know is that my favorite sounding records (mainly from I'd say the late 70s to early 80s) we're probably done on what would be called "professional" formats.
Although I guess that was the only format then, in a studio.
 
Well...AFA as the drums, if you are a drummer, you obviously would prefer to play/record a kit rather than use a sample program, but then there are drummers here who also use sample programs, and MANY pro drum tracks that were played/recorded live, end up getting sample-relacement because the sound quality wasn't good enough....so, it's somethjing to consider. My point was that even with a real SM57, you might have a long stretch to hit the upper quality bar AFA playing/recording a kit live.
I have a huge studio kit, and I'll record it when I can get a drummer to play it, but I don't let it stop me when when I can't get a drummer over to play, and then I'll just use my drum sample program and lay down some ass-kicking drum tracks with it, and move on. I am quite impressed with the sound quality of Supperior Drummer libraries (there are other ones), and they come a long way from the old sequenced MIDI drums of the '90s. :)

I don't know which model Otari 24-track you saw....but £4,000 is pretty high even for the last version made (MTR-100).
I see MTR-90 decks NOT selling on eBay for $3k . I paid only $2k for my MX-80, and that included a lot of extras along with the deck itself....spare parts, lots of tapes, sync equipment, etc.
Yes...the MX-80 sounds noticably better than my Fostex G-16, but not dramatically AFA actual tape sound quality. Where it kills the Fostex G-16 is in its ability to take a hard hit, and not get all crushed by it. I'm running 499 tape, and I can hit the deck pretty hard and not get any distortion, it just smooths out the signal in a very nice way. With the 1/2" multitracks, you can't quite do that. They will get crushed by low-end content as soon as you hit their top operating range, and you just get distortion.

If all you want to use a tape deck for is drum recording...you can get away with an 8-track 1/2" and be able to get some really fat signals on tape. If you plan on recording everything to tape, and not using a computer to dump to and then record some more....then you'll need more tracks.
 
Well thanks for your info miroslav.

Yeah!
I see.
I can imagine that working well, however yes with myself being originally a drummer, I want to find a way to play them manually no matter what, and only use any type of machine for an effect in itself, sometimes alongside real drums.

Yeah! I thought it was. It is an MX80, but this was not on ebay, its in a studio equipment shop where my sister's boyfriend works hah.

I guess if I want to go down that route I should wait til something like that appears on ebay again at a good price.

Oh, that's interesting. I can imagine that being a bit more fun.
Do you think the "wide-ness" is more noticable?

One reason I wanted to move up from using my tascam 488 cassette was for things to not sound quite as squashed together but I guess the E16 is similar to that in that way, although having better electronics and still being reel rather than just cassette.

Well that's good to know about the 8 track idea. Although yes ultimately I was aiming to not use a computer to mix or anything.
 
sacredrealm said:
One reason I wanted to move up from using my tascam 488 cassette was for things to not sound quite as squashed together but I guess the E16 is similar to that in that way, although having better electronics and still being reel rather than just cassette.

Well that's good to know about the 8 track idea. Although yes ultimately I was aiming to not use a computer to mix or anything.
Click to expand...

The E16 will still be an improvement over cassette stuff. I recorded a bunch of drums on my G16, so it's fine...you just have to watch the levels and you won'tt get that big, fat, squashed tape sound easily on the smaller format decks like you do on a big machine.
 
Ah yeah....

I suppose that's part of the fun of tape really, right? Being able to slam it and have it sound good.

It would be nice to be able to have the recording sound great I guess even before any mixing/processing.

Although I'd probably still prefer the E16 un-slammed to what I can do with digital.
 
sacredrealm said:
Although I'd probably still prefer the E16 un-slammed to what I can do with digital.
Click to expand...

Listen to me.....I've been there. If you asked me about digital about 10 years ago, I would spit in disgust. :D
Digital when combined with an analog setup, and also a tape deck.....can be the absolute best of both worlds....and that's coming from someone who is probably one of the bigger tapeheads and analog lovers around here....BUT...I don't knock digital out-of-hand anymore like I use to years ago.

I have an absolutely sweet digital rig....24 channels of A/D/A and all the trimmings one could want, even though I still track to tape and mix down OTB with analog rack gear and console, to a 2-track tape deck....and then back to digital for final stereo "mastering". What a lot of the analog hardcore guys (and I love them for their almost blind commitment) don't get (IMHO) is how much a digital rig can actually "lift" your more basic/lo-fi/project studio grade analog rig to a higher level than it can achieve on it's own.
What I mean is....you get to track in analog, so you get that tape flavor you love...you can still mix in analog either by transferring back from the DAW your tracks to the tape deck, or better still (IMHO) you use the DAW as your playback deck and just mix OTB, assuming you have enough D/A channels for your track count.
The part where digital can "lift" your analog comes in two stages.
1.) After tracking, you dump to the DAW and there you can edit & comp, and do "spot" digital processing...bringing your individual tracks to a very pro-mercial level before you mix them down to stereo.
2.) After you mix them, even if to a 2-track tape deck....you bring the stereo mix back into the DAW for that final stereo "mastering" polish.

