Recording Devices for an Oddball

[Lily Slap]

For those of you who have read my posts, you know that I know practically nothing when it comes recording, so I'm on here for serious help (and you've all been so cool).

I am lost, trying to find a recording device that would suit me best. Please offer me your opinions so I know more of what's out there. Since the Korg recorder that I thought would be good for me will not be out until December (and yes, I received wise advice about new devices' hardrives and bugs 'til they mature), I've been scouring the Roland site, looking at the VS 1824, 2400, and 2480. But those things (as well as the Korgs) are packed with effects and stuff for multitracking, highly affected studio bands. While I would like to have these things on board for future experimenting (we all never know where are music creations can go, right?), my music is pretty cut-and-dry, rustic right now. I'm just looking for decent reverb and clarity -- you know, that magical "PING" sound in a brilliant recording.

To give you some background on me, so you know where to steer your advice (which I gobble up, appreciate, and research I'll have you know) --

I am a classically-trained organist, and most of my songs are for voice and organ or voice and piano. Kind of the bridge where Tori Amos meets Bach, and Bach administers the wedding of Tori and Danny Elfmann after which they have a succulent, toss-and-tumble, roll-and-gasp, knees-to-pudding, happiness-shaking, inner-worlds-quaking, we-love-therefore-we-are-one honeymoon which in 9 months time produces me.

Conceptually, my music is more live-performance based rather than multitracked, although I will be doing some of that for harpsichord lines, guitars, drums (kit and tribal skins), bass lines, background vocals, strings. However, there is so much nuance in my pieces that I'm wondering if cutting the strings right by my side while I'm on voice and organ must be done. Dunno ... much to think about there. I have a piece for string quartet and voice where I think a live performance-type of take is the only way to truly capture it. Metronome clicks are a sacrilege to me.

So I feel very lost in stores like guitar center where I'm always fumbling around with my words and don't even know what questions to ask (in fact, I'll share a funny story later in another thread). Computers scare me, but I am trying to be brave. Pro-tools frightens me. I took a class in Sonar, but it didn't seem to suit my purposes, and the teacher was all about the metronome clicks and lining up perfectly non-human measures (he's in a somewhat-techno group -- neat stuff I might even try sometime, but not what I'm looking for now). I asked about just using time instead of measure line-ups and he went off about how that's SO HARD to deal with and what a headache for the engineer. So I eventually stopped going to that class and just worked on my compositions, hoping that if I prepare prepare prepare the music itself, then eventually I will figure out how to record it. And then a friend told me about this site (thank you slumlord!).

OK, so there I arrrrrre.

What would you guide me toward? I want something that I can make a great (or at least decent) studio CD with and that I can also use to record live performances like at my house and clubs and cafes.

In comparing the Roland models, I really don't know what I would need. Do I really need all the stuff that's crammed into the VS 2480? Seeing as I'm kind of a bridge between classical and rock and folk .... well, what do classical and folk engineers use? Is a multitrack workstation not for me? What else is out there? Why do I feel so alone? ECHO -- oh - oh - oh ...

[theslumlord]

I don't think you're that odd

[SpockPicasso]

I love my Tascam 424 4-track cassette recorder. It's reliable, easy to use, and a great way to learn some basics. They're pretty cheap, and you can probably find one used.

This may not be exactly what you are looking for , since it sounds like you've been shopping for digital machines that will record more tracks. But a 4-track can still be useful after you outgrow it. I started recording on my computer to get more tracks and flexibility, but I still use the 424. It's got built-in mic pres and I use it as a mixing board going into my computer.

If you want to make cd's it pretty easy to mix down to a .wav or .aif in your computer and then burn a cd from that.

No built-in effects, so if you want reverb, you'll need to purchase an outboard unit. I think a lot of people dislike the Alesis stuff, but I really like my Nanoverb. And it was cheap!

Good luck!

-sp

[I'm Painting Again]

hi Lily,

there are many options for you to explore. I would place priority on getting a quality microphone, for me it seems that the mic has the most effect on the quality of my recordings. I would opt for a pair as to record in stereo, not vital but something i think enhances the listening experience of a recorded piece.

I think for the most part classical is recorded digitally but on very expensive machines not your PC or roland thing or anything like that. All the folk songs from the 50z and 60z i like had been done with tape. For organ and vocal songs i think you would do well with digital, like a macintosh with good quality analog to digital converters..($2000-8000) or a pro tape machine ($300-20,000)..its up to your heart and mind what approach to take and you can of course hybridize the two formats by recording on the tape and off the play heads into a DAW..

you could always invest in the studio time and not have to worry about equipment..you will have better results sooner this way..but if your hardcore interested in engineering your own stuff than more power to you its just gonna take longer to get the resuls you want..very best of luck to you, hope this helps some..i am on painkillers right now but i think im thinking ok..

[norton]

i've done time on both korg and roland recording gear. both are great but the roland stuff comes with a serious learning curve due to horrible manuals and incoherent technical writing/translation.

BUT roland does offer video manuals that are helpful... for an extra price.


if i were you i'd seriously check out the yamaha equivalents. they make great recording gear that's super easy to use and is supported by equally excellent manuals. and their new studio in a box stuff seems to have the most flexibility out there. (importing/exporting audio .wav files etc.) believe it or not, this will come in handy.

it might be nice for you to look for whatever box has the ability to hook up a larger visual monitor and a mouse. even if you're not going to do any serious audio editing... it'll make putting together a cd much easier.

you really can't go wrong anymore. but if you're not "into" computers then i'd stick with one of those boxes.

