Recording... with limitations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Serendipity Records
  • Start date Start date
S

Serendipity Records

Well-known member
Greetings all!

A group/band that I lead (to put it simply) is thinking of doing a proper recording of an acoustic folk-ish song later this spring -- around April probably. We are hoping to make a studio video at the same time and capture as much of it live as possible. Problem is, we have no budget (this is not negotiable -- literally $0) so will be working with the very little gear that I already own:
  1. ZOOM H6
  2. 2x SM81
  3. 3 hand-held type mics plus one that I'm reserving for the vocalist
  4. ONLY ONE HEADPHONE OUTPUT whichever way I go about it
  5. Standard DAW (either REAPER or Harrison MixBus)
We have performed this song in the past but want to "produce" i.e. augment it beyond a 4-piece arrangement. This is the live instrumentation:
  1. Keyboard/piano
  2. Lead vox
  3. 3x Backing vox
  4. 2x Fiddles
  5. Tambourine
Planned to be added in the studio arrangement are:
  1. Accordion
  2. Mandolin
  3. More small percussion
I want to do one principal take with everyone doing their most important part, all in the same room (we're used to playing that way anyway) and then fill in the gaps one part at a time, but it's a puzzle with a lot of small pieces! I do have more thoughts on the matter but before I chart it out, I would like to hear your (ideally experience-based) thoughts!

Thanks in advance, and I will keep you up-to-date on any developments.
 
There is a YouTube channel called Singit Live. They perform live in a small studio with multiple cameras placed to catch the action as they perform. The videos all look good.

I have videoed myself with a GoPro, my cell phone, and my wife's iPhone. Other than the audio is sometimes not so good, the video quality is usually very good. Since you are recording the audio separately, that shouldn't be a problem.

You are on an essentially $0 budget, so you have to use what you have. Almost everybody has a 4k video camera in their pocket, set up them up to cover the performers. If you have a couple of GoPros, you can use them too. It's a little work on video editing,since you have to sync the videos and audio from your DAW, but it's not impossible.
 
Serendipity Records said:
Greetings all!

A group/band that I lead (to put it simply) is thinking of doing a proper recording of an acoustic folk-ish song later this spring -- around April probably. We are hoping to make a studio video at the same time and capture as much of it live as possible. Problem is, we have no budget (this is not negotiable -- literally $0) so will be working with the very little gear that I already own:
  1. ZOOM H6
  2. 2x SM81
  3. 3 hand-held type mics plus one that I'm reserving for the vocalist
  4. ONLY ONE HEADPHONE OUTPUT whichever way I go about it
  5. Standard DAW (either REAPER or Harrison MixBus)
We have performed this song in the past but want to "produce" i.e. augment it beyond a 4-piece arrangement. This is the live instrumentation:
  1. Keyboard/piano
  2. Lead vox
  3. 3x Backing vox
  4. 2x Fiddles
  5. Tambourine
Planned to be added in the studio arrangement are:
  1. Accordion
  2. Mandolin
  3. More small percussion
I want to do one principal take with everyone doing their most important part, all in the same room (we're used to playing that way anyway) and then fill in the gaps one part at a time, but it's a puzzle with a lot of small pieces! I do have more thoughts on the matter but before I chart it out, I would like to hear your (ideally experience-based) thoughts!

Thanks in advance, and I will keep you up-to-date on any developments.
Click to expand...
You have quite the challenge ahead of you - 0$ budget you have to do a single take with Multiple cameras - since most people have Phone - setup three Phones and then one handheld - Edit them together afterwards - then go back and fix any of the parts that don’t work - overdubbing and retaining the sound of the original recording. - Since you won’t know the sound of each camera don’t use the camera audio - but remember to record ambient sounds to mix in.
 
Serendipity Records said:
Greetings all!

A group/band that I lead (to put it simply) is thinking of doing a proper recording of an acoustic folk-ish song later this spring -- around April probably. We are hoping to make a studio video at the same time and capture as much of it live as possible. Problem is, we have no budget (this is not negotiable -- literally $0) so will be working with the very little gear that I already own:
  1. ZOOM H6
  2. 2x SM81
  3. 3 hand-held type mics plus one that I'm reserving for the vocalist
  4. ONLY ONE HEADPHONE OUTPUT whichever way I go about it
  5. Standard DAW (either REAPER or Harrison MixBus)
We have performed this song in the past but want to "produce" i.e. augment it beyond a 4-piece arrangement. This is the live instrumentation:
  1. Keyboard/piano
  2. Lead vox
  3. 3x Backing vox
  4. 2x Fiddles
  5. Tambourine
Planned to be added in the studio arrangement are:
  1. Accordion
  2. Mandolin
  3. More small percussion
I want to do one principal take with everyone doing their most important part, all in the same room (we're used to playing that way anyway) and then fill in the gaps one part at a time, but it's a puzzle with a lot of small pieces! I do have more thoughts on the matter but before I chart it out, I would like to hear your (ideally experience-based) thoughts!

Thanks in advance, and I will keep you up-to-date on any developments.
Click to expand...
If there's zero budget, who buys lunch? :P I agree with everyone recommending to use phones and go pros for extra video angles.

