Artist looking to begin recording.
 

Hello all. I have written several songs. I have recorded them using a voice recorder, and edited them in Audacity. As you can imagine, they sound terrible like this. I want to try and get a more professional sounding recording, something I could be really proud to show off, and maybe even sell. However, it does not have to be perfect. I play guitar, bass, and sing.

So, I have three questions for you all. First, what is a good but fairly cheap program for recording, mixing, and editing my music? Second, what is a good microphone for recording clean singing, bass, and guitar playing? Should I even use a mic for my bass and guitar, or should I record those directly into my computer?

If it helps you, my actual guitar/bass equipment is all high quality, with a Gibson Flying V, Spector Bass, and Boss ME-70 all in my arsenal.

Thank you for any help you can give.

Arrgg, Freebase Dali should appear here soon and give you kick-ass advice, but I'm gonna try my hand here. I personally prefer a 4-track over pro-tools or logic for the reason that it's easy to hook up and record on the fly. So, because I know Freebase is going to give you a manual on the digital route, I'll go ahead and give the analog alternative.

You can normally get your hands on a 4-track for about 3 to 5 hundred dollars. I prefer Tascam over most brands, but only because the Beatles used a custom version of the model that I own.

Microphone-wise, you should be fine with SM58s, but there are certainly other, better, alternatives. I'm tryin' to think of a specific mic that ranges around 100. x( urg, anyways, if you plan on recording drums, make sure you pick up two mics and normal and overhead stands for them. You'd normally place one overhead and one in between the snare and crash.

Make sure you stock up on quarter inch and mic cables. Those are priceless when it comes to recording. Don't forget the metrenome and wrap around headphones (with extensions).

You should also look into getting a cheap mixer or audio interface whether your working digitally or not. They're both easy to come by and niether are too expensive (though I did say cheap mixer--you really only need two channels)

I will say though: NEVER RECORD A GUITAR OR BASS DIRECTLY INTO THE COMPUTER. Mic the amp. When you record into the computer, the guitar will most likely have a heavy bit sound attached to it. I haven't heard a single computer that can record guitars directly without destroying the tone. The same is true with the 4 track. You should mic the amp instead of plugging in directly.

peace,
-nick

Seems like you've got it handled, Nick.
Go ahead and give him a run-down on his digital options. I really don't feel like typing right now.

Hey, thanks for the quick advice. I took a look at some multitrack recorders, and found the Tascam 004. I can't link to it, as my post count is too low, but it is the brand you mentioned, and is only $200. I researched reviews of it, and people seem to like it. It claims to be fully featured, but I am no expert in this field.

Yudansha,
What's your price-range?

Let me know and I can make some recommendations for a digital solution (which will be more cost effective, and more scalable than a purely hardware-based solution).

I would prefer to stay around $300, but I could go slightly higher if it would make a big difference.

Presonus Audiobox USB 2x2 ($149.95)
Product description on Musician's Friend

This is the audio interface you'll need in order to record your instruments into your music program either via microphone or direct in. The sugar on top is that it comes with Cubase LE 4, which you can use to record with and edit/mix/master your audio.
Before you decide to buy a different software program, give the free one included with the audio interface a try. It may end up meeting your needs and eliminating the need to spend more money on something else.

So that takes care of both your hardware and software requirements.

Peripheral equipment

Microphones
For miking a guitar or bass amp, your best bet is a Shure SM57, which is an industry standard. For vocals, I've found that you get excellent results with a Large Diaphragm Condenser.

Condenser microphone:
MXL 990 ($69.99)
I wouldn't use this on your instruments unless you're using it as a room ambiance mic in conjunction with your instrument mic.
This should be your main vocal microphone. I guarantee you'll be impressed. (invest in a pop filter, because condensers REALLY pick up plosives. You can get a pop filter at Musiciansfriend.com for a few bucks.)

