Recording - what do people use ?

[fryer]

I want to start recording our practice sessions. Recorders seem to go from £100 up to £1000 +, and 8 tracks only record 2 tracks at a time. Looking for something to record 1 or 2, or 4 or more tracks at a time, and play them back and record more. Any ideas ?

[Eight]

[quote name='fryer' post='456081' date='Apr 7 2009, 08:18 AM']I want to start recording our practice sessions. Recorders seem to go from £100 up to £1000 +, and 8 tracks only record 2 tracks at a time. Looking for something to record 1 or 2, or 4 or more tracks at a time, and play them back and record more. Any ideas ?[/quote]
Very good laptop + high spec audio interface + good sequencer software.

Are you *sure* you need 4 simultaenous inputs? Having multiple tracks is great if you're editing, but unless you do that then for a practice session it seems like you're just adding complexity.

You could record it all as one track if you plugged everything in to a little mixer and balanced the levels there. Just means you couldn't make changes later. Even take the mixer's output to something basic like a minidisc recorder etc.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Eight

[dave_bass5]

I have no experience with ti but this seems just the ticket.

[url="http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/product/14418-boss-micro-br-digital-recorder.html"]http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/product/1441...l-recorder.html[/url]

If its just for recording a live rehearsal i would say its overkill but its pretty cheap and at least you do get the option of editing and changing the mix after recording.

EDIT: after reading a bit more it seems to only have one input so its not what you are looking for. Still looks good though.

Edited April 7, 2009 by dave_bass5

[neepheid]

I've only just started recording our practice sessions, and only for band personal reference. To that end (because I'm a stingy git) I've only been using a minidisc recorder and a single microphone placed roughly in the middle of us all. I was pleasantly surprised with the results, not perfect - vocals were a little distant thanks to the PA speakers being situated behind the drummer and there was occasional clipping, not due to volume (if anything I was rather conservative with the recording level) but probably dynamic range limitations - but good enough for reference/mistake highlighting purposes.

Can't help you with fancier stuff, sorry.

[cheddatom]

I use a fairly decent (great 5 years ago) PC with two delta 1010LT PCI soundcards. These have analogue inputs. I plug mics into a cheap-o pre-amp strip and the direct outputs from each pre-amp into each analogue input.

I've spent more money on mics, stands and cables than I have on the actual recording gear, and I can get amazing sounds.

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

This is how I record rehearsals: I don't need individual instrument tracks so I use a Zoom H4 with v2 firmware, 8GB SDHC card pair of Hi capacity 2000 NmHi batteries. Put the H4 in somewhere where it will pick everything up & just leave it running for the whole session. Once home, the single Wav file can be sliced into individual tracks in Adobe Soundbooth and a bit of mastering applied. Burn CDs/ convert & upload MP3s for band members. Very pleased with the sound quality.

[dave_bass5]

For gigs (we dont rehearse) i used to use a Minidisc recorder with a sony mic and that seemed to work well but recently i got a Edirol R-09Hr recorder that i strap to the singers mic stand. This works really well as it picks up a nice stereo spread and as his monitor is right by the stand it picks the vocals up very clearly. We get a very clean and clear recording and its been an eye opener fro the rest of the band to see just how bad we can sound.
Im sure the Zoom H2 will do just as well and its a lot cheaper. I went for the Edirol because its easier to use on stage as it has a remote.

Edited April 7, 2009 by dave_bass5

[BassMunkee]

Toshiba Satellite laptop - 2gb ram, 2ghz dual processor intel, Cakewalk Sonar Power Studio 660.

[Mcgiver69]

- Crappy computer ( got it of a mate who was about to take it to the tip)
- 80 gig hard drive
- 512 mb ram
- Ubuntu Studio (Jack kit, Aldour, Hydrogen, Rosegarden & Audacity)
- A couple of USB interfaces (Midi, USB to guitar)
- Zoom B2.1u
- Behringer Bass V-Amp

That's all I need and the results are great!

Total spent? £40 in USB interfaces.

[alexclaber]

Tascam 2488 Mk2:

[url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun07/articles/tascam2488mk2.htm"]http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun07/arti...scam2488mk2.htm[/url]

(I actually ordered a Mk1 version which was dead cheap due to being superseded but they mistakenly sent me the new model!)

Alex

[escholl]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='456393' date='Apr 7 2009, 01:51 PM']Tascam 2488 Mk2:

[url="http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun07/articles/tascam2488mk2.htm"]http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun07/arti...scam2488mk2.htm[/url]

(I actually ordered a Mk1 version which was dead cheap due to being superseded but they mistakenly sent me the new model!)

Alex[/quote]

how do you find that? i've got a similar thing but find it's easier to just take a laptop usually...hence i've never really used mine. but mine is a bit older than yours, i think.

In fact, i'm considering selling it, if the OP is interested.

[peted]

Another +1 for the Zoom H4. I use it as a scratch pad for recording rehearsals and it's great. Would replace it straight away if I needed to.

[Basszilla]

Fostex VF160ex is what I demo stuff through

[alexclaber]

[quote name='escholl' post='456450' date='Apr 7 2009, 02:32 PM']how do you find that? i've got a similar thing but find it's easier to just take a laptop usually...hence i've never really used mine. but mine is a bit older than yours, i think.

In fact, i'm considering selling it, if the OP is interested.[/quote]

I like it very much. If you know what you're doing you can definitely produce release quality material - the four track EP linked in my sig was done entirely on it bar final mastering. Drums and bass were tracked simultaneously and the unit is simple enough to use that it was then passed round the band for overdubs until the tracks were ready to mix down.

If you want to make high quality digital recordings it is essential be able to record at 24 bit IMO. Avoiding clipping with 16 bit involves throwing away too much resolution.

