Jump to content

Entry for September 2018's Guitar Of The Month is open!
ENTER HERE!

westhemann

recording equipment

Recommended Posts

not bad for someone that doesn't have the time to shop around, but i'd have to agree.. tad high..

my one peice of advise is....

i have those monitors, and they're pretty nice, not very powerfull, but they're clear, the only bad thing is that they don't have very much low end... i'd advise getting a bigger set of speakers so you can get more of the low end when you monitor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am looking for something that will record my amps sound realistically...it seems like that may do it.i would like to know about the quality of recording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you tried recording on your computer?

no i haven't....my computer is in the living room and is shared with the wife...i kind of need something to keep in my own space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I ask because $800 of that package is for the "Fostex VF160 16-track digital recorder with CD burner." You can buy a whole other computer with a cd burner and a good sound card (maybe a mixer too?) to dedicate for recording :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think with something like that, you are paying for it being made compact (like a laptop vs desk top), but then you are stuck with every component in the thing, instead of having seperate components of a "desk top" system. I have an article from a few years back about the band 'Garbage' where the one guy talks about the computers they used to record with and they were even dragging computers and monitors on the road into their hotel rooms to write songs on, and I think they even made their album with the same stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think recording on a PC should be considered. You can probably ask AlexVDL or tsl60200 for pointers :D. Hmm... Vinnie Moore also comes to mind:

http://www.vinniemoore.com/gear.html

there he uses Steinberg Nuendo. I like his isolation closet for his cabinets with the anechoic foam :D.

Edit: again too slow... ditto what soapbarstrat said B).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vinnie started out on a roland portable recording station though :D till he figured out what he wanted out of a setup....

using pc's is good... (except the windows factor) but i find all in one's alot better... mainly cause of the built in effects that are included... which are great when a song idea hits you at 3am.... and cause i've been less then successfull, with the art of mic'ing to recreate the sound my ears hear....

you can get a decent workstation for 500$ now adays.... do you really need 16 tracks?? 8 does me fine...

as for recording quality, i'm kinda curious about that too, i think you want to look for something that's true 24 bit, 44khz or higher for the best capture sound?? or am i behind the times now?

this has always confused me though...

Sampling frequency: 44.1kHz

Quantization: 16-bit linear (non-compressed)

ADC 20bit 64-time oversampling Delta/Sigma

DAC 24bit 128-time oversampling Delta/Sigma

Frequency response 20Hz--20kHz

so is it 44 or 20khz? 16, 20 or 24 bit??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also recommend a computer. Depending on how many tracks you want to run at the same time, and what quality of microphones, etc., you want to run, you can get yourself set up for as little as $400 USD, including software.

I wouldn't get Nuendo, though-- it'll negate the relatively low cost of the computer, as it retails for $1,200 or so.

I'm a big advocate of Tracktion, which has only recently had its distribution rights acquired by Mackie. It is still programmed and maintained by its own company, Raw Material Software, where the one and only employee (Jules Storer) continually updates and refines the program, based on user feedback. No, I'm not a shill. :D

krazyderek:

That's pretty confusing to me, too... if I were to make an educated attempt, I'd say that it records audio at 16-bit 44.1kHz audio, which is CD quality, and IS in fact a little bit behind in the times, though still perfectly usable. It's what I use, actually, even though I have up to 24-bit 96kHz capability.

The 20 and 24 bits refer to the Digital-to-Audio conversion, which USUALLY matches with the sampling rate... so it's weird that there would be a difference... it's possible that the 'behind the scenes' work done by the machine is in 20/24 bit, and then dithered to 16-bit for local storage, so that recordings will take up less space on the drive, and so that it can be burned right to CD without further dithering. The END quality of the recording would be the 'same' in this case, but since there's number crunching done at higher bit depth, effects will sound a bit better in the end result than if the entire processing chain was strictly 16-bit.

The 'frequency response' usually refers to the audible range of a microphone, not the recording capability of the machine itself, so that's kind of weird that they'd include that spec. Does the machine come with a microphone? If not, the two things are still independent and I guess they might include it as a selling feature, even though that range isn't the widest-- the device may be 'sampling' at 44.1kHz, which is just the amount of data that streams back and forth, but within the audible range of 20Hz-20kHz.