Instrument microphone:
If you don't want to shell out the 99 bones for a single 57, here's an alternative:
EV Cobalt cO4 ($69.99 - buy one get one free!)
I just found out about this microphone and although you'd expect it to be a throwaway, there are good reviews on it.
Ultimately, you'd have to do your own tests to make your own assumptions, but it's not too big of a purchase deal when you factor in the return policy.
Having two instrument microphones also opens up stereo miking possibilities.

Considerations:
So far, that's all the main items and you total out to: $289.93
Still in the green, you have enough money to buy a couple microphone cables, a pop filter, and whatever else you decide.

If you have any questions regarding the recommendations or the general implementation of them, please do not hesitate to ask.

Cool, thanks for all the help guys. I appreciate it.

I pretty much second the audio interface approach above, but regards microphones I'm gonna have to disagree (sorry freebase). If you're just putting together a basic home rig, I'd just get one decent large diaphragm condensor microphone, and forget about getting a dynamic mic.

Spend the extra money on a Condensor. Condensors can be more delicate, so don't crank your guitar amp and put it against the grille. Six inches to a foot or so should be fine so long as you're not turning it up until the windows rattle.

Dynamic mics can handle much higher sound pressure levels, so they're used for close-mic'ing snare drums and loud guitar amplifiers. The thing most people don't realise is that to get the full frequency range out of the microphone you have to have it loud. Real loud. If you don't, you don't get a very good high frequency response, so the resulting recording always sounds dull.

Condensor microphones capture a much more accurate, detailed 'picture' of the sound, and are much better at low volumes, and they can handle much higher volumes than people expect. So most home recordists are better served by condensor microphones. Spend more than $69 dollars too.

Guitar amplifiers sound far better and articulate both the guitar and the amp's characteristics at higher volumes. That much isn't up for debate.
That said, using a condenser is not a fantastic idea.

The problem when recording electric guitar with a condenser (and I've done it before) is the pickup pattern on the condenser and its tendency to catch a lot of the room acoustics.
That may be a desirable quality if you're going for that specific effect and you have a great sounding room, I.E. recording a solo acoustic guitar, but if not, the recording is going to be problematic specifically in the mixing stage in respect to element isolation and frequency occupation. If you're recording all your instruments with a condenser, you're going to have a very mushy sounding mix.

While a dynamic microphone may not have as wide of a frequency response as a condenser, any person with experience mixing knows that guitars generally get a lot of the low frequencies hi-passed, and get some cut in the highs. It's a standard example of creating a frequency space for each element to "live" in. Mixing 101.
So unless it's just a solo guitar in the mix, no knowledgeable mixing engineer is going leave a wide freq response all the way from 30hz to 20k...

Dynamic microphones are excellent in facilitating the DESIRED qualities of high spl instrument sources.
It's quite possibly the reason they're called instrument microphones and why they're by far the standard for recording electric guitar, bass, and drums, across the board in any professional recording studio.

By the way, I can vouch for the MXL 990. I own one. As far as the two alternate dynamics, he's going to have to test it on his own if he decides to get them. But the SM57's, I own 6 of them and I can vouch for them as well.
I've been recording and mixing since 99', so I'm pretty confident that my advice isn't misinforming the gentleman who's asking.

I very much agree that guitar amps sound better at high volumes (my girlfriend doesn't though), but at small-room, home studio levels dynamic mics just capture a dull sound. SM57s don't start to sound good until you're at a volume level that's just unrealistic at home. I also think you're underestimating the SPLs condensors can actually handle.

Most condensors have a cardioid pickup pattern. So does an SM57. Some condensors have omni, hypercardioid or figure of eight pickup patterns, some have a few which can be changed with a switch. Maybe you had one of these freebase? An omni could certainly cause the problems you've experienced. Cardioid mics are the best choice for most situations, thats why most microphones (dynamic or condensor) are cardioid.

This isn't true. I don't think Yudansha is going to be recording in a particularly big room (am I wrong?) so it isn't likely to have problematic reverberation characteristics (although standing waves might be an issue when recording Bass, whatever the microphone). Isolation won't be a problem unless he's going to be recording more than one instrument simultaneously.

