Recording our album, I need help

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justinsayne
  • Start date Start date
J

Justinsayne

New member
I am in a heavy metal band, something like old metallica.
We have a few songs that start out with guitar only, but my drummer says we should record a drum track first. That being said how would I do it, and also I want to record on my computer with cakewalk homestudio 2000.
I have plenty of mics, but how can I record drums and still be able to turn certain things down, can I use my 4 channel p.a. with splitters and just change the volumes on the four channels.

I desperately want this album to sound like metallica's kill em all, but I don't know how they recorded the album.
 
Justinsayne said:
I am in a heavy metal band, something like old metallica.
We have a few songs that start out with guitar only, but my drummer says we should record a drum track first. That being said how would I do it, and also I want to record on my computer with cakewalk homestudio 2000.
I have plenty of mics, but how can I record drums and still be able to turn certain things down, can I use my 4 channel p.a. with splitters and just change the volumes on the four channels.

I desperately want this album to sound like metallica's kill em all, but I don't know how they recorded the album.

They recorded it in NY in a studio, not at home. That said, we have access to equipment now that Metallica could only DREAM OF in 1982-1983.

Do you have access to a recorder that will record 8 tracks at a time? I know my AW16G does.
 
SilverSurfer said:
They recorded it in NY in a studio, not at home. That said, we have access to equipment now that Metallica could only DREAM OF in 1982-1983.

Do you have access to a recorder that will record 8 tracks at a time? I know my AW16G does.

Inversely, that studio back in 1982-83 had equipment that you could only DREAM OF now, and let me tell you, no little POS Yamaha unit will compete with that gear.

Justinsayne, it would probably be good for you do record a "click track" that the drummer can play along with first.

Figure out how many measures the guitar intro is, add two measures to that, and have the drummer start playing at that point. So, if the guitar intro is say 4 measures long, the click track should be the length of the song, PLUS 6 more mearsures. This way, the drummer can lay his drum track, and the guitar can come later and play to the drummer, but you will have the click track during the intro to keep time with since the drums aren't playing there.

Sneaky eh? ;)

I can assure you though, you are NOT going to achieve the same sonic fedelity with your little home computer setup that Metallica did back in the day at a big time studio. No matter WHAT the advertisments for your software and sound card said, it ain't gonna compete with a 2" Studer and a Neve console!

Settle for something you can stand to listen to more than a few times. ;)
 
I desperately want this album to sound like metallica's kill em all, but I don't know how they recorded the album.

If you want to record a useful/decent sounding demo, I would suggest going to an actual studio to do it. You can always do your pre-production at home, but when it comes time to put all the songs together into a professional package, leave it to the professionals. The upside is that you can learn some basics from the engineer/s all the while recording a solid and functional demo (IMHO). This way you can actually focus on the actual songs you're constructing rather than fiddling around with a bunch of mics.
 
sonusman said:
Inversely, that studio back in 1982-83 had equipment that you could only DREAM OF now, and let me tell you, no little POS Yamaha unit will compete with that gear.

I didn't mean MY gear, I said the stuff WE have access to is BETTER than what they had in 1982. Heck, they didn't even have CDs in 1982. It was all analog and you're telling me they had better equipment?

Doubtful at best.

They didn't record in the best studio in the world, IIRC. They did the album in a week.

I think you're off base here. Waaaaaaaaaaaay off base.
 
No they had records! And they went to tape..sweet,sweet 2" tape..Alot of the stuff thats new now is tryin to emulate alot of that old outdated stuff..Bla Bla Bla ect. ect.As for the band{not a Metalica fan} I bet they had some road under them when they did that album :)
 
SilverSurfer said:
I didn't mean MY gear, I said the stuff WE have access to is BETTER than what they had in 1982. Heck, they didn't even have CDs in 1982. It was all analog and you're telling me they had better equipment?

Doubtful at best.

They didn't record in the best studio in the world, IIRC. They did the album in a week.

I think you're off base here. Waaaaaaaaaaaay off base.

Yup, I am telling you they had access to better gear. If they were doing that album today, it would be in Bruce Bears studio or something.......

That ain't no Studer and Neve............

Errrrrrrr...they managed to release some fo the greatest sounding recording ever WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY back in the ol' 80's bub, and all on good ol' analog tape and vinyl. Yup, you had to sort of guess when you fast forward/rewind the tape, but on records you could get pretty good finding the chorus on the disk and dropping the needle there AGAIN to listen! :) We had to "make do" with that gorgeous sound, but heck, I guess we were so primitive that we didn't notice that the almighty CD was coming around.... :rolleyes:

Not only am I on base, I hit a homerun friend. Now don't argue, I am a college level umpire, and have argued with much better! ;)
 
I hate getting in the middle of arguments like this, but using "Kill 'Em All" as a benchmark for good sound just flies in the face of logic.

As much as I thought it was a great album, it certainly doesn't sound very good...

Except for the ride cymbal - One of the greatest sounding ride cymbals I've ever heard, and I've simulated it on several and various occasions.
 
