Recording drums with 4-track: how to set up & get starte

[the_lauris]

I am interested in getting some advice about how to record drums.

I own a 4-track MKIII Portastudio, and I spent most of the summer learning how to record with it by recording my band's acoustic EP, which consisted of only acoustic guitars and vocals. However, my band is looking to go electric soon and start playing with a drummer. Our creative process is very much intertwined with us recording to cassette using 4-track, so we would like to continue that even with a drummer.

First off, I have no idea about how to attain good mic placement/sound with drums, so I would definitely appreciate some advice about that.

The second question I have is, what are some strategies for maximizing how you use your tracks? My original idea was to have 4 mics on the drum set run into a 4-channel mixer, and run that mixer into Track 1, and then do guitars and vocals on the remaining three tracks. This way the drums would never have to get bounced together (although the rhythm guitar tracks might, depending upon how many layers we would want to do). Is this a legitimate way to do this, or are there better strategies? What would be the pitfalls of setting up this way?

Third, what kind of mics should I be using for different parts of the drum kit?

The last question I have is, does anyone know of a 4-channel mixer that has 4 XLR inputs? Most of the small, simple mixers I have looked at only have 1/4" inputs. (In theory I could just use XLR to 1/4" adapters, but will that adversely affect the sound?) Most of the mixers I have seen with 4 XLR inputs have a lot of extra features I don't want or need, and they also often rival the Portastudio in size. I'm looking for something really compact and simple. Any suggestions?

Any advice the Tape Ops community could give would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

[Gregg Juke]

Hi,

Your drum recording method is perfectly legitimate and will work fine, provided you practice a lot at getting good live/on-the-fly drum mixes, you don't mind being stuck with whatever relative volumes you record each piece at, and you are OK with mono drums (no toms or cymbals or kick and snare in stereo; if you want to move the drums off center to make room for lead vocals, they will _all_ go off center, like an old Beatles record).

LOTs of drum-miking advice all over this site and many others; just check YouTube for "Glyn Johns" and "Recorderman Method" for a few simple/minimalistic drum miking schemes.

The problem with today's smaller mixers is that they usually don't have enough discrete channels/inputs, and if you get a small mixer with one or two XLR inputs, and try to use adaptors for the others, you won't have the microphone pre-amps that you'll need on the other two channels. One way around this might be getting a couple of smaller ART pre-amps to put in the input chain before your mixer... about $40 each with a real Chinese tube inside!

GJ

[the_lauris]

Yeah, I figured that the relative volumes of the drum parts would be pretty much fixed, and they'd all be bussed to one side... that's the problem with that method that I would like to avoid because having the drums in mono might be kinda crappy.

The other option I've thought about is recording different parts of the drums on tracks 1 and 2, and then bouncing them to another track. Would this make them come out in mono as well? Like, if I recorded drums on track 1 bussed left and on track 2 bussed right, and then bounced them to track 1, would they all come out bussed left? Or would they retain their original sound?

[Gregg Juke]

One track = Mono.

One channel on some newer mixers can be a stereo channel, and the magic of digital computer recording allows for "stereo tracks," but in the analog world, one track or channel equals mono.

GJ

[Cyan421]

You could try just using spaced pair on the whole band. Put the drums in the middle of the room amps on the sides. This works well for quick demos, with decent condenser mics. Not sure how well it word work with dynamics into a portastudio.

I just got a 16 channel mackie used from my local guitarcenter for $169. You could easily get a good stereo drum mix going that way. Then overdub guitars and vocals at the same time get a nice stereo set of those. IDK 4 tracks is not much to work with these days. You gotta be REALLY creative in the recording process.

Once you have your drums on only one channel you are stuck in mono. Unless you want your drums on one side and guitars on the other.

[the_lauris]

Haha, that's why I decided to go with 4-track in the first place... I figured if I was going to learn the recording process, I might as well learn the hard way first, then the easier (yet more complicated?) way later.

I wonder if I tracked half the drums and one guitar on the "left" side and the other half of the drums and one guitar on the "right" side, if that would make any sense? I'd still have two tracks (one "left" and one "right") for guitar and vocal overdubs. Do people do this?

Also, in mixdown, couldn't I just buss the drums super close to center so they're not coming in hard left or right? Would that take some of the "mono-ness" out of it?

One thought that has popped into my head through this discussion is, does having the drums in mono sound that awful? I feel like it might sound kinda crappy, but since I've never done this before, I don't really know. Might as well try it and see what happens, and if we're not happy, we can always come up with a different way.

