the big recording question

J

jonjon123

New member
Hi all,

Im a newbie at this and some some questions regarding home recording. I notice home recordings usually sound "empty".., compared to a CD you buy at a store....is this because it is professionally mixed with high tech equipment. I use a vs840...and no matter how i mix it, it'll never sound like something you get from listening to a cd bought at the store.

What does it take to get that quality ? Even if you listen to a 3 piece band, like blink 182 or greenday, their quality is so much richer.

thanks
 
Try

Good sound cards are important, the RME multi-face is a hot product, and grab izotope ozone, that software rocks, i was a newb at mastering, loaded some old recordings, followed their quick tip and it made the quality 60% better..

I highly reccomend Izotpe to any newb, its well explained and gives you some presets..

Well worth the money..
 
Dont be fooled, its not what your recording to its your technique and how you manage the signal.

You can acheive good results with minimalist equipment.
Like for example; those bands you mentioned have propably doubled the guitar tracks and opened up the panning, tricks like these can fill out a mix.

The guitars are usally mic'd too(the cabs of course unless its an acoustic) and they run through nice amps that sound hot, if the source of what you recording sounds good then you %90 of the way there (sometimes that requires talent!).
Dont expect to take a crappy sounding signal and turn it into somthing special, you can, but its difficult to do.

Of course running the signal thru thousands of dollars worth of equipment helps too!! :):)
 
<MiXit-G said; Dont be fooled, its not what your recording to its your technique and how you manage the signal. >
Good advice. Start with what you have, work on getting some good sounding basic, if 'raw' tracks, and build your skills from there. You can get some slaming good rock tracks that simply get a good live feel, then move on to the super processed pop rock treatments. One sounds more like a real band with the edges still on. The other is the tame version we all expect as the "album" sound. -multi-layored, squashed, ect, ect.
Wayne

(I still think the 'monitor' mixes sound good too.:)
 
Well, it was supposed too read...

MiXit-G said; Dont be fooled, its not what your recording to its your technique and how you manage the signal.

Good advice. Start with what you have, work on getting some good sounding basic, if 'raw' tracks, and build your skills from there. You can get some slaming good rock tracks that simply get a good live feel, then move on to the super processed pop rock treatments. One sounds more like a real band with the edges still on. The other is the tame version we all expect as the "album" sound. -multi-layored, squashed, ect, ect.
Wayne

(I still think the 'monitor' mixes sound good too.
 
One last thing: Don't be fooled into thinking you'll get a track sounding like Blink 182 or Green Day. 1) They have some real good engineers working with them 2) They have the best mastering engineers working with them.

Just use the CDs as reference, but don't try to emulate, because it is almost impossible (unless you happen to be one of those top notch engineers).

Mike
 
I think it has a lot to do with how the band is set up before the sound even goes through the mic. When I hear Green Day, the first thing I think of is the clear sound of the band. I highly suspect that there isn't much fx processing going on at the front end: much of that sound is coming straight from the talent of the source, maximized by decent instrument/amp configuration.

Lay off eq, reverb, and compression when you record the initial tracks and concentrate on getting the sound as natural and conducive to the feel of the song as possible through a set of monitors, and you can come very close to the sound on the cds, and in some instances even surpassing it.

Cy
 
thanks

Great advice. Thank you.

It did just hit me that bands like green day have professional engineers, however, even if you listen to their early stuff or bands that dont quite make it but recorded in a studio, the sound is so much different compared to if recorded via a home recording device.

i guess my quesiton is if it is possible to produce a cd good enough to sell by just home recording equipment? Or, at least to record the vocals, equipment...etc, then transporting to a studio for the final mix down.
 
then transporting to a studio for the final mix down

What are you planning on taking to a studio??? A 250 meg Zip disk? your vs840?

If you cant achieve good results in "recording" the music then its limited how professional you can make it sound....with the VS840 or in a studio, so just keep practicing!!!!
 
JonJon,

Welcome to the wonderful world of home recording. You've come to the right place.

I think that almost everyone here at one point had similar sentiments. And certianly those new to the game expecting to make a professionally sounding CD is quickly frustrated at how difficult it is. But as you probably know, recording is an art form in itself, or rather can be classified as "engineering" and it takes a lot of practice to learn how to do it right. Getting a good sounding recording is much like learning to play a new instrument, and it will take alot of time and experimentation.