If you stick to just a basic 16 track 1/2" for tracking, and then a 2-track for mixing....you'll never get that final 20% out of your tracks and mixes...trust me. It's not the same as the guys in million dollar all-analog studios, who have years of experience working that way and know how to massage tracks and edit even with just tape...and you know, those guys will all tell you that the days of tape editing were nothing enjoyable and they couldn't do 1/10th of the kind of edits/comps and spot processing you can do with a DAW.

So, be a tapehead and be an analog lover...but don't push away from digital as a support platform for your analog tracks.
If you want to worry about improving your overall quality...it will do a lot more for you than a real SM57 or any other single piece of analog gear you can buy....and you don't need to invest a lot in digital to get that additional support for your analog tracks.

OK....can I get a "HALLELUJAH!!!" .................amen. :D

 
Haha!

Thanks for the advice about that.

However at the moment I would only consider dumping tracks to the computer if I really had to due to only having 8 tracks or something.

I only have a 6 channel audio interface at the moment anyway.

As silly as it might sound, for this moment I'd rather save for another different machine if it would make a good big difference than try to improve the previous Fostex recording on the computer.

This is just where I happen to feel I am right now in my recording journey haha.
I'm limited in experience, but I guess that's how you learn what works for you, by trying things.

I was put off the computer way with the tools I have, at least temporarily when I mixed some cassette recordings I did, that way.
 
miroslav said:
Yes.... I've heard that at least thousand times about the 57, it's a common audio forum comment...but a lot of it is also good marketing by Shure.

Point being, there are much better mics out there, and you would be surprised how many great snare and guitar tracks were NOT done with a 57. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, yes, of course there are plenty of great tracks done without the 57. My point is that the mic is certainly capable of capturing professional tracks. Off the top of my head, here are some first-person accounts from either books or interviews where an artist or producer has named a 57 for snare and/or guitar tracks:

Peter McIan (producer/engineer for Men at Work and several other 80s bands)
Art Alexakis (Everclear)
Eric Johnson
Steve Vai
AC/DC

And this is just off the top of my head. But these are albums with fully professional hit songs (well, Eric and Steve may not have "hits," per se, but no one's going to argue the pro quality of the sound).

So my point is that the 57 is a perfectly capable mic in the hands of a good engineer/player.

Of course, it's sometimes combined with another mic, but you could say the same of any dynamic.
 
Well sure, you CAN use most any mic and get something to work, and a pro will make it work better.
My point was that I think a 57 kinda sucks on guitar cabs for my tastes, regardless of the engineering aspect.
It has a specifc sound, so if you are after that sound, fine....I just don't like that way it sounds, and all I was saying to the OP is that getting a real 57 in place of the knockoff one (he apparently has) may not be that sole element that will raise his sound to something wonderfull...and that there are other mic options, and other things besides just the mic that will make a bigger difference.

AFA using one on snare...I've tried it, along with other mics, and again, it's not about competance in engineering, it's more about personal tastes in sound...so even on snare, it's not my go-to mic. I prefer a Sennheiser 604 or a 441U, but I would never put my 441U near any drummer with sticks in his hands, :) so I opt for the 604 which sounds good and I won't cry as much if it's smashed to bits.

IMHO....the whole 57 sounds is kinda dated, and the reason so many people used a 57 is because there weren't as many mic options back in the day, and the 57/58 have/had a good rep for live use.....so it was the mic most likely to get smashed by a drum stick. ;)
I mean, this isn't just about hating on the 57....I have some, I've tried them along with other mics....I rarely use the 57 on anything.
If I only had a couple of 57s...I would use them on everything and work with the sounds I was getting from them. :D
 
miroslav said:
Well sure, you CAN use most any mic and get something to work, and a pro will make it work better.
My point was that I think a 57 kinda sucks on guitar cabs for my tastes, regardless of the engineering aspect.
It has a specifc sound, so if you are after that sound, fine....I just don't like that way it sounds, and all I was saying to the OP is that getting a real 57 in place of the knockoff one (he apparently has) may not be that sole element that will raise his sound to something wonderfull...and that there are other mic options, and other things besides just the mic that will make a bigger difference.

AFA using one on snare...I've tried it, along with other mics, and again, it's not about competance in engineering, it's more about personal tastes in sound...so even on snare, it's not my go-to mic. I prefer a Sennheiser 604 or a 441U, but I would never put my 441U near any drummer with sticks in his hands, :) so I opt for the 604 which sounds good and I won't cry as much if it's smashed to bits.