Whenever I've recorded with bands (in other people's studios), my bands have always done all the basic tracks (drums, bass, rhythm guitar) at one time, with everybody playing together, to get that organic "there's a band playing in the room" sound. I definitely don't want to record everything separately, and I feel like having the other instruments as scratch tracks and re-adding them later would ruin the sound I'm trying to get. So doing something like that would definitely be out... if I had to have drums in mono to record the full-band way, I guess I'd take that over struggling with tracking all the instruments separately...

[Gregg Juke]

Hi again,

Hey, one thing you've gotta get; mono is mono, and one track = mono. Nothing will undo the mono-ness of a mono track, or make it somehow "less" mono...

Also, radical panning solutions probably won't be what you're after. BTW, it is "panning," not "bussing."

So, if you want to track live, that kind of makes things easier, in a way. Put up a stereo mike and capture the band in the room, or get that 16-channel mixer and multi-mike everything up, and mix everything in a way that sounds good to you as a "live band" in a room (using your stereo field), and then track the basic beds in stereo. When those takes are done, you have two channels left to overdub lead vocals and some harmonies, or lead vocals and guitar/keyboard solos. You'll definitely want volume and panning control over lead vocals and solos, so you don't want to lock them into the initial bed tracks or bounce them down to a specific place; you'll want something to "mix" at mixdown.

You don't want to pan drums center, or anything else really all the way center, because your lead vocal should be there. But "off-center" doesn't have to be really radical, either; just a slight bump will do it.

There's nothing inherently wrong with mono drums... Lots of classic records were made that way. Mostly old records made back in the 60's, when 4-track recording was the pinnacle of contemporary cutting-edge technology! It's just that modern audiences are used to stereo drums, and the rooms those classic records were made in were optimized for recording a live band playing together in a room, and 4-tracks is going to limit you one way or the other (or many ways). As long as you're good with that, and you understand the technical and sonic limitations of 4-track cassette recording, you're good to go and you'll find the solutions you need. I'd recommend a LOT of pre-production, in the form of rehearsing the heck out of the tunes, and in really listening to the records in your genre that you are influenced by and want to emulate, and make sure that the sound you want is feasible with a 4-track. Just keep your expectations realistic.

GJ

[the_lauris]

When you say, "Put up a stereo mike and capture the band in the room," what do you mean by a stereo mike? I've used Shure SM57s to record the acoustic demo/EP I made this summer, and I just bought 3 more mics used from a guy I know who has a studio, in preparation for recording full band. So all the mics I have are dynamic mics, but I don't know if that makes them "stereo" or not.

At this point using a separate mixer seems like a good idea, but one thing has me confused. If I record everything (except guitar solos and vocals) at once using a 16-track mixer in stereo, but still run it into my 4-track, would I have to use two separate tracks on the 4-track? For instance, I would have to set my Portastudio to record onto two tracks, one panned left and one panned right. This would leave, as you said, two tracks to use for vocals and guitar solos, while still retaining the "stereo-ness" from the mixer.

I know what you're saying about the technical and sonic limitations of 4-track recording. I'm interested in making recordings that sound like something between early 90's indie rock albums (Guided by Voices, Superchunk, that kind of stuff) and 60's garage rock. Even with what I've recorded so far, I understand that although 4 tracks can be limiting, it has also made me "use my noodle" a little more (and with no punch-ins or editing magic available to me, it made my band get really tight).

By the way, thanks so much for the advice. I know I have a lot to learn and every tip helps!

[witchfeet]

If you are going for a GBV sound (pre UTBUTS) then I think mono drums will be fine. I'd just mix down all the drums to Track 1, guitars on track 2, bass on track 3, and leave track 4 for vocal overdubs. Keep it simple. At least this way you have some control of levels for each instrument when it comes time for mixdown.

BTW, if you want that Lennon-esque delay that Pollard has on his vocals sometimes try running vocals through an analog delay guitar pedal like a memory man. I'd save it for mixdown so you can tweak it until it sounds right.

There are some rack mixers that have preamps in them that you can get sort of cheap. Maybe an old Altec Lansing or something. Plus it'll have preamps in it that you will still use later on when you upgrade to a reel to reel or whatever. They aren't too heavy. You could put it in a rack flight case if you want portability.

[witchfeet]

When you say, "Put up a stereo mike and capture the band in the room," what do you mean by a stereo mike? I've used Shure SM57s to record the acoustic demo/EP I made this summer, and I just bought 3 more mics used from a guy I know who has a studio, in preparation for recording full band. So all the mics I have are dynamic mics, but I don't know if that makes them "stereo" or not.