Since you have a VS840, you've got 8 tracks of digital recording at your disposal, plus all the basic Roland effects you'll need. Right off the bat you're off to a good start. But what you need next is a decent mic (prefereably a condensor) and a decent preamp. You don't need to shell out major bucks for either of these, but with those 3 elements you can make a recording close to what you'd hear on a professional CD.....with time and experience.

The "art" of making a recording comes from the following elements, each a discussion topic in and of itself. YOu can search these posts for advice and instruction on each of these, but in a nutshell, to make a good recxording you'd have to have:

1) A decent performance to start with
2) Select the right microphone for the job (i.e, a condensor on vox, acoustic instruments, dynamic on amp cabs)
3) Select the right mic placement for the instrument you are using
4) The right combination and setting of the input (i.e, not too hot, not too soft)
5) The right application and settings of FX on input (i.e, compression?)
6) Once these are done and your tracks are recorded, you must learn how to mix. What/how much EQ and other FX do you apply to each track?
7) Mastering is the final step, and generally where much of the *sparkle* comes from. Mastering adds other FX to enliven the sound, but if you're making a demo CD it might be worth your efforts to learn how to multitrack properly, then give your premaster to a professional to master for you.

Work through each step laid out as above, mastering each in time. For example, if you have a piece you can play well, ask advice here on how to mic it and which mics to use. Once you have that down, you can play and tweak your FX until you get a sound that is clean and one you like.

It takes time, no doubt, but there is a lot if information here that will help you on your way.

PS: If you haven't already, get a copy of the VSPLANET Comp CD to hear what other people can accomplish using the same machines as yours.

Good luck
 
mikemoritz said:


Just use the CDs as reference, but don't try to emulate, because it is almost impossible (unless you happen to be one of those top notch engineers).

Mike
Click to expand...

That's probably the worste advice I have ever heard on this board.

100% try to emulate the sound that you want. You realize the difference between a "top notch" engineer and a "homerecer" is several years of experience.

Never settle for good. Once you get your mix good, start working on the next one...and make it even better and better until you get what you want.

You can get a homerecording that sounds just as good as the latest Blink record...it's just going to take a lot of time. And when I say "lot", I mean years. But certainly start working at it if that's what you want.

People like Macle on this bbs have done things in their bedroom that could easily be on the radio. It's all technique.

Also, really think about what makes a good recording to *you*. While I think Blink 182's sound works for them, I would never want to master any of my own stuff like they do.

It has no dynamic range...and, honestly a lot of their stuff I am not that impressed with.

I think something like Alanis Morrisettes "Jagged Little Pill", or Counting Crows first record is harder to emulate..

But, anything pro is going to be good (even though I think that major label quality of engineering is going down, due to the influx of know-nothing audio engineering graduates).

When you get to a level where you think your gear is holding you back...then upgrade your gear. If you need more acoustic treatment in your room then get it...whatever. But you can get that sound at home.

And there is always the option of shipping it off to a pro mastering house, which for good or bad - any major label is going to want you to do.

Check out Flickersticks album "Welcoming home the astronauts" - they were signed by Sony and the whole thing was remastered...sounds like they rerecorded everything.

It's all skill bud, you'll get there if your good and you work at it. Welcome.
 
Nice advice

Good advice wes480...

I too am trying to improve my skills and experiment with the different tools available. It's good to know that it's possible to get better than I am right now.

One other thing I've found out that hasn't been mentioned. The "Don't settle for good..." line got me thinking of it. That is after you think you're done with a mix, put it aside for a while. In other words, don't listen to it for at least a week or so. Then go back, listen to it, and try to criticize it. Be really hard on yourself. You might find some ways to make it a better.

I've listened to stuff I've posted a couple weeks after posting it, and I've been embarassed that I sent it out.

Keep reading advice on this board. If a particular post seems like it's well thought out, try it yourself and see how it works.
 
Quickly browsing through this thread, I noticed one factor that wasn't mentioned (maybe I missed it): the acoustic quality of the recording space. If you record musicians in a room that sounds great, your recordings are going to have a tremendous advantage over trying to compensate for a lousy room later. A typical rectangular bedroom is probably not going to qualify as a good sounding space, given the likelyhood of standing waves messing up the bass, and flutter reflections phasing up the highs.

To sum up, the keys to a great recording are:

1) The quality of the music - great songs, great musicians, great sounding instruments/amps.

2) The skill of the engineer - mic placement, mic placement, and mic placement! Followed by right choice of mics/preamps/processing.

3) The quality of acoustics in the recording space.

4) The mixing skill of the engineer.

5) The available qulaity of recording equipment.

6) The quality of the mixing room sound and equipment - speakers, acoustics, console, outboard gear, etc.