Are you sure you want to sound like the Kill Em All album? Or would you like it to FEEL like that album.
A lot of guys want that 'John Bonham' sound. If you listen to it, it sounds like crap. It FEELS powerful. That is what everybody wants.
 
sonusman said:
Yup, I am telling you they had access to better gear. If they were doing that album today, it would be in Bruce Bears studio or something.......

That ain't no Studer and Neve............

Errrrrrrr...they managed to release some fo the greatest sounding recording ever WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY back in the ol' 80's bub, and all on good ol' analog tape and vinyl. Yup, you had to sort of guess when you fast forward/rewind the tape, but on records you could get pretty good finding the chorus on the disk and dropping the needle there AGAIN to listen! :) We had to "make do" with that gorgeous sound, but heck, I guess we were so primitive that we didn't notice that the almighty CD was coming around.... :rolleyes:

Not only am I on base, I hit a homerun friend. Now don't argue, I am a college level umpire, and have argued with much better! ;)

I've been a Metallica fan since 1983. I can tell you that Kill Em All sounds the worst of all Metallica albums as far as production goes. I've heard many of today's unsigned bands make much better PRODUCED albums in their garages....

I still think you're way off base...
 
Farview said:
Are you sure you want to sound like the Kill Em All album? Or would you like it to FEEL like that album.
A lot of guys want that 'John Bonham' sound. If you listen to it, it sounds like crap. It FEELS powerful. That is what everybody wants.

Bingo! It was the music, not the sound :)
 
Massive Master said:
I hate getting in the middle of arguments like this, but using "Kill 'Em All" as a benchmark for good sound just flies in the face of logic.

As much as I thought it was a great album, it certainly doesn't sound very good...

Except for the ride cymbal - One of the greatest sounding ride cymbals I've ever heard, and I've simulated it on several and various occasions.

Thank you, sir! Three votes to one, Sonus, yer voted off the island ;)
 
"I didn't mean MY gear, I said the stuff WE have access to is BETTER than what they had in 1982. Heck, they didn't even have CDs in 1982. It was all analog and you're telling me they had better equipment?
"

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

you are holding the CD to the benchmark of sonic excellence and yet you think you have a shot in hell of capturing a useable sound???

"it was all analog"

whoooooooooooooooo

oh yes any and all digital smokes any and all analog now right?

Take this from a guy who has embraced digital, and worse yet DAW's warts and all, and making quite a few good albums even on said DAW's

throw out the huge preconceptions, and allow your ears to guide you. Listen to lots of stuff. LOTS of stuff.

I commend you to no end on the choice of kill em all as a goal, and also agree on the other poster that it is mostly the "feel" that you should be shooting for. There was an Aphex exciter, the type you used to have to rent by the program minute on ebay not long ago, if really the SOUND of that album is what you want. You will hear it very strongly at the beginning of phantom lord and hit the lights. As far as digital has gotten, it hasnt been able to faithfully reproduce that effect. Believe me, I have tons of preset fx combos I can give you to lamely approximate the mutt langification fx, and if you have SF preset manager Id be glad to send, but it wont do it like that aphex will

oh and listen to sonusman there, he speaks the truth like it or not
 
CD's were around in 1982, just not readily available and on the market. CD technology originated in the 70's! Heck, the concept of reducing sound to mathematical equations/numbers dates back almost 200 years (Nyquist)!

And as far as music equipment goes... newer doesn't mean better, nor does older... the two important factors for if something sounds good is APPLICATION and SOLID DESIGN. Better designed equipment sounds good regardless of if it is analog, tube, solid state, digital or software. The media is *NOT* the message... the music is.

That being said, picking the right gear for its sound depends heavily on the application. A metal band will sound better on some types of gear than other types of music might, or a particular use. The wise engineer knows how and when to choose what equipment for their purposes based on what is available.

And in my opinion, metal sounds best on an ANALOG setup. If you have the time and budget to do so you should track to analog tape through the best analog mixer using high end solid state analog equipment (tubes are IMHO too flubby for many applications in this genre). If I were to build a ultra high end studio it would definately include a 2" analog tape machine in addition to high end digital DAW's like the IZ Radar. However, my clients need to work fast and on low budget so I am mostly digital now and will be 100% digital within a year.

Honestly, once you've taken care of finding a place to record--which I recommend a studio if you want even "Kill Em All" levels of quality--the most important factor for having that raw 80's early thrash metal sound really is in YOUR hands.

The following assumes you really, really want that sound copied:

Obviously if you have a Mesa/Boogie Triple Rectifier you're not going to get that early Metallica vibe going on. You need a Marshall JCM800 and a Marshall 4x12 loaded with 25 or 30 watt Celestions. You need to have an Ibanez Tube Screamer running in your chain as well, because *THAT* was their sound. You also should think very heavily about Gibson Flying V's because that was their main axe at that time period and they do have their own sound!

