Sonic quality for vocal recording of home setup vs studio

T

thesag

New member
I'd love a little feedback please. I've been out of music for about a decade but decided I want to make killer sounding rock record with my old band and songs from way back in the day because it's the 30th anniversary of that band more or less. The genre is what we now lovingly call hair metal, but back then we just called it hard rock. I plan to have the engineering, mixing and mastering done professionally in good studios and make it sound big...like it's 1990 all over again! I had a different idea for recording vocals though and that is what I want feedback on.

I am the singer and I am considering recording all the vocals at home. That way I can record when I'm in good voice as well as try out interesting ideas for harmonies and other melodies without being on the clock at a studio. The audio fidelity needs to be good enough to be mixed on a album where everything else was recorded by pro engineers with good equipment. With all that said, I'm also not going to run out and buy a UA87 and a Manley mic pre or whatever. I would be willing to spend a reasonable amount money on the signal chain, but it is still going to fall into the category of somewhat budget. I'm thinking a decent pre like a Warm Audio or comparable and decent mic like a Warm Audio WA-87R2 or comparable. I still have a nice Rode K2 tube mic and a couple other Rode's in my closet from back when I did some home studio stuff that I can bust out also so I'll have mic options.

The recorder is actually my biggest concern. When I did have a home studio years ago I was using a digital board and multitrack recorder and that's all gone. I never learned to work in a DAW and I don't want to learn now. I want to focus on the performance and not engineering, therefore I was thinking about buying a Tascam DP-32sd as the recorder. It has plenty of tracks available for vocals after all the instruments are recorded and it will be easy to use. I don't care about mixing or editing on it. All that will be done by pros in DAWs. I just want to record vocals that sound good for them to use.

A variation on this idea is to go ahead and record all the lead vocals in the studio and then just do all the harmonies and other background stuff at home because I wouldn't think the fidelity of those are as critical as a lead vocal.

What do you think? Good idea or bad idea, or do you have another suggestion.
 
If you record any other way than in a DAW, you're throwing away the biggest change to music recording in twenty years. Once you are used to the computer way of doing things you really want those features, and you can get so much more productive, and for me - fixing mistakes invisibly for me is a godsend. How many times do you re-record when you make a mistake. How many times do you mess up a drop in and have to re-record even more to cover the mistakes. If you buy a clever, but restricting hardware recorder - even a good one like that Tascam, then you have a lot of learning to do whatever. It will NOT be easy to use, other than just pressing record. My friend is like you, he records on a hardware machine. He then really struggles to get audio files out of it and send them to me, so he brings me an SD card - a 40 mile round trip. If you want to record with maybe a maximum of 4 mics at the same time, then the cost for really good quality is tiny. All the cheap DAWs let you press record and use them like the old portasdudios. I just don't see why you'd buy a dedicated end of life elderly brand new product when you could spend less money and do the same things in a computer. even a cheap old one. portastudios are workable of course, but the big thing against them is that they are fixed in time. You can upgrade computers, as you grow. My friend comes to me and we record in less time, with a better result here than he can do. quality is not involved at all. When we record something and he hits a wrong note, he wants to re-record from the start - I just say, can't I just fix it? Ten seconds later the F is a G, done. Inevitably by take 6, the mistakes are going up and he has to stop on his system because he is tried, and making even more mistakes. I can take phrases, or even individual words and fix their timing and pitch - I don't need to very often, but I can do it.


I'd urge you to consider it. Those Tascams are good value at the moment and you get a lot of knobs to twiddle. You are just buying the latest ancient design in a new product. I doubt they will be in production very long now - with sales so low and profit dubious at these prices.
 
While I realize I'm biased in favor of a computer DAW, I'm still pretty sure the learning curve isn't all that much more than a new standalone DAW. Once DAW software is set up, it's really quite easy to use. On top of that, it's far more versatile, which is great for experimentation and for making errors disappear. You'll be able to construct optimized vocal tracks in software more efficiently than on a hardware DAW. And you've got this community of very experienced home recordists to help.
 
I've been trying to think of any advantages of using dedicated hardware overnight, and I think even those that were there maybe a couple of years back, have totally gone - so the computer for recording is now really a lifestyle choice. We're moving to the stage where broadband will be in every home here within two years as the old phone system is being switched off - so bit by bit computers are doing everything, and frankly the old arguments some people use about them being too hard or unreliable don't wash any more. My 3 yr old grandson gets the use of an old retired laptop here, with a touch screen - a Panasonic, but he doesn't talk much - but "grandad, sooo slow" was a common cry. One day I came back into the room and he was using my MacBook - no touch screen and a totally different way of moving the mouse and using multiple fingers. He worked it out was happily watching Alvin and the Chipmunks on Youtube. When he grows up, there won't be any hardware like we still have.