All these factors are very important to "compete" with the big dogs. But the performance quality, skill factors and acoustics are probably the biggest keys.
 
you guys are great

thanks, i really appreciate all the advice.

now, considering , i do have the material, the instruments, a line 6, the effects, ......do i need a mic preamp? if so, is there anything you recommend thats not too costly.

What does a mic preamp do anyway?

thanks again
 
The older I get and the more tricks I learn the simpler it all becomes. No matter what kind of fancy equipment and micing techniques you use you will never get a good recording out of crappy musicians and instruments.

You can compensate for lack luster performances but if the singer is flat, the guitar is out of tune and the drums are made of carboard you can rest assured it will sound like shit.

There is no substitute for quality instruments and musicianship. Even shitty top 40 bands have good equipment and if they only know 3 chords they learn to play them well.

So instead of worrying about all the fancy stuff worry about the original tone. If the source sounds crappy live in the room it will sound crappy on a recording.

Until you can make recordings on the gear you have that most strangers will say sound pretty damn good dont worry about expensive pre's and high end effects processors.
 
TexRoadkill said:
The older I get and the more tricks I learn the simpler it all becomes. No matter what kind of fancy equipment and micing techniques you use you will never get a good recording out of crappy musicians and instruments.

You can compensate for lack luster performances but if the singer is flat, the guitar is out of tune and the drums are made of carboard you can rest assured it will sound like shit.

There is no substitute for quality instruments and musicianship. Even shitty top 40 bands have good equipment and if they only know 3 chords they learn to play them well.

So instead of worrying about all the fancy stuff worry about the original tone. If the source sounds crappy live in the room it will sound crappy on a recording.

Until you can make recordings on the gear you have that most strangers will say sound pretty damn good dont worry about expensive pre's and high end effects processors.
Click to expand...

amen.

it is possible to get commercial sounding cd's out of pro-sumer equipment. I have 2 cd's sent to me by home recordists that are top notch commercial quality. ADAT's for 1, akai digital 12 track and a sansamp on the other. My friend with the akai had a tune get reviewed in the Reader's Tapes section of Recording Magazine and got a great review. My friend who used the ADAT has had projects out of his studio get regular airplay in Canada. The secret to both of those? Solid performances and perfectionist approaches to everything from guitar tone to reverb tails to cymbal sizzle.
 
double amen,

if you can't commit a good sound to tape/hard disk then the most expensive equipment in the world won't save you.

It is all too easy today for "wannabe engineers" to stick a mic in front of an amp, record it, and play around with it digitally until something decent (to their ears) comes out.

I always think of a recording process in the following terms:

Musicians
Technical
Engineering
Producing
Mastering

Musicians - if they, or their ideas are crap, then you end up with crap. The question is, are they worth recording or are you just recording for the sake of recording?

Technical - this is the most important step of recording. In no particular order: where to place microphones, what microphones to use, how many microphones per instrument, where to place amps (have you ever tried sticking an amp facing the corner of the studio and dangling a mic over the top or even putting the amp in a large cardboard box, or recording a guitar with two microphones twenty feet apart?), what effects and in which order to connect them. The permutations are endless and it's only with experience, which comes through experimenting and/or technical knowledge, that you can come up with the sound that's in you head.

Engineering - very closely aligned to the technical side (nowadays one person usually does both jobs), this is the process of getting the signal recorded cleanly onto a medium (analog or digital) so that the signal/noise ratio is at it's best. I'm an advocat of flat recording at -3dB (FSD).

Producing - this is the creative part of recording. It can be divided into the following areas:

Adding extra instruments/sounds behind the recording, for example a string section or horn section or a third guitar (for bands with two guitars).

Sweetening the track. These are supposed to be the fine adjustments such as EQing, compessing/limiting and so on that you didn't pick up on the technical/engineering phase of recording.

Setting the stereo field and levels of each track.

Mastering - the definition is somewhat blurred nowadays.
Originally this was one step up from making coffee, sweeping the floor and aliging the heads on an analog machine. All you had to do was apply an RIAA filter (for vinyl) and adjust the relative levels of the tracks (normalising) - nothing hard in that.

I'm sorry if I have gone on a bit - the main point is that without competent musicians(a subjective factor) and technical competence (an objective factor) you are going to end up with......... home recordings.

Sod this, I'm off to the pub.

Regards,

John
 
"I'm an advocat of flat recording at -3dB (FSD). "

Go on about that for a bit, if you wouldn't mind John. Thanks,

-Wes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top