One man band advice

B

brianXXX

New member
Hallo everyone, nice to meet you all,

I'm a solo artist and I play congas, marimba, electric and acoustic guitar, native American flute, as well as a number of other trinkets. I'd like to make recordings with each of these instruments providing different tracks for a particular song.

So my first question is, if I'm recoding each instrument separately does it matter how many tracks my recording device has? I had planned on getting an 8-track reel to reel, but do I need one (8 whole tracks) if I?m only recording two tracks at once - a stereo recording of each instrument I play. I guess its difficult to get a good reel to reel which is under 8 tracks. I realise that bouncing results in diminishing quality, but I thought that perhaps I could record a track (2 actually for stereo) to tape and then send it to the PC via a A/D, I could then mix all the tracks on my PC. The reason I wish to have a digital master is because I wish to make CD copies of my recordings for sale etc.

What do you guys think of this approach, and how would you go about it? Would you simply record all the tracks to tape, one by one, and then make an analog master tape from the output of your mixer, and then send this master to your PC by converting the reel to reel output to digital to make your CDs? Would you recommend one approach over the other? Would you think its better to mix in digital or analog ? I guess the difference would be down to the circuitry of the mixer ? but as I?m totally new to recording, I?m really just guessing. I?ve also just realized that you could send the output of the mixer directly to the PC, instead of making an analog master tape and sending that to the PC. Which of these is better?

If you were a solo artist who recorded alone and recorded each instrument separately, how would you go about producing a CD via analog tape.

The only recording gear I currently have is a PC - 2 gigahertz, P4, 512 Megs RAM and 80 Gigs HD. I have a CD writer too. I?m willing to spend in the order of $5000 if I need to.

Any other advice is also appreciated.

Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
brianXXX - good start - these guys have lots of background and good advice to offer -

my first thought is - yes - you want a multi-track capability, and you really ought to have 1 track for each instrument in a song.

reason - yes, you could do what you want on a stereo rig, but - (1)-every time you put 2 instruments together on one track - they are fixed that way - the tonality and relative volume can never be adjusted. (2) doing this and adding together to get 4 or 5 instruments total means several rounds of bouncing, each one, if you go with tape, means increased noise.

second thought - are you sure you want tape? For what you've describe, and this is something I've done a bunch of, there are a variety of digital systems out there which could do this easily, without any of the headaches of tape machines.

I don't say that lightly, as I have both 8 track digital and reel-reel tape machines in my studio. Tape requires a certain amount of "fussing with" maintenance type activities, between uses. Also - another option is a cassette based porta-studio, there are 4 track and 8 track systems available out there. The maintenance bit - head cleaning, etc. - applies to those, also. I mention it only to get all the cards out on the table... I do like the sound of tape, and I find it more forgiving when you're doing the 1 man band/engineer thing - tape will soak up a hot level usually, where digital will go into ugly distortion at the same level. At the same time, the cassette systems don't offer a full 20 - 20K Hz frequency response - cassettes quit at about 14-15k Hz. The digitals will be there thru the whole frequency spectrum, and be clean all the way... choices.

You mention a 5000 budget - think through the whole recording system... you will need a microphone or two, some cables, maybe some effects, reverb, etc. After you have it on tracks, where are you going to mix it down to - a PC, CD burners, etc?

Just a whole lot of questions to sort thru, before you spend any of that moola - figure out a plan for a recording system, based on the needs of your songs.

b-h
 
Hi Brian! I think $5000 is a good starting point but be warned, no one spends that much without becoming seriously addicted.

If you are pretty serious about your music I'd recommend getting serious about tape maintenence. I really like the idea of recording onto 8 an track reel machine. I'll give you a couple of reasons:
1. Tapes are lying around after completion, all the "files" are locked in time together and ready to re-mix whenever you are bored. I try to open old Cool Edit files sometimes and get tons of misplaced files and and other errors like corrupted wav.s and other things that never happen to analog tapes.
2. Tape sounds natural.
3. Computers can be just as big a pain in the ass as a tape machine, more sometimes.
4. It's fun to twist knobs w/out latencey, mixing in analog is serious fun.

If I were you I'd get a cheap analog mixer like a mackie 1604 and a good 8 track with balanced inputs and noise reduction like a TASCAM TRS or ATR or MSR recorder. Stay away from the older 38's and stuff, while they were great in their day the specs (not to mention wear) aren't exactly up to modern standards. Go for something with Dolby S or DBX type I and the hiss will be a non issue.