[Lily Slap]

slumy lord, you crack me up

[MoreSpaceEcho]

I asked about just using time instead of measure line-ups and he went off about how that's SO HARD to deal with and what a headache for the engineer. So I eventually stopped going to that class and just worked on my compositions...

good move. seriously.

i second the 424 suggestion. they're way cheaper than the digital thingys, and the learning curve is probably way easier to deal with. you'd probably be recording in a half hour. i just posted on another thread about being nostalgic for my old 4 track...sigh...

but...if you simply must have digital/more tracks, i really think a computer is a better way to go than one of the digi multitracks. if you already have one you can download the free version of protools and try that out. buy some cheap soundcard and a cd burner for $100 each and you're good to go. protools might be a bit frustrating to learn at first, but i bet no more so than the digi multitracks, and you can do a lot more with it.

hhhhmmmm, i just reread your post and noticed you wanna be able to record live shows with the thing, which makes a computer rather impractical...hhhmmmm...i still think it's a better idea. in my experience, recording your own shows is a lot of extra hassle. if i'm playing, i just want to worry about playing. i don't wanna have to deal with setting up the recorder and mics, getting levels, etc. perhaps i'm just really lazy. i'd also be wary of someone spilling beer on your $2000 recorder, or it getting knocked over...both of which have happened to everything i've ever brought to a show.

blah blah blah, i think my point is, if you're just getting started recording, go as simple as you can at first just to get the hang of it. if you just HAVE to spend a bunch of dough on something, buy one good mic and a good preamp for it.

scott

[red cross]

What's yer budget? Don't make the mistake alot of us have done and start out by buying a load of cheap junk. You'll only live to regret it, no kidding.

Get a couple of decent mics (AKG 414s sound like they would suit your kind of stuff, and you can get those for around $500 these days, also look into some of the cheap Beyer ribbon mics, and the excellent Sennheiser 441U, prob the best dynamic mic on the planet - can find em for around $300 used), a good multi-channel preamp (Syteks? $700-800 for four channels) and maybe one of those standalone Roland recorder/mixers. Once you're more familiar with what you're doing, you can upgrade from the Roland to either a DAW or a tape machine if you want, but at least those mics and preamps will always keep their value in your studio as you keep upgrading.

Just my 2 cents. Best of luck!

[psychicoctopus]

Conceptually, my music is more live-performance based rather than multitracked

I don't claim to be an authority, but...

Seems like multitrack recorders tempt us into close-micing instruments, multiple takes, and overuse of effects, which probably won't give your music the same reward as a good room recording. Two mics and a DAT or CD recorder. However, I'm guessing you dig the sound of close-mic'd vocals. That adds another mic, and puts you in multitrack land.

BUT, there are probably ways to use 2 tracks (i.e. DAT or CD) and minimal micing to capture everything you've got going on - vocals, piano, strings. If the room's right and the mics are in the right place, you'll get a classic sound. It's a more organic experience than fussing around with menus on computer or Roland VS screen - which distracts you from what matters most: putting the mics in the right place and performing well.

Once you've got the good stuff captured, have it mastered professionally (or quasi-professionally) and enjoy the results...

[Lily Slap]

hi Lily,


I think for the most part classical is recorded digitally but on very expensive machines not your PC or roland thing or anything like that. ..

What machines are these? I probably don't have the budget for these, but I'd like to know what they use. There are so many brilliant, "pingy" classical recordings out right now and I want to know how they capture it.

[Lily Slap]

what matters most: putting the mics in the right place and performing well....

Ah man, I so agree. That is my first priority. What good is a record button if the music is trash? I liked whoever said something about recording the Beatles on an answering machine...

But I am also trying to get smart here and understand what goes on with the recording side. Recording is a continuation of the music creation process, and I don't want to be a ding-a-ling in the studio. (I can't tell you all how liberating it was to finally understand this mysterious "phantom power." oooooh ... hoooooo!)

And to help in further squelching the ding-a-ling inside ...

Could someone please explain DAW and DAT to me ... ?

[mpedrummer]

At Jordan Hall in Boston, they record to ProTools through Prism converters, with DA88's running as a backup, just incase. Their recordings are nothing short of stunning. Of course, so's the room.

What do you have for equipment now? At the studio, we use a DAW for our main system, but our portable system is an Alesis HD24, which I must say I love. It's a harddisc recorder that pretends it's an ADAT. No software to learn, no crazy propriatary interface, just a good old-fashioned transport. It's generally the system of choice for visiting engineers, too, because they don't need to take the time to learn commands, etc. They can just dive right in, and we pull the files off through the ethernet port later, for editing and mixing in Nuendo.

For sound quality, I wouldn't say the Alesis is second to none, but it's second to few, especially for the price range.

If you already have a mixer, etc, this may be the best way to go for you. Really, even if you don't already have one, it still might be best. For portable recording, we use it with either a Yamaha 01v or a Mackie 1604, depending on how many channels we need, and if we can find either one. It has 24 analog inputs and outputs, plus 24 ADAT ins and outs. We sometimes use it as a front end for the DAW, since the main console only had 16 digital IO at the moment.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Welcome to TapeOp. No one's weird here, we're just engineers.

MPEDrummer

[I'm Painting Again]

DAW = digital audio workstation, i.e., a personal computer with the hard/software to record or a portable hardware unit that does the same.

DAT = digital audio tape or digital audio tape recorder

[1\2moog1\2man]

Not oddball, I have a roland 1680. I love this box, Its plug and play. You can make it sound as great or as ok as you like. Inside of a day I had a good working jist ofhow to use the machine. I have had this 1680 3 or 4 years and no bugs no problems. Just back up data.... So I think you should go for a old 1680 or the new 18 or the 24. Roland is great. people cant believe the sounds that can come out of the gosh darn things, man alive,good night. GOOD LUCK