Or in other words, one number refers to the amount of data being processed, and the other number refers to the range of sounds possible (20Hz is the lowest bass sound, 20kHz would be the highest sound possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes, If your looking to do just demo work and want the portability, then you should be ok. I started off with the Roland VS-880 when it came out and soon discovered while it was great for recording, I could never mix down the way I liked to hear it. I'd check to see if the Fostex has a way to run all your tracks in sync to a computer so that later on when you get more into computer recording you can bring the tracks over to any program you want. Why use Nuendo and pay 1,200 dollars for it? Simply because it's a workhorse. It can do anything I throw it. It's bundled with already great plug-in's. Nuendo Verb is killer. You can automate everything, effects, sends, volume, eq, etc. It's also not as hard to learn as some others, and the mixdown from it is in my opinion second to none for PC. There are others though that do a great job for a smaller price though. Cubase series is good from Steinberger also. Sonar has some killer features also. I'm not saying that the portable recorders aren't good, they are great if your gonna record something live, or want to record off site. Actually I like having both, since there is a place for each in what I do. But when it comes time to mixing down, that's when I got to have my computer. The main thing with a computer, you have such a big display to work with you can really see what's going on with your mix. You can really zoom in on the areas that need work and can take out parts that need taking care of. Also, you have such a great amount of plug-ins you can buy that will take your mix to the next level. These are the ones I would recommend anyone having. BBE Sonic Maximizer, Waves Bundle (especially the L1+ultramaximizer) , Antares Autotune, Antares Mic Modeling, Steinberger Freefilter, and Waves Restoration. I know they can set you back so good money, but if your serious about your recordings you'll want to get at least some of these great programs. I currently use Delta 1010 sound cards, which work great for me and aren't too expensive. If you already have a computer, why not try that free Pro Tools program, I haven't tried it, but they claim it's really good. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying an all-in-one recorder, since I think they do a good job as we'll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest to use the computer if the dude askin' was anyone but Wes.

I have some experience with the Fostex and I simply hate it and would not recommend it. I've heard very good things about the Roland VS series, but have personally no experience with that stand alone recorder.

I swear by Nuendo and SX, but understand it's too complicated for others who "just" want to record their guitar.

There's one thing to keep in mind though: getting a good and true recording of any source is just not good equipment. It takes experience and good ears.

You can get the best neumann, tube pre-amps, converters and recording system.. but if your mic placement, room acoustics sucks or recording settings are wrong, your sound will suck too.

I'd suggest to buy a Shure SM57 mic with a cheap mixer and an easy to understand stand-alone recorder.

Wes, I don't know much about the several stand alone recorders and how they compare to eachother.

Another suggestion is to buy a used cassette based 8-track unit from Tascam. We're in the digital age now and I bet those 488 cassette recorders can be had really cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also recommend a computer. Depending on how many tracks you want to run at the same time, and what quality of microphones, etc., you want to run, you can get yourself set up for as little as $400 USD, including software.

I wouldn't get Nuendo, though-- it'll negate the relatively low cost of the computer, as it retails for $1,200 or so.

That's the downside to computers: the programs usually run around $500 or so, and by the time you're done, you're paying as much, if not more than for that Fostex. They can do much more, the question is whether or not you're willing to drop that kind of scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take your word for it, but you haven't tried Tracktion yet. It's actually easier to use than my Portastudio 244. If you're not all that technically inclined, it's as easy as plugging in your guitar and pressing 'record'. The effects chain isn't a bunch of drop down menus, you just drag your effects to an area that you can think of as a 'pedalboard' if you want.

Pretty easy stuff.

Of course, it's scalable to be as complicated as you want it to be, too, but for basic recordings, you don't really have to do much except press 'record' and drop in a few free quality plugins (these days, free does not equal crappy quality).

The difference is that some people still like to have a 'recorder'-looking device in front of them. The tactile experience is hard to ignore, which is why I will continue to read paper books. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is it 44 or 20khz?

In order to accurately digitize a waveform, the sampling rate has to be at least twice the frequency of the waveform. Since the highest audio frequency is 20kHz, the sampling is done at 44.1kHz which is a bit more than double.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok..two reccomendations

1... boss br532 - can't say enough good things about this tiny box of tricks, i've recorded a lot of my coursework on this baby

2... have you checked out behringer mixing desks/recording equipment etc?

an if you want faithful reproduction, then you'll be wanting shure mics all the way, imo nothing better and they are just great, although a tad pricey , but you pay for what you get - and thats quality (boy do i sound like a used car salesman :D)

simple mic test is the handclap test - record clapping and then playback and see how realistic it sounds..my setup at school has amazing results

btw - that kit that you're looking at is incredibley complex...took me an hour to get two guitar tracks and some vocals down on one B)

-dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is it 44 or 20khz?

In order to accurately digitize a waveform, the sampling rate has to be at least twice the frequency of the waveform. Since the highest audio frequency is 20kHz, the sampling is done at 44.1kHz which is a bit more than double.

get this,

one of my lectures recently told us of a possible move to a new cd recording standard of 48khz sampling rate,apparently some ppl can hear the difference...

have you heard anything of this , or is it just speculation?

john.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one of my lectures recently told us of a possible move to a new cd recording standard of 48khz sampling rate,apparently some ppl can hear the difference...

have you heard anything of this , or is it just speculation?

john.

There's even a 96kHz 24bit standard on DVD-Audio but I'm not aware of any blind A-B tests that compare the different formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i went with the computer recording,after much advice from coen and others.apparently that is the best way

What did you get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×