I'm looking at your arsenal. I have an old Zooom H4 but rarely use it. It can be used as an audio interface or stand alone mic. Do you know if your model can do both simultaneously? If so, I might set the Zooom front and center and use it like a room mic. But if you can't do both, interface it is.
 
Thank you @R D Smith, @Papanate, and @Dusty Ol' Bones!

I should clarify though. The video is not the main concern; it's how to prioritize instruments for the "main" take which can then be augmented with additional "production". Also, keep in mind that I will be tracking acoustic piano as part of the main take -- which will take at least 2 of my 4 variable inputs:
Dusty Ol' Bones said:
I'm looking at your arsenal. I have an old Zooom H4 but rarely use it. It can be used as an audio interface or stand alone mic. Do you know if your model can do both simultaneously? If so, I might set the Zooom front and center and use it like a room mic. But if you can't do both, interface it is.
Click to expand...
Correct! There is an XY pair that takes up two of the 6 channels, and although it can be used on select sources I don't know which one(s) yet. Close mic'ing is the name of the game because the rooms I have pianos in are very particular. I am considering retracking vocals in a much nicer room that has slightly flavored iso booth acoustics.

I know a guy to a certain extent who is into "making music" -- mainly live but may have some decent mics and if I'm really lucky a few headphones and a splitter. He has in the past offered use of his gear... I'd have to look into that a bit more.
 
Serendipity Records said:
I should clarify though. The video is not the main concern; it's how to prioritize instruments for the "main" take which can then be augmented with additional "production". Also, keep in mind that I will be tracking acoustic piano as part of the main take -- which will take at least 2 of my 4 variable inputs:
Click to expand...
Borrow a Mixer and a lot of mics - evenSM58/57s would be fine.
 
When channels are short, wasting two on a piano (unless it's the centre of the entire mix) is a waste. Record it in mono and add a touch of reverb and in a mix as just one instrument, you won't notice. Two mics can give you a piano the width of your loudspeakers - which works very well with a solo singer playing piano, but, if the piano is in the mix with guitars and bass and drums, it will be panned to it's own space, making two mics and hard left right panning wrong. Narrow the two pans and you might as well have not wasted the track. Sometimes, you might use two mics to get the best balance between left and right hand, but merge them to one track if they are short.
 
Serendipity Records said:
Greetings all!

A group/band that I lead (to put it simply) is thinking of doing a proper recording of an acoustic folk-ish song later this spring -- around April probably. We are hoping to make a studio video at the same time and capture as much of it live as possible. Problem is, we have no budget (this is not negotiable -- literally $0) so will be working with the very little gear that I already own:
  1. ZOOM H6
  2. 2x SM81
  3. 3 hand-held type mics plus one that I'm reserving for the vocalist
  4. ONLY ONE HEADPHONE OUTPUT whichever way I go about it
  5. Standard DAW (either REAPER or Harrison MixBus)
We have performed this song in the past but want to "produce" i.e. augment it beyond a 4-piece arrangement. This is the live instrumentation:
  1. Keyboard/piano
  2. Lead vox
  3. 3x Backing vox
  4. 2x Fiddles
  5. Tambourine
Planned to be added in the studio arrangement are:
  1. Accordion
  2. Mandolin
  3. More small percussion
I want to do one principal take with everyone doing their most important part, all in the same room (we're used to playing that way anyway) and then fill in the gaps one part at a time, but it's a puzzle with a lot of small pieces! I do have more thoughts on the matter but before I chart it out, I would like to hear your (ideally experience-based) thoughts!

Thanks in advance, and I will keep you up-to-date on any developments.
Click to expand...
I look forward to viewing and listening to your production.
 
rob aylestone said:
When channels are short, wasting two on a piano (unless it's the centre of the entire mix) is a waste. Record it in mono and add a touch of reverb and in a mix as just one instrument, you won't notice. Two mics can give you a piano the width of your loudspeakers - which works very well with a solo singer playing piano, but, if the piano is in the mix with guitars and bass and drums, it will be panned to it's own space, making two mics and hard left right panning wrong. Narrow the two pans and you might as well have not wasted the track. Sometimes, you might use two mics to get the best balance between left and right hand, but merge them to one track if they are short.
Click to expand...
I did consider doing it in mono but it is kind of at the base of it all -- no guitars or bass in the arrangement so it's the main feature instrument.

How would the early 4-track bands have done it? is my question. Maybe they didn't do this instrumentation but the concept should remain the same!

60's guy said:
I look forward to viewing and listening to your production.
Click to expand...
It might be some time before then but I will definitely share!
 
four track is fine for a stereo instrument and 2 others - but when you have more sources, it makes no sense to record things that will be panned to a more distant perspective in stereo - I suppose if my pan pots were narrower than ten to and ten past, clock style - I'd scrap the stereo bit. I actually tried recording a piano in mono recently, with a bit of widening reverb and the results were totally fine.
 
