Need Some Recording Advice...

  • Thread starter Thread starter timandjes
  • Start date Start date
T

timandjes

New member
My recordings on my Tascam 414-MKII don't sound quite clean & clear enough. There's a lot of low tone. I keep my bass & treble maxed out in my car and all my cd's & the radio sound good that way. However, when I play one of my recordings, I have to back off a good bit on the bass to get a decent sound.

Here's what I'm doing. I'm recording the piano directly with an instrument cable from it's output into a direct box, then from the direct box into track one. I'm recording the guitar @ the same time on track two by micing the amp. After that, I'm recording the drums on track 3 with my 3 pc Nady drum mics & my one overhead Bearinger ECM8000. Next, I bounce all three of these tracks onto track 4. (I listen to tracks 1 - 3 on my Alesis monitor one studio monitors and adjust channel faders and eq to a desirable sound before I bounce). Since I only have one Shure SM58, I next record one singer on the now vacant track 1, then the other singer on the now vacant track 2. Then I again listen to the whole thing, adjust channel faders & eq, then mix down.

Still, not a pro sounding recording. Too much low tone. I went back and mixed down again completely dry, (no eq at all except what was set on tracks 1 - 3 & bounced onto track 4), and still... not much better. Then, I re-recorded another song with only two parts; piano direct wired to track 1 & drums miced in to track two. No guitar; no singing. I mixed this down and the result was a little better.... Less of the low frequency but still, there's a big difference in my recordings from what I hear on my CD collection... Can anybody tell me how I can improve this? Is this pretty much what my 4-track is limited to or is this user error on my part?
 
timandjes said:
Is this pretty much what my 4-track is limited to or is this user error on my part?
Click to expand...
Probably both.... a pro engineer can probably make a modest cassette 4-track sound pretty damn good... but their skills and experience come into play (for example, using quality outboard pres and good mics, and ignoring as much of the 414's on-board stuff as possible!)

The limitations of the 414 are in the electronics of the "pre section" going TO the cassette, the limited fidelity of the cassette medium itself (especially on these budget units), and the signal path and lack of flexibility in the "mixer" section going OUT from the tape...

Bruce
 
You mentioned ignoring as much of the 414's on-board stuff as possible. Do you think I'd get a little better results if I pre-mixed my instruments/vocals with an external mixer then feed them into the 414 and don't use the 414's eq's at all?

I'd certainly like to get the best results I can but "budget" is the big word for me. I remember when I first started looking for recording equipment, I wanted to get "the best of the cheap stuff." Musician's Friend's advertisement for the Tascam 414 MKII was "a complete recording studio in one box." Well, as you know... that's was far from true.... $300 for what was supposed to be a complete studio quickly turned into over a thousand once I realized I needed several recording quality mics, stands, wires, a two-track recorder, effects proccessor, more wires, impedance matchers, adapters, a rack to put it all in, an amplifier, headphones, studio monitors... and so on... I'm hoping I can someday get to the point where I don't have to buy anything else.... :(

I'm not far from feeling like my whole recording venture was a big financial disaster...

I appreciate the reply's you all have given though... They have helped.
 
Dont worry Tim, the financial disaster has barely begun.

I dont know why people still buy casette multi tracks in this day an age. Those things have always sucked. Get a mixer and record on your computer and you'll have much higher quality recordings.

Sell the 4track and chalk it up as a learning experience.
 
Tim,

I have to agree with Tex. Kick the cassette recorder. I used to have a 488 MK II, and could get decent sounding results. But after making some better sounding 16 bit recordings with my built-in computer sound card, I bought a Tascam US-428 for my computer, and I can't say enough good things about it.

If you're not looking to spend the $500 on the US-428 or a comparable board (there are plenty great 24 bit computer decks out there), MAudio makes a 24 bit digital interface called the "Quattro". I have one and it sounds great! And you should only pay about $250 or so for it.
As for the EQ problem, if you want to stick with the cassette recorder, I would personally look for a good rack-mount EQ. Do the research and you'll probably find one that will fit your needs and budget.

