recording alone sucks ass

RECORDING ALONE

Ok.......it is a drag sometimes to be stuck in the "spare bedroom" by yourself cutting tracks.But it sure beats $40.00 an hour to have someone try to come close to what you are hearing in your head.I know that we would all rather just push "record" and be done with it,without having to learn about compression,mic placement,delays,blah-blah-blah------I know that I'm that way.Remember the times that you had an idea that you just wanted to record,so you turned on the deck quickly,grabbed a mic and just went for it?When you listen later,it sounded great!So you try to remember,"What was that setting?Where was the mic?" Hahahaha....then we spend 3 hours trying to recapture it.Anyway,recording alone is a drag sometimes.....my wife is very beautiful,and when she walks into the room,I get a bit distracted,but hey...she plays too,so she keeps me focused.
 
What about running your guitar into a cassett recorder before going into your FX/peddals/amp. Record 10 minutes or so. Then you can play back the cassette through your guitar rig, and have free hands to do mic placement/level setting. "Roll tape" as you move the mic and call out the mic placement. When you play back the tape you'll hear(and have a record) of how the different set-ups sounded. Then choose the best one. Experimenting is one of my favorite parts of recording! I prefer to record alone with the amps cranked and the doors locked. Enjoy.
 
You're on the right track

Dobro:

This is a "quick and dirty" explanation. Having greater bit depth IS having greater "sonic" resolution. Higher bit rates (e.g. 24 bit compared to 16 bit) gives you higher dynamic range, which means that the recorder is using a larger dB range to record the signal. This effectively gives you a higher signal to noise ratio... Thus a cleaner and more accurate sound (our ears interpret this as greater resolution).

A quick test to prove this is record a signal to two inputs of your recorder/computer. Record one signal almost at zero (near the top of the meters) and record the other low on the meters, near the bottom of the scale. After recording, play them back, turning up the lower signal to a level equal to the higher signal. The lower input will have more noise (a lower signal to noise ratio) and will not sound as accurate, clean or clear as the higher signal. This will show that a higher dynamic range yields greater resolution or, in laymen's terms, cleaner sound. When you record at 24 bits, as opposed to 16 bits, you are effectively recording a signal with a higher dynamic range = higher signal to noise ratio = greater resolution.

I was using this to stress that with a computer recording at 24 bits, we already have a signal with greater resolution compared to 16 bit. So it's not necessary at 24 bit to have everything slamming up near zero, especially if that will likely detract from the performance. I think that this issue is even more important when an artist is recording alone. Sacrifice a few dBs on the meter for the confidence that you won't peak and you don't have to be glued to the screen while you're performing. Take care of the engineering stuff (set up the equipment, check levels, etc..) before. But when it's time to sing or play.... just sing or play. This will likely equal better performances. I hope this helps. Jump in anyone if I didn't make it plain.

Rev E

Rev E
 
That keyspan thing looks perfect! I gotta order one up immediatly. pglewis and anyone else who tracks drums alone might have a use for one of these. $49.00 I'll let you know how, or if it works out.

Thanks banm33!
 
>sacrifice a few dBs on the meter for the confidence that >you won't peak and you don't have to be glued to the screen >while you're performing.

Well Rev E, that philosophy of integrity of the whole recording at the expense of a hair of resolution is a good trade-off IMHO. And in the performance situation you hint at- a necessity.
 
24 bit resolution

the bit-depth is the amount of spaces(a bit is one-eighth of the space the computer uses to represent one character, if that matters, 8 bits is a byte)the computer will use to describe the shape of the sample(snapshot of the waveform of the sound you are recording). Yes this ultimately does raise the dynamic range but that's not all, each snapshot of the waveform is closer to the actual sound being recorded, because the computer is not limited to only using the numbers that can be represented in binary in the space of 16 bits. This is sounding really dumb at this point, but the whole idea fascinates me such that i thought i might share my enthusiasm. all of this can be compared to looking at a telivision screen closely and then looking at a computer monitor with high resolution, the image you are seeing is much more detailed. 24 bit recording actually records a waveform with more detail, in every aspect, including dynamic range and every other nuance that shapes a sound. I can't wait till 32 bit hits. That'll just be NEATO!!! well, i better stop, i feel like a nerd already.
L8r Cap'n
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top