IMHO....the whole 57 sounds is kinda dated, and the reason so many people used a 57 is because there weren't as many mic options back in the day, and the 57/58 have/had a good rep for live use.....so it was the mic most likely to get smashed by a drum stick. ;)
I mean, this isn't just about hating on the 57....I have some, I've tried them along with other mics....I rarely use the 57 on anything.
If I only had a couple of 57s...I would use them on everything and work with the sounds I was getting from them. :D
Click to expand...

I certainly can't speak from much personal experience, because my mic collection is very limited. I think I have a 57, a 58, an SP C1, a CAD Trion 6000, and an Oktava MC012, plus a few lower-end dynamics. None of them are really pro, "world class" mics.

So I've never had the opportunity to A/B a bunch of different mics. I'm just going on interviews I've read/heard, photos/videos I've seen, etc. As far as the 57 sounding "dated" or anything like that, I'd have no idea.

I try to keep recording to as few variables as I can, especially because I don't have the budget to buy up a bunch of equipment, so if I hear of players that are able to get sounds that I like using a certain mic/amp/guitar/etc. that I have, then I like to remove from the list of "maybe I should try..." and just concentrate on other variables that aren't as proven.

That's just my take on it.
 
The E-16 is a fine machine. If the track count is sufficient for your needs I would stick with it and perfect your skills, and spend the money elsewhere like sound treatment, drum pads for triggering electronic drums, etc. When you have a neighbor issue that is a real option to consider. you have happy neighbors and a lot more drum kits at your fingertips. I even still use a vintage Roland R8 Human Rhythm Composer on a lot of my own stuff. If you like rock from the late 80's through 90's you've heard the Roland a lot.

But I can give a partial amen to Miroslav because I have the same digital recording modules he uses... Echo Layla 24/96, which are 10+ years old now... but as an analog aficionado the Laylas are still the only thing I will trust with my original analog tracks. The Layla was a fluke... a phenomenon, even the original Layla 20-bit is super! Had it not been for the Layla I might not be using digital tracks at all to supplement my analog tracks. Everyone knows me as an analog diehard, but I'll tell anyone... if you can find an Echo Layla 20 or 24/96 complete and in great condition, by all means snatch it up. For $150.00 to 175.00 (100 to 115 pounds or so) on the used market you cannot find a better bang for the buck! I still master with outboard gear however rather than in the box.
 
Yeah, thanks for your opinion.

I can just about manage with the 16 track count. However when I started layering vocals I was sometimes having to share 1 or 2 tracks for different things at different points in the songs if that makes sense?, which I guess makes it a little more complicated for mixing, but still do-able.

it makes a lot of sense to use electronic drums instead. However I definitely want to only use those along-side real drums, or as an effect in itself rather than replacing drums all together.

I have this stubborn attitude I guess because at this stage I see what I want to do as getting something down the way I want it rather than practicing. Although I understand everything is practice and I have loads to learn.

In that area I just need to decide weather to spend a lot of money creating a place in the garden I can do it, or renting a rehearsal room long term.

I only ask about the recorder too I guess, because I like the idea of recording what I want to record for now, once, as good as it can be, then moving on rather than realising later it would sound better a lot with a certain other machine. So I just like to research as much as I can about options. But maybe it is good enough as some say.
 
I'd never had a problem running really hot levels on either the Fostex G16, the Model 80 or the R8. It still gives the tape sound, especially I love what it's doing to the cymbals. But maybe Miroslav is referring to the sound of hot levels with the Dolby noise reduction enabled?
Personally I never liked the sound of dolby for drums as it kills too much treble and ambience (for the rest it's fine, wish Fostex had the option of using NR on specific channels like some pro machines) but to be complete fair and honest with you I'm a noob compared to some of the older guys in here and I have yet to learn tape machine calibration and probably I'd like Dolby if our machines was well setup.

Naturally a wider track machine will sound fatter and less noisy. But for my band we archieved a very good drum sound just using Fostex tape recorders with it's limitations being mostly with our own capabilities, mics, preamps and room sounds. But for getting a early 70's rock sound/late 80's indie sound on the drums a Fostex, some GA Projects overheads, an AKG D-112 on the bass drum and a more or less decent dynamic mic on the snare does the trick for us. For increased fatness a cheap dynamic taped to the bottom of the floor tom works well.
But keep in mind that I prefer drum sounds to be a bit ugly for most kinds of music.

If you want a heavily compressed and polished drum sound, you'd have to use different teqniques and I'd imagine all the compression would raise the noise a great deal unless extreme care is taken. Though using the compressor before hitting the tape machine will help a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top