Both the mixer and tape machine used will run you about $2000. Allow $1000 for cable, $1000 for a used computer and soundcard (at least a 550mhz w/256 RAM and a 40 gig HD), $200 for Vegas pro and that leaves $800 for a couple mics (2 sure 57's and a nice cheap condensor).

So you'd record onto the 8 track and mix through the Mackie to the computer for CD m"mastering" and burning. The main thing to remember is to keep the signal chain top of mind. Consider all connections and keep all inputs between devices balanced with either XLR or TRS connectors.

Or you COULD say screw it and just get a computer and mic. This is how I record.




Until I get my ATR-60 16 track 1" tape machine flying.
 
thanks very much you guys,

I'm currently thinking that the Otari MX-5050 Mk III is my best bet. I'm still a little confused. An 8 track has 8 inputs, but I only need two at any one time. Are there any recorders that have two inputs but that allow more than 2 tracks to be saved to tape, or is there any efficient way of doing this.

Also, should I forget about recoding each instrument to a two track, and then send each of these to my PC for mixing. I came across two 2-track machines ? the Sony APR-5000 half-inch 2-track and the Ampex ATR-102, are these for the master recording because they seem really expensive?
 
brianXXX said:
thanks very much you guys,

I'm currently thinking that the Otari MX-5050 Mk III is my best bet. I'm still a little confused. An 8 track has 8 inputs, but I only need two at any one time. Are there any recorders that have two inputs but that allow more than 2 tracks to be saved to tape, or is there any efficient way of doing this.

Also, should I forget about recoding each instrument to a two track, and then send each of these to my PC for mixing. I came across two 2-track machines ? the Sony APR-5000 half-inch 2-track and the Ampex ATR-102, are these for the master recording because they seem really expensive?
Click to expand...

The Otari MX-5050 Mk III is a great machine to pick up, check the head-hours. And remember, you can't just plug a mic into the Otari. You need a mixer for the preamp stage to boost the mic signal to the line level the tape machine records. The mixer is also necessary for mixing the tapes into the computer or two track DAT or reel to reel. I believe all reel machines are same number of inputs as outputs. It actually works well with a mixer because you can hardwire the direct outputs of the mic channel inputs to the multitrack, no plugging and unplugging.

Yes these two track reel to reels are for mastering.
 
I don't say that lightly, as I have both 8 track digital and reel-reel tape machines in my studio. Tape requires a certain amount of "fussing with" maintenance type activities, between uses.
Click to expand...

That's half the fun of recording on tape for us "tech types".

And if you choose tape, it will pay to know what is going on inside of that 70 lbs box so you can perform your own maintenance.

I like "fussing" with my analog equipment.
 
Sennheiser - I don't disagree - I did my first tracking to tape back in the 60's, and I still Much prefer tape, and a real mixer where I can see the positions of the faders, eq, and pan pots - just not into the virtual thing. As you've related in some of your posts, tape just has a sound that digital doesn't easily match, without a ton of added engineering work.

Back to brianXXX's needs - he indicates he's very new to this whole recording thing, has multi-instrument songs he wants to get down, and seems to prefer tape.... I would suggest he think about starting with one of Tascams cassette based portastudios, either a 424 or maybe a 488 - this will get him learning about both mixing, routing channels, setting eq's, etc., possibly bouncing tracks, as well as the recording side, tape head maintenance, etc. It sounds like he's got a lot of other stuff to learn about, as well ... mic's, preamps, outboard effects, mixing down, plus maybe some software, soundcard, and computer related stuff to sort out, if he's going to mix to computer, on his way to a CD. Might want to simplify the front end for now, can always go back and upgrade to a serious mixer and tape deck later.

just my .02

b-h
 
Sennheiser - I don't disagree - I did my first tracking to tape back in the 60's, and I still Much prefer tape, and a real mixer where I can see the positions of the faders, eq, and pan pots - just not into the virtual thing. As you've related in some of your posts, tape just has a sound that digital doesn't easily match, without a ton of added engineering work.

Back to brianXXX's needs - he indicates he's very new to this whole recording thing, has multi-instrument songs he wants to get down, and seems to prefer tape.... I would suggest he think about starting with one of Tascams cassette based portastudios, either a 424 or maybe a 488 - this will get him learning about both mixing, routing channels, setting eq's, etc., possibly bouncing tracks, as well as the recording side, tape head maintenance, etc. It sounds like he's got a lot of other stuff to learn about, as well ... mic's, preamps, outboard effects, mixing down, plus maybe some software, soundcard, and computer related stuff to sort out, if he's going to mix to computer, on his way to a CD. Might want to simplify the front end for now, can always go back and upgrade to a serious mixer and tape deck later.

just my .02

b-h
 
I agree.