Rick
 
I may wind up doing just that but if I want to keep my wife.... :) I'd better not spend any more money for a while.... It's getting difficult to sneak this equipment in the house without her noticing it...

Should I decide to spend the cash, and given the mikes, wires, amp, etc that I already have, what kind of money do you think I'd be looking @ to go with a computer based or digital system?
 
Wow, what timing Rick.... Just as I was asking about pricing, you sent your reply... So, can you give me an idea of everything I'd need & an approximate cost?

This will probably be for future planning purposes though because I wouldn't be able to type these messages if my wife breaks my fingers; finding out I'm buying more stuff...
 
timandjes said:
You mentioned ignoring as much of the 414's on-board stuff as possible. Do you think I'd get a little better results if I pre-mixed my instruments/vocals with an external mixer then feed them into the 414 and don't use the 414's eq's at all?

I'd certainly like to get the best results I can but "budget" is the big word for me. I remember when I first started looking for recording equipment, I wanted to get "the best of the cheap stuff." Musician's Friend's advertisement for the Tascam 414 MKII was "a complete recording studio in one box." Well, as you know... that's was far from true.... $300 for what was supposed to be a complete studio quickly turned into over a thousand once I realized I needed several recording quality mics, stands, wires, a two-track recorder, effects proccessor, more wires, impedance matchers, adapters, a rack to put it all in, an amplifier, headphones, studio monitors... and so on... I'm hoping I can someday get to the point where I don't have to buy anything else.... :(

I'm not far from feeling like my whole recording venture was a big financial disaster...

I appreciate the reply's you all have given though... They have helped.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't give up just yet. You can still get acceptable (though obviously not CD) quality from cassette multitrackers but you need to work around the limitations. You will soon find that better gear just gives you better quality and more tracks but not necessarily better recordings (insert standard platitudes about Beatles and 4-track recorders).

My first question is, do your mixes sound okay on your monitors but bad on other systems or do they sound bad on your monitors too?

If everything sounds okay at home but bad in the car and everywhere else, the problem is that your monitors are lying to you and you don't realize it. It sounds like you are cranking up the bass to make up for lack of bottom end in the speakers. There are two things to remember: 1. Not all "bass" happens below 100Hz. 2. You have to learn what amount of bass on your monitors will translate to the right amount of bass on other systems.

Taking the first point, it's important to appreciate that to bring kick drums and bass instruments forward in the mix it is often a case of bringing forward the higher frequencies for those instruments in the mix, not boosting the bottom end. In fact, punchy, controlled bottom end usually sounds far "bassier" than a rumbly drone. There are lots of links around here to good advice on EQ.

Taking the second point, while you're mixing down try to keep referring to CDs of similar music. If they got the bass right on the CD, you need to aim for a similar sound even if that sounds bass-light on your monitors. Learn to be able to enhance the missing bottom end in your imagination.

If things sound crummy on your monitors, you will have to use your imagination some more. With analogue recording you have to learn to record in a way such that what comes back off the tape is what you want. Cassette recordings often boost and muddy up the bass. Some of that you can deal with using EQ while you mix down but you can learn how much to pull back the bottom end at the recording stage so that what you get back sounds as good as you can get it. Similarly, you will probably need to present a slightly over-bright sound on recording to make up for the loss on playback. On my Tascam 244 I didn't have to do much like this but I don't know about your machine.

One thing I always strove for was to get a good level to tape so that I was not unnecessarily boosting tape noise. I always used a compressor to help keep the signal hot without overloading. It took a fair bit of practice and experience to learn just how much compression to apply to stay the right side of the line before it starts doing more harm than good. Strangely enough I still have do that because I mostly use my D1600 in 16-bit mode.

When it comes to bouncing you will have to use your imagination again because not only have you not recorded the other tracks yet but you have to allow for the additional generation of tape loss. However that's not all bad because it forces you to think and plan ahead and commit to a mix.

You don't say if you have a DAT machine or HiFi video to master to but if you do, mix your bounces down to your mastering medium and then copy that to a fresh section of tape, that way you can step back a bit if you find you went wrong in the first bounce.

