|
Post by andys on Feb 12, 2009 15:16:01 GMT
Inspired by Nebraska I bought a Tascam/Teac Porta 144 and recorded thousands of hours of music on it. It was the tool I used to learn the art of recording. It got me good enough to go to the next stage - a real studio, which interrestingly isn't that much different! The demos' I recorded on the Teac got me my first first recording deal. I still have those recordings and although there is rather a lot of tape hiss, they sound great. The 144 was not a cheap machine by today's standards - I remember paying 500 quid for it. That was what we had, only we did demos, with two guitars, two vocals, bass, and a drummer who had a huge drumkit as well. Those demos got us loads of gigs, and sounded pretty good as well. Those old Teac machines were tough as old boots as well. The power supply packed up before the heads did. I guess I like simple stuff really. My dad got me into sound, because he collected (and still has them) old wind up gramophones, and even has an old phonograph. A lot of the recordings he has were recorded with one or two mikes, with any soloist stepping up to the mike. In those days they recorded not only full orchestras and arias, but pioneers of sound like Spike Jones. No overdubs there. Yet the sound on those records is great. I guess a bit of hiss on a recording doesnt bother me as much as it might others, 78 records have hiss built in! I too have thought about the computer route, but really to get down ideas, you need a dedicated computer. Its no good either getting some idea, or feeling inspired to record, and finding that someone else is using the machine. Also from what I have seen, so much of the software is still overcomplicated, and menu and mouse driven. I like on/off record/play and pause. The phonograph he has is amazing, it dates from the early 1900s, it plays cylinders, and he even has a few blank cylinders that you can record yourself onto, by playing/singing down the horn. Just like they originally did. He also has a few "travel gramophones" designed to be carried on the running boards of old cars. Portable sounds, long before the iPod!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2009 22:03:00 GMT
Michael
No not offended, but the digital way is not always about cheap dross toys.
The Boss I use was the only way I ever got a clean, non wobbly recording of an acoustic guitar when out of the studio. I tried a Tascan tape deck, Akai tape deck and a Tascan cassette deck with the claimed best of all 'Thats' tapes. Top E on the aged Fylde wobbled like jelly. Revox was always out of my range!
The Boss was bought 4-5 years ago for almost £500 and the first trial recording sounded fantastic: the CD it allowed me to make actually sounded like the guitar.
Recording on it is not a case of plugging in and making coffee while the machine does it all. There was a lot to learn and getting it right recording myself is an art form itself, while still playing and singing.
In a studio fast and wide tape is the thing...I've been recorded with it as guest with a Heavy Metal Band who wanted some acoustic guitar.
But for the poor early retired songwriter who wants to have a record at least of his work should the bus come along to run him over, a good way of recording the thin sound of an acoustic guitar is going to be very welcome. The point is NOT that it is tape or digital hard disk or memory card, the point is that it was affordable and it works!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Feb 13, 2009 9:21:29 GMT
Barry, I totally agree with you about the recording system that you use for your purposes. A digital all-in-one mini-studio is by far the most compact, portable, and affordable clean clear sounding recording system that you use.