Serendipity Records said:
I am considering retracking vocals in a much nicer room that has slightly flavored iso booth acoustics.
Click to expand...
There's the solution to your problem. If you are going to track vocals separately, you can use the two SM81s on the piano, one mic for the violins and one for the tambourine. Or you can follow the advice of others and dedicate a single SM81 to the piano, the other one to the violins, or whatever other combinations you can think of.
 
Serendipity Records said:
How would the early 4-track bands have done it? is my question. Maybe they didn't do this instrumentation but the concept should remain the same!
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I don't have a grasp of the correct vocabulary. I thought bands like the Beatles would record 4 tracks then bounce them and overdub 4 more and keep bouncing and combining them. I believe that's the way someone should be able to record 20 something tracks with a 4 track recorder. At least that's kinda what I do with my own 4 input interface.*

*I'm probably the least qualified person in this thread to be giving recording advice. Maybe someone else can shed some light on the 4 track thing.
 
The Beatles had to do that because they needed far more tracks than were available. The actual process, was record 3, bounce to the 4th. Add two more then bounce that - so building up in clumps of three - but it takes real skill to predict in advance the balance you needed in the mix. So record that bass a bit too low and there's no way to recover it, and in the reverse - it's too prominent? Tough! You also need to consider that the added hiss from each bounce means that you have to pick the track recording order carefully - so those instruments that can have the HF rolled off to reduce hiss without sounding dull. If your first recording had a flute, then by the third bounce you'd end up with a very dull flute.
 
Dusty Ol' Bones said:
I thought bands like the Beatles would record 4 tracks then bounce them
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I was referring to, but I am curious whether there was more to it than that?

EDIT: @rob aylestone covered some of this just as I posted. I don't have quite the same limitations, because I can mix in a DAW, but to build a production with a coherent "feel" I want to prioritize the tracks that will define that "feel" in the first pass. Recall that there is no bass or drums in this situation.

Rght now I'm thinking...
1. piano, fiddles, and tambourine as @Dusty Ol' Bones said, plus a lead vocal performance (not recorded)
2. a good lead vocal
3. additional instruments
4. backing vocals

Am I making sense?
 
Last edited:
rob aylestone said:
The Beatles had to do that because they needed far more tracks than were available. The actual process, was record 3, bounce to the 4th. Add two more then bounce that - so building up in clumps of three - but it takes real skill to predict in advance the balance you needed in the mix. So record that bass a bit too low and there's no way to recover it, and in the reverse - it's too prominent? Tough! You also need to consider that the added hiss from each bounce means that you have to pick the track recording order carefully - so those instruments that can have the HF rolled off to reduce hiss without sounding dull. If your first recording had a flute, then by the third bounce you'd end up with a very dull flute.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's what my son did in his bedroom years ago with a Teac A3440 but even at 15ips and 456, noise build up was always a problem. Things got a lot better when I got him a JVC hi fi VCR (was dropped and repair cost too high for the customer but hours spent linking out broken tracks paid off) It was an early model with no AVC but a pretty good peak limiter. Had two linear VCs and rather useful LED meter.

The dynamic range was a revelation! Probably only 16bits but compared to the Teac is was just totally silent!

But! HE had the musical chops and dad had the electronics skills (and access to parts!) I guess those qualities are very rare in a lone individual?

Dave.
 
Dusty Ol' Bones said:
Forgive me if I don't have a grasp of the correct vocabulary. I thought bands like the Beatles would record 4 tracks then bounce them and overdub 4 more and keep bouncing and combining them. I believe that's the way someone should be able to record 20 something tracks with a 4 track recorder. At least that's kinda what I do with my own 4 input interface.*

*I'm probably the least qualified person in this thread to be giving recording advice. Maybe someone else can shed some light on the 4 track thing.
Click to expand...
When the Beatles were doing their tracks, they also didn't give each instrument it's own track. They would often have several instruments at a time on a track, everything balanced before it even hit tape. If you read the Beatles Recording Sessions book, it often tells how they did it. Maybe drums bass and a guitar on track 1, two more guitars on track 2, vocals later on track 3, and a mixture of things like backing vocals, percussion or maybe a lead solo on track 4 to fill things out. Then they might do a reduction mix to give them room for more stuff.

archive.org

The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road years 1962-1970 : Mark Lewisohn : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

After years out of print, a new edition of this hotly sought-after classic is available again! Mark Lewisohn's definitive guide covers every recording session...
archive.org
 
Last edited:
TalismanRich said:
When the Beatles were doing their tracks, they also didn't give each instrument it's own track. They would often have several instruments at a time on a track, everything balanced before it even hit tape. If you read the Beatles Recording Sessions book, it often tells how they did it. Maybe drums bass and a guitar on track 1, two more guitars on track 2, vocals later on track 3, and a mixture of things like backing vocals, percussion or maybe a lead solo on track 4 to fill things out. Then they might do a reduction mix to give them room for more stuff.

archive.org

The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road years 1962-1970 : Mark Lewisohn : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

After years out of print, a new edition of this hotly sought-after classic is available again! Mark Lewisohn's definitive guide covers every recording session...
archive.org
Click to expand...
VERY insightful and I will be looking into that resource! Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top