Singer-Songwriter Acoustic Recordings

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConnorRegan
  • Start date Start date
Mjbphoto my friend you must have the golden keyboard. When you say it I 2nd that and agree but get crucified in the process. Holy crap!

nah....nobody is crucifying.
Just pointing out some bad advice.

Since a new guy is asking, we'd rather make sure the info is accurate cuz eventually another new guy will read it.

relax man. ;)

s'all good.
 
This is hilarious.

EDITING EDITING EDITING....editing is the key to a good recording

Don't blame that one on MJB. It's 100% yours. You could even copyright it, but I wouldn't bother. I don't think anyone would ever want to steal it and claim it as theirs. :)

I guess there weren't any "good recordings" until about 2003. :laughings:
 
I'm not even trying to perpetuate an argument; I don't need to, but yes. I would definitely rather use audacity and a bunch of neumanns and neves in a nice room, than ProTools with 'standard gear'.

That is your purgative, no bashing from me. I never said I personally pick Pro Tools over any DAW, I said why the general public and most Eng pick Pro Tools. I have Pro Tools, Logic and Sonar and Cubase, I tend to use Logic & Cubase more out of the 4. I am not pro Pro Tools. I am for whats right for the job.

Take it to another level. I'd rather use 16 track tape and NO processing if I can get the performance right in the room.
Then again, there's personal preference involved.
I love these cohen/dylan recordings that sound 'bad', but we treasure them because the capture something irreplaceable.

I value your opinons of truly great sound that doesn't come from name brand gear I worked on a Tascam Mixer for years and got great sound from it. I also agree on the Cohen/Dylan recordings I treasure what most people call trash because its more than sound its a feeling with those recordings. I couldnt agree more. Its as if Elton John sang thru a bad mic SO WHAT! its still Elton John and Im gonna listen to what he says. (hope that wasnt a bad example)

Far too much emphasis is put on software, processing, daws etc, considering most of it didn't exist when the records we idolise were made.

Like i say, if it's a toss between all the tools to fix a bad job, or just getting a good job done, I'd take the later any day.

You are right the records I idolize was not created with DAWS and digital sound design you are correct, and if you were to say thas what made those records special I would agree. But dose that mean I shouldn't use new innovative tools for creating music in my era to make music jus cause its not permeative? Even if it sounds good come on thas a little harsh to say the least??!! But like I said that is strictly your opinion I cannot refute that matter of fact I respect your opinon. My ideals lean a little more on a hybrid setup where sometimes I lean more on digital and other times on analog I have the luxury of both! We are two different people with two different ideal in that aspect.

If your point is that when choosing software, a user should look for one with a wide range of useful tools, then sure, you're right,
but if your point is that good recordings come from editing, editing, editing.....I disagree.

Yes that was my argument ONLY about DAW's and the digital domain. Now good recordings DO NOT come from JUST editing, editing, editing, Im sorry you took that statement out of context. If the only reason songs sound good was from software editing ALONE I would call myself an IDOT! Good sound comes from the Mind & Heart & Hands of the Engineer PERIOD.

Just cause you got great tools dosent mean you can build a house. I agree with you on that 100%
 
Last edited:
Here RAMI just kill me you know you want to..(hands RAMI the gun) BANG!! :eek:
 
This is hilarious.



Don't blame that one on MJB. It's 100% yours. You could even copyright it, but I wouldn't bother. I don't think anyone would ever want to steal it and claim it as theirs. :)

I guess there weren't any "good recordings" until about 2003. :laughings:

Your life that boring huh? RAMI, whatever you need to feel like a BIG MAN! Every site needs a Michael Richards as well...
 
:eatpopcorn:

jaynm26...watch the name-calling.
You guys can beat on this for awhile...but name-calling is not needed to get your point across.


I can see that a lot of assumptions were made from the start of this thread about what mjbphotos said and meant. :)

Yes...a full featured DAW is a nice tool to have.
No...it's not the primary tool for getting good sounding tracks.
Yes...it's the way to edit/clean up tracks that have issues to make them sound better.
No....there's nothing wrong with editing.
Yes....the better the tracking the less editing you need to do.
That's my $0.02.

Tracking is where the good sound comes from...editing is what you do to polish up the good sound.
If you need editing just to get to a good sound...something wasn't right during tracking....IMO.
 
I would definitely rather use audacity and a bunch of neumanns and neves in a nice room, than ProTools with 'standard gear'.

I was going to join in the conversation, then it got ugly, but saw this from steen and this was going to be my point. I'd like to add i'd rather have a bunch of neumanns and neves in a great room and spend the time on getting a great performance and recording it to a fisherprice tape recorder from a carboot sale than having an inbuilt soundcard, the infinite editing power of ProTools and a shoddy performance to try and patch together.

You can't polish a turd. Give Protools or any big DAW a turd and it can freeze it, sandpaper the edges to make it smooth, put some glitter on it, wash it, make it smell nice, but at the end of the day, it's still a turd
 
Is this an episode of "The Bickersons"? :wtf: The OP likely will never come back here after reading all these replies to what he thought was a simple question!