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Gerry C on Feb 13, 2009 11:52:07 GMT
OK, here's my five penn'orth. I made my first ever recordings when I was at college on a Grundig tape recorder I borrowed from the modern languages department: 1/4 inch tape, an unknown mic... I thought it sounded OK - until I played it again about five years later! Many years later I had a long term loan of a Tascam Portastudio from a mate. I borrowed a Shure SM 57 and used metal cassettes, mastering them to stereo on a Pioneer tape deck in my school's music department. Inspired by this thread I dug one out yesterday and was actually quite impressed by the quality of the recording, if not the playing and (still more) the singing... These days I use a Boss BR-532 for recording, with an SM-57 and an MXL-220 condenser mic through my Phonics mixer. I record in my attic and have no effects whatever on the Boss. I edit the recordings on Cubase SE 3: editing usually consists of chopping off the bits at the start and finish where I'm getting comfy, fading out etc. I'll add a fade at the end. The only effects I've ever added have been a bit of reverb but even that can be too much as the attic has its own natural sound. If I'm recording just voice and guitar I usually do just that. If I want to make a recording where I want everything just so I'll record guitar first then vox. Only if I'm over dubbing (eg a second guitar, harmonica, mandolin, harmony vox) will I use a click track (usually a drum track from my keyboard) which is later ditched. I don't edit in the sense of cutting and pasting: if the 'take' is not right - bum notes or garbled lyrics - I ditch it and start over until I get it right all the way through. Once I recorded some stuff in my guestroom using the exact same kit and technique and it sounded completely different thanks to the different shape of the room, furnishings etc. I'd love to use big tape if I could afford it! A pal of mine has a small studio with tape machine and the two tracks I recorded there sound so much more alive than stuff I've done at home. Cheerily, Gerry C
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2009 16:16:45 GMT
Gerry
We do the same sort of thing. I have a foot switch that lets me start and stop playing (and recording). I can alter the EQ a bit and add chorus and reverb.
I use an SM57 or DI for the guitar and SM58 for the voice. I have no other effects or boxes. If a track goes wrong I stop and do it again.
When I get round to recording the Buskers I'll try the SM57 and see if it's better straight into the deck or through my Marshall Acoustic amp.
It's enough for me, as recording is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Best wishes,
Barry
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Feb 15, 2009 1:31:10 GMT
I find this thread compelling despite the fact that it is going over old ground. It seems to me that the division between the two camps will always be unresolved all the time that we are not comparing each approach using a level playing field. All other things being equal, as they say.
I would only be prepared to make what ultimately can only be a subjective response after excluding all other variables than the recording medium. That would of course have to include unifying the playback method. It would need to be possible to have an (unbiased) engineer who was acknowledged to be an expert in both media, even the playback method would need to be standardised.
In such a hypothetical world, I would be ready to assess which medium afforded the best result. I would then be happy that I felt qualified to make a statement in a field that I am unqualified to enter at present.
I value advice from acknowledged experts in their field, but accepting statements without reservation borders on religion for me and I'm sorry but I won't do religion. I still remember how sparkling and alive Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" sounded to me back in the 1970s. That was the first (non-classical) album released in D-D-D and played back on my turntable (then) sounded wonderful compared with what I had been listening to. I could spin the vinyl now and A-B it with the CD but that would not contribute to the question as to whether analogue or digital capture is better would it? Since I have been listening to CDs, I have heard many tiny parts of recordings that I never heard before when listening to the vinyl. I accept that this was probably down to the equipment used for playback but for me the jury's still out.
I respectfully suggest that someone could (with profit) set up both a digital recording medium and an analogue one and record to both media simultaneously. OK, I know that there would be a finite difference in the mic positions, but I reckon that this would be more than compensated for by giving us something concrete to work on. It would not be that much of an additional burden really and you know what, I have a sneaking hunch that the analogue camp might turn out to be vindicated even though I don't like to admit it.....
Please someone tell me if I have missed the point,
Stevie.
|
|
|
Post by blueshome on Feb 15, 2009 11:01:37 GMT
set up both a digital recording medium and an analogue one and record to both media simultaneously
Done it! it's easy to do in the studio. Analogue sounds so much "nicer". (If you send a PM I'll happily give you details of the set up, and here I'll only say that the comparison was made using state of the art gear on both sides.)
I'll ask again, if digital sounds so great, why are the manufacturers all tspending a fortune on promoting that their gear sounds like analogue?
BTW re "Bop till You Drop". Mr.Cooder has been reported on many occasions as saying that the digital recording of this album was one of his big mistakes and he hates the sound. I have to agree when you compare it to earlier efforts whether played back on vinyl or cd.
|
|