The other thing to consider is the annoyance of computer software upgrades, but like Netflix, it's now normal. Things can now be invented after a product exists and added, and that's a huge advantage to software operation. I can't now think of recording without using some of the features. Opera Singers excited about comping and pitch shifting by microtones! Drummers who really don't have to re-record an entire track to fix a few timing errors. Singers who mixed up the verse lyrics, the guitarists who hit a bum note on an otherwise perfect take. Those dead notes can have a tweak in EQ for just that note.

We all HATE computers, there are of course loads of problems generic to keeping a computer happy - but the advantages easily outweigh it.

I'm trying to get Cubase 12 working effectively in my other studio, and it's a really slow process, but Steinberg have allowed it, like Adobe - they allow you to work on different computers - Music involves mixing products from many suppliers, and in my case, ones from the Ukraine - I needed to re-download some stuff yesterday and noticed for the first time they are in the Ukraine, and their little flag now appears on the splash screens, and a message saying they're trying hard to keep going from a bombed out basement.

That's music for you in the year 2022.
 
I'm with the others, forget a stand-alone recorder, use a DAW, any DAW. Before splurging on a new mic or preamp, get a DAW and a decent audio interface. YOu may find the sound you get from one of the mics you have now is fine.
 
Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm not surprised by the advice to get a computer based DAW. Ironically though, most of the pros you are putting forth about that setup are cons for me. I am not trying to set up a home studio. If I were I would definitely get a nice computer, all the great DAW software, plug-ins, etc. and a nice interface, but I do not want to go down the technology rabbit hole. I want the simplest way I can track vocals...that's all. No mixing and no fixing will be done by me. I am an experienced singer with a good ear and I would never leave an off pitch vocal take just because I can fix it in software. I want to record the best vocal tracks I can, and if minor issues are discovered during mixing, a professional mix engineer can make the fixes (much quicker and better than I could by the way).

The reality is I can buy a used DP-32sd for under $400, then spend a fair amount of money on the signal chain, all the while having a unit that will allow me to walk into the room anytime I am ready to record, turn it on and go. So my main point of the original post is do you think the quality of the tracks will be good enough? Like I said, assuming I get a good mic and preamp, I think the only weak link in the chain may be the Tascam's converters. I will clearly not be as good as the converters in the pro studios that cost thousands of dollars each, but is it enough of a difference to make it a bad idea?
 
You've got a bit of a 'professional' being better thing going on. The reality is professional charge, and the designation has little to do with quality. Not even a new thing - it applied in the tape days too. I totally understand the concept here - so you probably already have I'm sure a computer - so all you need is an interface - that's your only equipment cost. Once it's digits, then any computer will do the job. Spend the money on mics and acoustic treatment. The Tascam A/D converters are OK. The thing that made me think was that of storage - are you sending files by email or ftp, or physically on an SD card or similar? The Tascam's top performance is 48K, 24 bit resolution - is this what the studio you intend using want? To be honest, I'm happy with 48K, but many studios are doing 96K and the old Tascam can't do it. Therefore, it's potentially a quality limit.

Your quality quest has a ceiling - which many modern interfaces can improve on now.

If the idea is to track as well as you can, and do things remotely, that's forcing you into a workflow that's perhaps less than ideal? I also detect a slight drawback. If you are a good singer and have a good ear, will you really be able to work with the expense and time delay of not doing not yourself. If you are a performer and a musician, then you can run into your recording room with an idea and at the very least get a demo done. Studio time in pro studios means compromises - always has. The clock ticks past 12 and it's another $X Some studios even deliberately slow the process so they can charge - apparently, that is 'professional' too.

If you won't be using 99% of the features of the Tascam - why buy one? It's old technology.
 
The kind of fixing I'm thinking of is punching in to fix errors, not applying processing. For that kind of thing, the computer is the way to go. The mix stage of the process is the wrong time to make those fixes. You can do it on a standalone, but in the long run, generating a clean vocal track to give the mix engineer will be easier on a computer.

It doesn't even have to be much of a computer for what you're doing. A used laptop would most likely be more than good enough. People have been doing that kind of thing since 486 processors.
 
I think that if you want your vocals to sound like they're in a studio, then you should record them in a studio. I'm not an expert in this, but I would think that the quality of the microphone and the acoustics of the room would make a big difference.

--
Jason Hook. I enjoy remixing old songs using Audacity together with UnMixIt for vocal removal or isolation
 
Yeah... I have to come here and tell you that the DAW is the way to go here hands down. If you want something you can just "turn on and record" then go get a Tascam DR-10X slap it on a mic and record... I've used it plenty of times for "mobile" recording... but here's the thing... you're going to have to dump those files, edit and align them by hand after the fact (no studio engineer/mixer is going to do this crap for you... you're living in a fantasy world here) and that is a pain... just get any computer... any interface... any mic... and download Reaper... it's "FREE" import your backing music... and record as many vocal tracks as you want... it's literally the easiest/cheapest way to do this and will have the best results, you're making this way harder than it needs to be. Get a Behringer UMCHD202 and an MXL Condenser mic and plug it into any Windows/Mac with a download of Reaper. This is like $150 and you can record vocals to your hearts content.
 