I certainly never implied with my original reply that EDITING was the only way to get a decent recording. The DAW, like the mics, instruments and recording space are merely tools to do the job, and using a full featured DAW like Reaper is going to make it a lot eaiser than using Audacity - the right tool for the right job. If you want to drive a 10-penny nail into a 2x4, do you use a rubber mallet or a 12oz claw hammer? Yes, you could use a 10 lb sledge (Pro Tools), but unless you know how to use it very carefully, you'll end up with a bent nail and a splintered piece of wood!
 
The OP likely will never come back here after reading all these replies to what he thought was a simple question!!
Really? Are people THAT fragile? If so, too bad.

Probably better that the OP doesn't come back than to be given false and mis-leading information. If someone gives bad information, I think it's our resposibility to point it out, which is all I did. If people are so sensitive that they lose control and have a melt-down, them's the breaks.

When I correct someone, it's nothing personal. I'm doing it for the noobs. If the person I'm correcting starts going into "poor me" mode, and acting like a martyr, who cares? They can kiss my ass. :)
 
Last edited:
I'll do it for $20.

:D

It'll cost you more than that. :eek:

Well yeah, just to show up at your door, the airfare can get expensive.

Okay, here's the definitive answer for what it takes to produce a good song:

1) a good song
2) a good performance
3) a good instrument/ voice
4) a good mic
5) a good recording room
6) a good mic pre
7) good monitors
8) a good mixing room
9) a good engineer
10) good processing hardware/plugs
11) a good interface ( i'm only talking digital here. For analog, the tape machine would probably be much higher up the list, but i don't have any experience to know where exactly)
12) a good daw
13) a good target listener
 
Yeah, but apart from

1) a good song
2) a good performance
3) a good instrument/ voice
4) a good mic
5) a good recording room
6) a good mic pre
7) good monitors
8) a good mixing room
9) a good engineer
10) good processing hardware/plugs
11) a good interface ( i'm only talking digital here. For analog, the tape machine would probably be much higher up the list, but i don't have any experience to know where exactly)
12) a good daw
13) a good target listener


What have the Romans ever done for us????
 
Badda Boom! Thank very much. I'm here all week.
 
Wow, sorry I havent been on in about a day... I didnt quite expect such a wide range of comments.. and yes I did read all of them.. excluding the ones that seemed primarily argumentative :P I thank you guys for the wide range of advice.. and to one of the last comments, I will tell you what I do have...

1) a good song
2) a good performance
3) a good instrument/ voice
4) a good mic <--- I think, I have heard that NT1-A is good
5) a good recording room <--- I believe I have a good room, although I am not 100% sure what all the pre-requisites for this are.
6) a good mic pre <--- nothing
7) good monitors <--- nothing
8) a good mixing room <---nothing
9) a good engineer <--- nop
10) good processing hardware/plugs <--- dont think so..
11) a good interface ( i'm only talking digital here. For analog, the tape machine would probably be much higher up the list, but i don't have any experience to know where exactly) <--- I have Zoom R8 as an interface.. I was under the impression is was good.. but I guess not ???
12) a good daw <--- I downloaded the Reaper free trial and am liking it so far
13) a good target listener <--- dont care

Seeing as I cant post links yet... you will all just have to trust me on the first three...

One of the largest problems I have to say that I am having in regards to this is as such.... I tried setting up my mic a little bit away and recording solely through that.. but the vocals get slightly over-powered and put in the background to my acoustic (im not fingerpicking if you know what i mean)

then I tried recording the vocals close to my mouth and had the guitar plugged into the R8's input... but the guitar still bleeds over into the vocals... I realize these problems are unavoidable to a degree.. but it would be nice to minimize them.., and again.. not sure if I stated this above... but I need to record all in one take... i feel it sounds un-natural and not very good if I record vocals and guitar seperatley... not an option.

Please disregard spelling mistakes lol.
 
One of the largest problems I have to say that I am having in regards to this is as such.... I tried setting up my mic a little bit away and recording solely through that.. but the vocals get slightly over-powered and put in the background to my acoustic (im not fingerpicking if you know what i mean)

then I tried recording the vocals close to my mouth and had the guitar plugged into the R8's input... but the guitar still bleeds over into the vocals... I realize these problems are unavoidable to a degree.. but it would be nice to minimize them.., and again.. not sure if I stated this above... but I need to record all in one take... i feel it sounds un-natural and not very good if I record vocals and guitar seperatley... not an option.

You can get good results with one mic to record acoustic and vocals at the same time but it does take a lot of time and experimenting to find the most usable placement. Move the mic around your room until you find the best balance between the vocals and guitar. If you do it with the guitar plugged in a well, to try and avoid guitar spill try tilting the mic up 45 degrees towards your mouth. With a cardioid mic, the dead spot (or, at least, where it picks up sound from less) is usually directly behind the diaphragm. By angling the mic up towards your mouth you should be able to reduce how much guitar spill you get on the vocal mic as it puts the guitar in the dead spot.
 
Back
Top