You aren't going to get a mushy sounding mix if you record all your instruments with a condensor. If you have two instruments occupying the same frequency range, pan them before you start EQ'ing them. If they're still causing you a problem, EQ them gradually, remembering to cut frequencies rather than boost them. This is another reason not to use a dynamic mic in this setting: you can easily cut what frequencies you don't want from the condensor's signal, you can't easily boost what's missing from the dynamic mic's signal

High passing a signal doesn't cut the highs. It leaves them in, i.e. lets them pass

Pro-studios can crank amps up to make the dynamic mics pick up really well. In the studio I use a combination of SM57s and AKG C414s on guitar cabs. The 57s catch the direct sound very close up, and they're very good at it. The C414 condensor is at a little distance and captures a more accurate detailed image of the sound. At home I just use an AKG Perception 200, which isn't as good as the C414, but it cost less so I'm not complaining. There's no point using a dynamic mic in addition to it because the frequency response isn't good enough at safe volumes in smaller rooms (and by small rooms I mean the kind people have in their houses).

I've never really been impressed by MXL microphones, but a lot of people don't really like AKG and I do so it's probably a matter of taste. SM57s sound great used right i.e. on very loud sound sources in studios, and for live sound reinforcement, but getting good results from them isn't practical at home.

A dynamic mic could be useful to Yudansha, but a condensor would be a far better all-rounder, and buying one decent condensor as opposed to one cheap one and two cheap dynamic mics just makes better sense.

Respectfully, the length of time you've been doing something doesn't vouch for your skill at it. If you could let us listen to some recordings you've made, that would. Also the last post you made on this thread did contain some misinformation, as I've pointed out.

Just so you all know, I'd most likely be recording in a small to mid size room at a medium level.

lol.. you should hear how loud I crank my half cab at home. I think the OP is in the best position to decide what is or isn't unrealistic in his situation. You could be right.. Maybe the guy can't even go past 2 without the police being called.

Incorrect choice of words on my part. I mean general sensitivity and the LDC's tendency to pick up a LOT more room noise than a dynamic.

Bad sounding rooms don't have to be large. Enough of the room characteristics are easily heard when recording with LDCs at any acceptable recording volume. Obviously, if his room is treated (which I'm thinking is not), that wouldn't be an issue.

Or you can get the instrument right in the EQ department prior to tracking, and using crafty positioning of a dynamic can go a long way to getting the sound so that you don't need to correct errors in the mixing stage. Another thing to consider is that because of the sensitivity of condensers, any background noise multiplied by all the instruments tracked is going to be a problem. Especially if you plan on compressing. Obviously, steps can be taken to eliminate that problem, but it is home recording after all. I'm only assuming the OP probably isn't in an ideal recording environment. If his recording environment is less than ideal in terms of background noise, then recording at a low signal to noise ratio, as it would occur in a condenser setup and low source volume, there may to be issues.

I never said high passing cuts highs. I think you misunderstood what I typed. I said use a high pass [filter] to cut lows, and [in addition] also cut some highs [scoop it out however you like]


I say the best way to solve this is ask the OP how loud he will be able to record, because I know that correct positioning of a 57 and right up on the grill picks up plenty when the source is at a reasonable volume... and of course, it'd help to know what type and size of amp/cab he's recording. If he's miking a stack and tube head, then yea, not reasonable.

I wasn't aiming to validate the things I'm debating via how good my mixes may or may not subjectively sound. I just mean to say that I have done it plenty and have studied it plenty, I know the problems and solutions I've had in the past, and I know the theory behind them. I'm trying to be as non-subjective as possible with what I'm saying, but there's only so far you can go when methodologies contradict one another.

Ok, but I'd still stand by what I said originally.

My main problem with dynamic mics is that the frequency response isn't good enough at realistic domestic volumes, and whatever problems you can say condensors have (most of which I disagree with) I still think they're the right choice for pretty much all home recording applications.