That is all great feedback.

Rob, you make a great point about the sampling rate and the converters, although I don't think storage is a problem with the Tascam because you can just use USB to transfer the .wav files to a computer, or obviously pull the sd card out and put it into the computer and do it that way.

I guess I will do a little cost analysis of all my options and try to make a decision. I'm just now getting my voice back in shape after 10 years off! If I do record vocals at home I'll put some mixes up so you guys can critique. Who knows...maybe I'll get sucked back into home recording and start dumping thousands on gear again! haha

BTW, I've up loaded something from one of my other bands so you can hear my voice. Let me know if there is certain mic any of you would recommend for my type of voice.
View attachment 08 Doghouse.mp3
 
TheSag, I have both systems here. I have a several hardware recorders, (Zoom R24, H4n, Yamaha AW1600). The one that gets the most use is the R24, but that's been mostly for portable recording. That's really where it excels. It's easy to set up, set the levels and hit the record button. At home, I just fire up the DAW (Reaper) and plug in the microphone about 95% of the time. My Tascam audio interface is my sound card, so it's always there. The DAW is no different that firing up Quicken, FIrefox, or Apache Office. It's just another program once you get things set up.

When I record into the Zoom, I just pull the SD card and plug it into my laptop or desktop and copy the wave files to a folder. It's no harder than copying a picture file.

I did comparisons of the Tascam to the R24 and the Yamaha. The Interface sounded the best, with lower noise than the hardware recorders. Using external preamps with a Zoom R24 or Tascam DP32SD is probably a waste. You'll still be going through the preamp stage of the recorder, you'll just have to use the gain knob for line level.

If you're going to be getting audio files form other places, the DAW is SO MUCH EASIER to work with. Otherwise you have to import into the hardware recorder, hoping you have the proper formats, etc.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but its just easier with an interface/DAW.

BTW, your track sounds great. If you can whip out vocals like that, you won't have a problem setting up a vocal area at home.
 
As someone who receives material to mix from other people, I would suggest that you do the minimum of processing while recording and leave it up to the person doing the mixes to do the processing. I also wouldn't go buying any more kit apart from a decent audio interface with a good mic input. I like the Audient preamps so maybe look at their iD14 interface (but plenty of people like Focusrite or MOTU). The Rode mic will certainly get you going and will possibly be all you need.

The biggest improvement you can make is to treat your recording space so that there are no unwanted reflections or resonances. This may not be as glamorous as new gear but it will massively improve the results.
 
Well this is whey I joined the forum and made my post. You guys have officially convinced me to get an interface and go the DAW route if I decide to do vocals at home. Luckily I do have a small closet full of hanging clothes and some foam treatment and it is practically be an ISO booth.

If I do buy DAW/Interface gear I'm sure you'll see me posting in other places on the forum as I try to figure out how to use it!
 
thesag said:
Well this is whey I joined the forum and made my post. You guys have officially convinced me to get an interface and go the DAW route if I decide to do vocals at home. Luckily I do have a small closet full of hanging clothes and some foam treatment and it is practically be an ISO booth.

If I do buy DAW/Interface gear I'm sure you'll see me posting in other places on the forum as I try to figure out how to use it!
Click to expand...
I would encourage you NOT to record in that closet. Unless there is a miracle, it will sound dead, and the mix engineer will spend time getting it to sound un-dead.
 
mjbphotos said:
I would encourage you NOT to record in that closet. Unless there is a miracle, it will sound dead, and the mix engineer will spend time getting it to sound un-dead.
Click to expand...

As a mix engineer I would prefer a dead sound on the vocals so that I can place them in the most appropriate acoustic space for the song. It is much easier to add reverb than remove it. The only disadvantage to a small closet is that, while the highs and mids will be better controlled, the bass is often less well controlled so recordings may sound too 'tubby'.
 
jamesperrett said:
As a mix engineer I would prefer a dead sound on the vocals so that I can place them in the most appropriate acoustic space for the song. It is much easier to add reverb than remove it. The only disadvantage to a small closet is that, while the highs and mids will be better controlled, the bass is often less well controlled so recordings may sound too 'tubby'.
Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between dead and dry. Recording in a confined closet alongside materials that would suck the highs out creates dead.
 
Listening to the OP's vocal example, I don't think he needs to worry a lot about uncontrolled bass. I'm guessing he's singing more in the 200Hz and up range. We're not talking bass guitar buildup here. Plus, you don't have to climb inside the closet, but just use it to control the mid and high frequency reflections that show up so much as flutter and slapback echo, much the same as using any treatment. I'm with JP, much easier to deal with a dead sound that something with lots of 20 and 30ms echos bouncing off the walls.
 
Untreated rooms sound awful, dead, as in the lack of likeness can be easier to liven up than damping down live. Sure, bass can be less reduced by material, but the benefit can usuall6 be heard by your ears, as well as the mic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top