Before you spend any more money on new gear, try to be aware of where the weakest link in your recording chain is and work to improve that. Also bear in mind that some problems can be avoided by changing the arrangement of the instrumentation. There are things that just can't be done on four tracks (ten with bounces) so take it as a challenge to find something different. Experiment with spacious but punchy mixes that use echo to add stereo interest. I don't know much about the 414 but if it has direct outputs, an external mixer will help a lot.

But most of all, don't be discouraged. There's plenty to learn about mic placement, EQ, and mixing that you don't need millions of dollars of gear to learn. However, you will never get to the point where there won't be more gear to buy. Just remember that most of the time, more gear won't solve the problem.
 
Do you have a computer yet? If not you could probably put one together with the audio card and software for about $1500. Then all you need is a mixer/preamp, mics and whatever outboard gear you decide to get.

Realistically your total cost will be around $2-3K to do some pretty good quality demos. Of course you can spend more if you wish.

Computers make great bday presents for the wife!!! Just dont tell her about your real motive, muhahaha.
 
Tim,

I'm going to assume you have a computer and that it's capable of running audio applications. If not, then you may not want to make the investment. Most of the digital interfaces for computer are USB or Firewire nowadays, so you'll need to have the ability to run either of those ($50 for a PCI card). There are other PCI options as well. For the interface, you're looking at $250 to $800 or more, depending on what you get. I like the MAudio Quattro. It's USB, $250, and expandable. It can record 4 simultaneous channels right off the bat, and you can usually mix unlimited channels with the right software on the computer (no more bouncing tracks!)...

For recording, you'll need good pre's, since most of the preamps on the computer rigs aren't great. I have an Aphex 107 Tubessence pre that I love. It's 2 channels and quiet, but it's got a nice warm tube sound. I paid $100 used for it, but new it's quite a bit more. I've heard decent things about the ART TubeMP ($99), but it's only 1 channel and I've heard it can be noisy. (Anyone have one? I don't really know.)

I've found that you get what you pay for when it comes to audio equipment. It's hard to make a $50 mic sound like a $150 mic etc... Iqi616 has some great tips, and you may want to try some of his suggestions before sinking more money into equipment. I've become a big believer in mic position over EQ. The last project I did, I used almost no EQ on guitars - didn't need it after getting the mic position just right. Of course, some EQ is almost always necessary, and this may be where you're getting the problem.

From my experience with the Tascam 488 MK II, I can safely say that those EQ's suck. If you want true flexibilty in your mixing, you need a decent parametric EQ. This is where computer-based audio really shines - the EQ's in most of the computer packages are usually really good with no extra hardware. If you're going to stick with the cassette deck, you should really consider a good preamp, too. I wasn't too impressed with the pres on the 488, and that may be part of your problem.

Good luck with this. Hopefully you can work out where the problem is and fix it with the least $$!!

Rick
 
Good thread with a lot of good advice IMHO.

Having said that... (and the pro's like Bruce not listening!)
If you're mainly a songwriter and/or musician who just wants
"down and dirty" recordings to knock out the cassette format is
fine. If you're naturally a perfectionist forget it though,
and treat it as part of the gearaholic experience.
The 414 was my first 4 track and it's capable of producing good
demos, especially if you don't tell anyone what you made it on!
The fact you spent $300 for it is concerning because recently
Guitar Center has been blowing out the better 424 MKII for about
$330. Is there anyway you can at least trade up to the 424?
Two of the reasons the 424 is better are that they have better
signal to noise specs than the 414, and they have "direct outs".
Those are handy because when you have a good recording you
can even take them to a local studio, and have them mixed on
a pro console with pro monitors, etc. It's a great learning tool.

P.S. There was even a #1 hit in England using a Tascam 424
so don't lose hope! And Springsteen had "Nebraska" using
the original Tascam 144. Love my Tascam 244 BTW.....
 
Oops! (and the story gets better!)

Take a look at www.sospubs.co.uk/search and enter
"Today Derby, Tomorrow The World".
You will see the #1 British hit referred to by White Town was
recorded on...drumroll please... a Tascam 688 CASSETTE 8 track!!!
And to top it off, a Realistic PZM microphone costing a whole
35 pounds was used on the vocal. Naturally it was recorded by
only one musician in his bedroom at home!