In the studio, people don't use dynamic mics over compressors because of the problems you've stated. People use dynamic mics because they have a particular frequency response (at high SPLs) that 'colours' the sound in a way that they like. Engineers use condensors on everything except loud guitar cabs, snare drums, and close on the skin, or inside kick drums where they'd put dynamics. Everything else, the first choice will be a condensor. Probably a Neumann. Even on these things there would usually be a condensor at a distance in addition to the dynamic mic.

So if that doesn't convince you that your mixing problems with condensors are ficticious...

I would like to point out that condensor mics generally have lower self noise, compared with dynamic mics, so your noise floor is lower to start with. If you set your input gain correctly, i.e. so you're getting a nice hot signal, with the minimum amount of headroom you dare, you won't have noise problems.

I've only ever experienced noise problems using dynamic mics, and never really using condensors (except on a few occasions when I've had to record some really really quiet sounds; light switches, dripping water etc. for a film foley). You're always going to have noise in recording. It's unavoidable. But condensors suffer from noise problems less than dynamic mics.

Background noise isn't really that much of a problem in my experience. You just need to make sure that the sound source you want to record is significantly louder than the background noise (this is why quieter sounds are hard to record well). This is real easy with guitar cabs, and much easier when you're using a compressor as opposed to a dynamic.

If you're compressing to the point that noise is becoming a real problem, consider using a noise gate prior to compressing, or just not compressing so heavily. If you're having problems at all you're probably overusing your compressor anyway. Also, if you're compressing an electric guitar, you could use a compressor pedal before the amp. This way you won't need to compress everything as heavily in the mixing stage.

If you're just recording yourself, I'd advise that you try to consider compression as a kind of cheating. If you want to use it to make something sound 'punchier', fine but do it tastefully. If you want to correct uneven playing dynamics, go back and record it again. (Compression is so overused these days. Listen to some recent Rick Rubin productions, say Metallica's Death Magnetic and tell me honestly that all that compression sounds good.)

Sorry, I did misread what you said about high-passing.

Putting things in their own frequency bands isn't such a big deal if your song's well arranged. Try to write parts that occupy different frequency bands i.e. don't have two different instruments playing in the same range, unless you want them to sound as one. If parts are still interferring with one another, use the stereo spread, and pan them in different positions.

I couldn't turn my amp up loud enough at home to get a good signal through a dynamic mic. It's not really a case of worrying about someone calling the cops, it's more a case of I have to sit in the room with it, and in a domestic sized room an amp that loud will cause physical pain if you expose yourself to it for any length of time.

I just think condensors are much better tools for home recording. The recorded signal you get from them is always much closer to what you actually hear stood in the room with whatever instrument (than with a dynamic mic). At the end of the day, If you've got a great sounding guitar or whatever, this is what you want.

What type of music do you play?

Musicophile,

You ever see the actual waveform from a song in that Metallica album? It's absolutely absurd. I definitely try to stay away from over-compression on all fronts. Generally I'll use it slightly on a specific elements for the characteristics of it, and sometimes on a master bus for gel purposes.
I don't ordinarily ever find myself having to compress a distorted electric guitar, as the signal, post amp, is compressed enough already.

Only problems I have is compressing acoustic guitar when using a only condenser to record it. Even with minimal settings, the slightly raised noise is enough to get me bat crazy. I've had great success using two 57's, one near the hole and the other down the neck, utilizing proper spacing to eliminate phasing issues, panned about a quarter opposites, level adjustments / EQ where it's needed... and also including a condenser a distance away for "that" character, which would be mixed in low and ride up the middle with some Lexicon stereo reverb. :D

I do tend to want to layer elements and complicate textures, so I do realize that my methods may be impractical for a beginning home recording enthusiast.
Overall, I do think your suggestions would better benefit the specific needs of the OP.
I think I got a little carried away.

So do you record with software or hardware? What do you use?

If you live in pittsburgh I can get you a cheap studio deal.