In general avoid the scooped sound. They weren't really doing it at that time. Instead, there are a LOT of scratchy, shitty mids on the guitar for that album. Make sure to copy their bad tone exactly!

Avoid mid to late 80's devices like active guitar pickups. That sound didn't pop up into their repertoire big time until "...And Justice for All". In fact, avoid anything overly fancy as far as time/modulation effects go. "Kill Em All" is a very, very straight album as far as production goes. No fancy reverbs, no fancy this and that... just the sound of the band.

I'm not sure how many overdubs they did guitar-wise for rhythm but I'm guessing 3. It's hard to say if KEM was recorded on a 16 or 24 track machine. Whatever it was I doubt if it was state of the art or extremely high end for the time. Definately not an 8 track though. :)

As far as drums go, having a double kick setup is probably a must, as are a lot of cymbals like Lars tends to have. To me the room sounded pretty 'live' and pretty big... so if you want that sound you should do the same.

Definately push the high end with EQ on the cymbals. That super pingy, washy, cymbal was definately the product of some serious EQ... possibly Pultec or other tube eq?

DO NOT... I REPEAT DO NOT attempt to get the overly dense sound of today. That immediately will kill your attempt to nail this sound. Pull up KEM on a wave editor and see how the full waveform is represented without serious limiting. If you want that punch on the snare you need to avoid the 'louder is better' cliche of now.

Good luck on your endeavor. I'm not sure why you want to sound like that but hey, that's your decision.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I commend you to no end on the choice of kill em all as a goal, and also agree on the other poster that it is mostly the "feel" that you should be shooting for. There was an Aphex exciter, the type you used to have to rent by the program minute on ebay not long ago, if really the SOUND of that album is what you want.

Oh, so *that's* how they got that sound! Actually the ride cymbal on KEM was pretty happening. Is that verified? If so I find that pretty interesting... Aphex Aural Exciter abuse. :)
 
pipelineaudio said:
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

you are holding the CD to the benchmark of sonic excellence and yet you think you have a shot in hell of capturing a useable sound???

oh yes any and all digital smokes any and all analog now right?

Take this from a guy who has embraced digital, and worse yet DAW's warts and all, and making quite a few good albums even on said DAW's

throw out the huge preconceptions, and allow your ears to guide you. Listen to lots of stuff. LOTS of stuff.

oh and listen to sonusman there, he speaks the truth like it or not

No, I hold DIGITAL as the only medium in existence that reproduces sound without medium interference (tape drag, hiss, scratch, etc). So the sound on KEM through a record or tape is not truly what the recording sounded like. Now, slap KEM on CD and you still have the limitations of the medium it was recorded on....

You might think it sounds better, but since it wasn't recorded digitally, we will never know. Metallica, if they wanted to, could go back to that medium to record a record, but they choose to do it Digitally, and for good reason.

We have the digitial equipment now at our fingertips Metallica could only dream of in 1982.

I stick by that.
 
The only thing that really matters is how the end product sounds. I could care less if it was tracked on a wet hanky and comb if it rocks.

The medium is NOT the message.
 
SilverSurfer said:
No, I hold DIGITAL as the only medium in existence that reproduces sound without medium interference (tape drag, hiss, scratch, etc). So the sound on KEM through a record or tape is not truly what the recording sounded like. Now, slap KEM on CD and you still have the limitations of the medium it was recorded on....

You might think it sounds better, but since it wasn't recorded digitally, we will never know. Metallica, if they wanted to, could go back to that medium to record a record, but they choose to do it Digitally, and for good reason.

We have the digitial equipment now at our fingertips Metallica could only dream of in 1982.

I stick by that.
I was under the impression that they record to 2 inch and then dump it into pro tools.
 
Cloneboy, Im not sure if it was just on the cymbals or the whole deal or what, I tried to get the answers once but drunkeness prevented coherency. Once I heard that that was what was used though, I pulled up a 1/2" Sacred Reich 2 track reel and ran it thru the Aphex we had gotten from a drug seizure auction and kablammo, Kill Em All

Nowdays I am pilfering Dolby NR systems and just using the "encode " side with no decoding on parallel sends to try and pull off that effect, or more like Martika-Toy Soldiers

Been trying for years to pull something off like that in software, I cant get it but can make some stuff kinda close and interesting with HPF-> limiter->HPF-> Compressor->Multidelay(set VERY short but past too much comb filtering)->Multiband compressor...gets real spitty so that a track can stick up above the mushy muddy volume war crap noise a bit
 
Analogue tape produces the natural tape compression and has some soft low level hiss. People growing up around this analogue equipment and especially sound engineers, they will be used to hearing that sound. The softer, warmer sound. But digital doesnt have the same hiss or warmth. Digital is cleaner, crisper, and some people dont like it.

I amnt sure what is better, but i know digital has grown rapidly in recent years for soooo many good positive reasons, and it is definetely here to stay.
Digital might take over from analogue tape in alot of pro studios. Never know.
 
Back
Top