This probably deserves a thread of it's own....

P.S. The #1 hit was "Your Woman". Better hang on to my 244.
 
4-track test results....

After reading through all the replies I received, (some a bit discouraging, some adding a ray of hope.... but I appreciate them all) I spent several hours last night testing different things. The most interesting test I did was this... I lined out a headphone jack from a $39 boom box into a mic/line in on my 4-track. I played a song on a CD that's pretty close to the style my band plays. I set no eq, just recorded on track one, then mixed down to my $99 Radio Shack dual cassette recorder. To make things even more interesting, in my mix down deck, I used a "used" tape, recording over old material.

Then, out to the car I went. I put the cd in the cd changer, put the cassette in the tape deck, and carefully listended to a few measures of tape, then a few measures of cd, then back to the tape, then back to the cd.... and so on... To my surprise.. (and a bit of re-assuring comfort)... The sounds are identical... I had to look at the display of my radio to tell which one was playing...

Now, this probably won't take many of you by surprise but.... I'm no recording expert..... So, just considering the results of this test from a logical standpoint... It "seems" to confirm that my analog system is capable of producing some pretty near perfect sound.

I assume that since my 4-track can't think on it's own, it didn't know that the source of the sound coming into track one was from a boom box. That sound could have just as well been coming from my electric piano, right? And the way my 4-track relayed that sound to my mix-down deck, then the way my mix-down deck relayed that sound to my "used" cassette tape was amazingly great.

Should I gather from this test result that CD reproduction is one of only a few things my 4-track does well, or should I gather that if a sound source is well mixed before it's lined in to my 4-track, the mixdown will be good as well?

I don't know how much I should "read into" this but the one thing it does "seem" to say is that in some settings, analog can sound as good as a cd...
 
chessparov said:
Oops! (and the story gets better!)

Take a look at www.sospubs.co.uk/search and enter
"Today Derby, Tomorrow The World".
You will see the #1 British hit referred to by White Town was
recorded on...drumroll please... a Tascam 688 CASSETTE 8 track!!!
And to top it off, a Realistic PZM microphone costing a whole
35 pounds was used on the vocal. Naturally it was recorded by
only one musician in his bedroom at home!

This probably deserves a thread of it's own....

P.S. The #1 hit was "Your Woman". Better hang on to my 244.
Click to expand...

My 244 has given me 17 years service. I hot-rodded it so I could switch out dbx on track 4 and SMPTE sync to my Atari running Cubase driving my MIDI gear. When I emigrated to Canada I bought a transformer so that I could still use it.

In England, my bathroom was my recording booth with a Realistic PZM taped to the wall. There was something about using the PZM that way that cancelled out enough of the ambience to make it a nice room sound (I think it becomes like using an omni in the centre of a room twice the size because there are no early reflections off the wall it is taped to). The under-rated PZM seems neglected these days but in the 80s nearly all the Brits took Paul White's advice to buy a pair of them.

Actually, I don't think that Tascam ever got beyond the 244 in terms of quality. It's a solid piece of gear and gave me far better results than my buddy's Fostex 8-track reel-to-reel. One of the things about the Korg D1600 that attracted me is that it has a very similar size and feel to the 244.
 
Re: 4-track test results....

timandjes said:
It "seems" to confirm that my analog system is capable of producing some pretty near perfect sound.
Click to expand...
er... no...


timandjes said:
I don't know how much I should "read into" this but the one thing it does "seem" to say is that in some settings, analog can sound as good as a cd...
Click to expand...
High-end analog can arguably surpass CD-quality (presumably - you mean 16-bit/44.1khz digital audio), budget analog won't even come close.


timandjes said:
Now, this probably won't take many of you by surprise but.... I'm no recording expert.....
Click to expand...
That much, I do agree with!


Listen, you CAN make music with a 414 -- but it's NEVER going to sound anywhere close to what a pro can do.... you will drive yourself crazy trying to acheive that...

There are just too many sonic limitations inherent in budget multi-tracks to give professional results.