At this point using a separate mixer seems like a good idea, but one thing has me confused. If I record everything (except guitar solos and vocals) at once using a 16-track mixer in stereo, but still run it into my 4-track, would I have to use two separate tracks on the 4-track? For instance, I would have to set my Portastudio to record onto two tracks, one panned left and one panned right. This would leave, as you said, two tracks to use for vocals and guitar solos, while still retaining the "stereo-ness" from the mixer.

I know what you're saying about the technical and sonic limitations of 4-track recording. I'm interested in making recordings that sound like something between early 90's indie rock albums (Guided by Voices, Superchunk, that kind of stuff) and 60's garage rock. Even with what I've recorded so far, I understand that although 4 tracks can be limiting, it has also made me "use my noodle" a little more (and with no punch-ins or editing magic available to me, it made my band get really tight).

By the way, thanks so much for the advice. I know I have a lot to learn and every tip helps!

Also, I think you may be misunderstanding mono vs stereo in analog recording. Each track is just a recorded sound. When you mix you can pan each track either left, right, in the middle, or anywhere in between. So, in order to have something have different elements in the left and right channel (like drums where you might have one overhead mic going left and one right), you need to record on two tracks. Then when you mix you choose how hard that recorded sound is sent left or right.

Panning is something you do AFTER it's recorded during mix down.

So, to answer your question. If you run all your stuff into a 16 channel mixer and send the left bus and the right bus to individual tracks in the 4-track, then yes you only have 2 left. Or, you could use the mixer to send everything straight up the middle, and then just take either the left or right channel out of the stereo bus into one track on the 4-track, leaving you with 3 tracks (this would be mono). It wouldn't matter which one (L or R) you sent, because they would be identical since you sent everything equally to each side in the mixer.

Make sense?

[ashcat_lt]

There is no such thing as a "stereo mic".*

It takes two speakers to simulate stereo, and you need one mic to "drive" each of those speakers.

Some folks do build things which they label "stereo microphones", but these are really just two mics in one case. They usually have a special cable which splits out to two seperate mic pres which you will need to record to two seperate tracks to achieve stereo.

Any pair of mics can be used. We usually want them as equally matched as possible for this kind of application. I'd tend to want them to be relatively flat. I think most would prefer condensers. If you really want lo-fi you could probably get something with a pair of 57s.



*Somebody might have one in a lab somewhere, but for most practical purposes...

[Gregg Juke]

Two tracks, with appropriate stereo panning (some elements right, some elements left, some elements center) = stereo.

I wouldn't buy a big pre-amp to use with a four track cassette, unless you're really serious about changing formats soon. Otherwise, what WF said, except:

>>>>Panning is something you do AFTER it's recorded during mix down.<<<<

Maybe, yes. Unless you're recording direct to stereo (a simple two-track recording), in which you would pre-pan everything as you record. Which was what I was suggesting as a simple solution to a complicated multi-instrumental live band situation. But the simple 4-track scheme WF suggested would be fine too. Like I said, nothing inherently wrong with mono drums, especially if you're leaning towards a 60's/garage rock sound.

By the way, they make stereo mikes, but the output still needs two-channels (to make it stereo; left and right). Otherwise, you need two mikes and two channels.

GJ

[the_lauris]

Looks like using the mixer and two channels on the 4-track seems like the best thing for what I'm looking to do. I might also try doing drums in mono to see if I like the sound, and then if I'm not into the sound, I'll look into getting a mixer. I want the sound to be "full"... I don't want the drums to sound flat and lifeless, yet I want them to retain the grittiness of low-fi indie. I'll have to explore these two options and see what I like best!

[Cyan421]

When you say, "Put up a stereo mike and capture the band in the room," what do you mean by a stereo mike?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stereo+miking+techniques+

[Gregg Juke]

>>>>Some folks do build things which they label "stereo microphones", but these are really just two mics in one case. They usually have a special cable which splits out to two seperate mic pres which you will need to record to two seperate tracks to achieve stereo.<<<<

Yeah, that's what I meant. I thought that was fairly clear. We have one of those "stereo mikes that's not really a stereo mike." It's by Rode, and they call it (wait for it).................... The Rode Stereo Microphone.


Re: Cyan421-- That was funny dude. Kind of what I was thinking, but I'm so over-tired that you made me almost pee my pants.

GJ