I cut my teeth on Porta's. Used them for 17 years before I made the switch so I had a lot of practice using analog equipment before I went to 1/2". I guess that's why using the higher end stuff is so easy for me.

My last Porta was the 488 MKII, and for its' format, it sounds great. Those were the best mixes I ever did up to that point. There's a lot to be said for starting at the bottom and working your way up.
 
Thanks very much for all the advice so far everyone,

The idea of an Otari is really growing on me - I've read nothing but good things about it. I do plan on being very serious about recording once I get my gear, as I spend a number of hours daily, writing music - so I can see the two going hand in hand. I'm doing a Masters in Computer Engineering at the moment, so I guess I'm technically minded, which you guys seem to think is a major plus when working with a machine like this.

What about pre's? I was thinking about getting a really good 2 channel pre, as I only ever need two channels at any one time anyway. Any pre suggestions? With this in mind, what kind of mixer would you suggest?

Thanks again all.
 
It's great to be technically minded as most analog heads are, however you should also be somewhat mechanically inclined to maintain a large format analog machine.

With shop rates easily topping $60 an hour, it pays to know why and how something is moving inside of one of these machines. There are hundreds of moving parts on these machines and everyone of them must be functioning correctly to work together as a whole.

I'm not trying to discourage you, on the contrary, I just want you to be prepared for anything.

I can't recommend a pre from experience. The guys at the other forums like the VTB-1, Earthworks, Avalon, Presonus...the list is long and varied. I would really like an Avalon some day, but will probably have to settle for a RNP or a VTB-1. Possibly a lower priced Earthworks.

I am using the pre-'s on my TASCAM M-1516. I think they sound great. It 's not a Neve or Avalon, but they are decent pre-'s for a small studio set-up until I can afford better. I can tell you that they sound better to my ear than Mackie pre-'s. And they sound a hell of lot better than some $79 box with a tube stuck in it.
Most are starved-plate designs and will introduce noise into the signal if pushed past a certain point. Still, some like them.

A TASCAM, SoundCraft, Mackie, Allen & Heath, or another name-brand console will work well. This next comment is not from experience either, but I hear bad things about Berhinger consoles a lot on this site. I've never heard a Berhinger desk, so I don't know and cannot give an opinion as to their quality.

Give some serious thought to a '90 era analog desk. You can save some serious money on these as everyone has dumped their analog for digital. There is a point of diminishing return though. The larger, more popular analog desks have maintained, or increased in price over the years. People know a good thing when they hear it.
 
You're received a lot of good advice so far. Its all valid and carefully presented.

You seem stuck on the Otari... I have to say as an owner of two Studer A80's you won' t be disappointed assuming the heads have low hours and the machine has been maintained well. The sound quality you will get is quite purist.

However, there is a negative associated with this kind of gear for the amatuer/entry level musician. Know that tape, especially 2" tape is very expensive. A lot of stores don't stock tape anymore but can order it for you. Also the later machines spin the reels very quickly, so you'll go through tape very quickly.

As solid as these machines are, they do not like drastic temperature changes, humidity changes, or being bumped to hard. They especially do not like kittens and little children :)

They liked to be maintained, cared for and fed well. If you are willing to put up with a scheduled maintainence routine and eat a lot of tape, they are probably the best you can get. Again, I have two.

If you're looking for quick and easy, a digital all-in-one 8 or 16 track might very well work for you. They are also sized that I would consider them portable, as compared to a 100lb Otari/Studer. That means if you want to record in your acoustically modified environment, great. And if you want to dibble a bit and try out a new lick thats stuck in your head, you can plop the unit on your bed, sit at the edge, and twang your mandolin away.

I have a lot of gear actually... I use akai DR16 recorders for the majority of my work, I use the Otari's for special projects, and I will admit I have a small digital portastudio for taking on business trips with my guitar and a pair of headphones.

Basically, like with most really cool things, you are only limited by your wallet :)


brianXXX said:
Thanks very much for all the advice so far everyone,

The idea of an Otari is really growing on me - I've read nothing but good things about it. I do plan on being very serious about recording once I get my gear, as I spend a number of hours daily, writing music - so I can see the two going hand in hand. I'm doing a Masters in Computer Engineering at the moment, so I guess I'm technically minded, which you guys seem to think is a major plus when working with a machine like this.

What about pre's? I was thinking about getting a really good 2 channel pre, as I only ever need two channels at any one time anyway. Any pre suggestions? With this in mind, what kind of mixer would you suggest?

Thanks again all.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top