It's a good starting system to cut your teeth on -- learn some engineering skills, get your feet wet.... when you start getting your "ears", then you will see the shortcomings more clearly.


Bruce
 
Re: 4-track test results....

timandjes said:
...

Should I gather from this test result that CD reproduction is one of only a few things my 4-track does well, or should I gather that if a sound source is well mixed before it's lined in to my 4-track, the mixdown will be good as well?

I don't know how much I should "read into" this but the one thing it does "seem" to say is that in some settings, analog can sound as good as a cd...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe not that good but at least good enough to be starting with. Remember your car is not the ideal listening environment.

Excellent testing! It's good to do experiments like this because they can teach you a lot without the pressure of trying to make a serious recording.

So, it sounds like your problem is not the portastudio but the mixing and monitoring. Spend some time listening to CDs through your speakers and think about what you are hearing. Pick different things to listen to each time. Sometimes listen to a particular instrument, other times pick part of the bandwidth, other times listen to the overall sound. Try to learn where your speakers flatter and where they under-state certain instruments or frequencies.

If you want my suggestion as to what to buy next, save $5 or $10 a week for a few months and get yourself a HiFi stereo VCR to master to (make sure it has stereo audio inputs and outputs but don't worry about fancy video features). HiFi video is about the best quality vs. cost mastering you can get if you don't have the money to stretch to one of those CD-R/RW burners (I did have DAT but I wouldn't recommend it these days over a burner). Try to get a name brand if you can but you can get lucky with some of the Wal-Mart specials. See if the shop will let you do a test recording from a CD and do an A/B playback test. Keep the VCR just for recording your music if possible, buy good quality tapes, and NEVER play rental tapes on it.

I think one of the advantages of not having enough money is that it forces you to think hard and to update your system one thing at a time based on need rather than desire. For example, I desire Mackie 824 monitors but my next purchase will be a C1 microphone because I already have monitors but no condenser mic (apart from my PZMs of course). I almost never buy on credit - I save up the cash and then haggle for a cash discount - at the least the shop should give you the cut that would go to Visa/MasterCard. It's a slow way of doing things but you're less likely to blow your money on the wrong thing.
 
Re: "professional results"

Bruce, with all due respect, it would be more accurate to say "conventional
professional results" rather than just the above quote.
When the late, great Jimmy Miller produced the Rolling Stone's classic cut
"Street Fighting Man", they used a Phillips MONO cassette player for
Keith Richard's guitar and several other instruments because they thought
it sounded less sterile than using a high end reel to reel to quote one
example. (You may be tired of hearing about Springsteen's "Nebraska"!)
IMHO the venerable cassette multi-track is a fearsome lo-fi weapon in the
right hands. What would life be without the midrange mayhem and the
comforting hiss of it all?....
 
I disagree... I already said that a pro can make even a budget multitrack work for them. If a pro CHOOSES a budget machine to get a "lo-fi" sound, that is akin to using the budget machine as an effect....

That is a very different context to saying the budget portastudio is capable of "pro" results.

Just because a pro USES a budget machine, doesn't necessarily equate the quality of that machine to being "pro."

Ged'dit? :)


Bruce
 
Good points, Bruce. John Frusciante's solo discs are a good example of what you're talking about. They're recorded on a 4 track recorder. While I wouldn't say the recording sounds "pro", the tracks do have a very interesting ambience about them that could not have been achieved using modern digital equipment, or a full studio.

I wouldn't consider a 4 track a viable solution for today's home studio if you want "pro" sounding results, especially with the cost of digital equipment coming down. I've been able to record great "demos" on the ol' 488. But, to put together a great album, the 488 falls short of anything you can do with a good compter-based digital deck.

Then again, you can have the best sounding equipment in the world, but it'll be useless without knowing how to use it. I've heard some terrible mixes on pro equipment, and some really good sounding 4 track recordings. It takes talent and experience, as well as good equipment.

Rick
 
Tim- That was a good test of your mixer but to really test the whole multitrack you should record the CD onto the multi THEN rerecord it on to your mastering deck. That will give you a good indication of the quality loss from a good sound source.

If that is good enough for you then you can save your money for awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top