For our next recording we may track the drums onto 1/4 tape for squish and fatness - we've acquired a gigantic reel-to-reel Portastudio:



Alex

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='456544' date='Apr 7 2009, 04:26 PM']If you want to make high quality digital recordings it is essential be able to record at 24 bit IMO. Avoiding clipping with 16 bit involves throwing away too much resolution.



Alex[/quote]

Alex, i know your the man who knows sound inside out but i have to disagree with that comment.
Ive been recording for years at 16bit and its fine. 24bit is better yes and i understand your point about having as much information to start with but that doesn't mean 16bit is not "high quality". 16bit has been used for years and is easily good enough for what the OP is asking IME.

[cheddatom]

16Bit has been fine for years, that makes it average quality. 24Bit, in comparison could be referred to as high quality.

It's not to say that anything recorded in 16bit will sound like a bad quality recording, just like tapes weren't a bad quality medium before CDs came along (if you know what I mean).

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='456563' date='Apr 7 2009, 04:45 PM']16Bit has been fine for years, that makes it average quality. 24Bit, in comparison could be referred to as high quality.

It's not to say that anything recorded in 16bit will sound like a bad quality recording, just like tapes weren't a bad quality medium before CDs came along (if you know what I mean).[/quote]

I not sure i agree with the word "average" although i think you mean it as in a sliding scale of high to low an dit sits in the middle. Is that right?

My Edirol records in both 16bit and 24bit. Granted this isnt under studio conditions and my 46 year old ears arent trained to hear every freq but i recorded a gig when i first got it. Attached to the singers mic stand. first set in 16bit and second 24bit. Just so i could see (hear) the difference. I couldn't.
What i did notice was that both recordings sounded very good so im really only disagreeing with the word "essential" rather than disagreeing with the fact that 24bit is of course better.

[escholl]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='456544' date='Apr 7 2009, 04:26 PM']I like it very much. If you know what you're doing you can definitely produce release quality material - the four track EP linked in my sig was done entirely on it bar final mastering. Drums and bass were tracked simultaneously and the unit is simple enough to use that it was then passed round the band for overdubs until the tracks were ready to mix down.

If you want to make high quality digital recordings it is essential be able to record at 24 bit IMO. Avoiding clipping with 16 bit involves throwing away too much resolution.[/quote]

yea, i suppose, yours must be a bit better than mine then. i suppose i just find all of the post production to be a lot easier on a computer, especially when it comes to things like automation -- 64 bit processing is much nicer as well as it reduces the amount iterations of truncation/dither required. so i just end up transferring whatever i record to the computer anyways, and dealing with it there. when it comes to things like compression, reverb, and eq, i suppose it's not really fair to compare my portable desk to what i can get from waves plugins -- the thing is, for me, the option is there, and i'd rather use the waves plugins.

i'm afraid i have to disagree with you as well on the 16-bit thing -- 24-bit is necessary for quality recordings if a lot of post production is done, however this idea that somehow 16-bit has "low resolution" is, frankly, just not true -- a properly dithered 16-bit signal will have a usable dynamic range of 115dB! -- far more than all but the very best playback systems. 24-bit recording however allows the accumulated truncation and dither noise from processing (as mentioned above) to effectively be "cut out" of the final 16-bit product.

by the way, even the best ADC's will all self-dither due to thermal noise around the 20th bit -- the last four really are to help with cutting out truncation noise!

(edited to add a bit)

Edited April 7, 2009 by escholl

[alexclaber]

Regarding 16 bit vs 24 bit, I'm not talking about making rehearsal recordings, demos, etc. I'm talking about producing a studio recording that I would be happy to release. The killer when using 16 bit for tracking a live band or rhythm section is that you have to throw away quite a few bits to avoid clipping in the midst of a good take. If you have nice compressors and limiters and are willing to get those tuned in and track through them then 16 bit is fine but running uncompressed into a 16 bit recorder you have to leave a good 10dB of headroom to guarantee being free of digital distortion.

Thus if you record at 16 bit and then master down to 16 bit you'll end up with the resulting true bit depth being only about 14 bit at best. If you record at 24 bit you can have a very stress free time setting all the gains and still end up with a 20 bit true resolution to then dither down to CD quality.

For recording gigs and rehearsals I'd be quite happy to go straight onto MP3, to hell with trying to get high quality when you're just using a little stereo mic! I wouldn't expect anyone to hear a difference between 16 and 24 bit when recording into stereo on a portable recorder.

So I agree that 16 bit isn't low resolution - but I defy anyone to actually get 16 bit resolution when recording drums straight into an all-in-one digital recorder or soundcard!

Alex

[escholl]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='456682' date='Apr 7 2009, 06:46 PM']Regarding 16 bit vs 24 bit, I'm not talking about making rehearsal recordings, demos, etc. I'm talking about producing a studio recording that I would be happy to release. The killer when using 16 bit for tracking a live band or rhythm section is that you have to throw away quite a few bits to avoid clipping in the midst of a good take. If you have nice compressors and limiters and are willing to get those tuned in and track through them then 16 bit is fine but running uncompressed into a 16 bit recorder you have to leave a good 10dB of headroom to guarantee being free of digital distortion.[/quote]

sorry to keep going on about this, but the bit depth you record at has nothing to do with the headroom you allow yourself.

16-bit, 24-bit, it doesn't make a difference to the mic pre's or the ADC. Recording in 16-bit will not give you 14 bits. it will give you 16-bits, with a noise floor and artifacts after post-processing that are slightly higher than if you'd recorded in 24 from the start -- but it's still 16 bits! Like i said before, with proper dithering (meaning good or at least decent ADC's) the dynamic range is still huge!

24-bit audio will not give you a larger headroom, only a lower theoretical noise floor! Which to be honest, is probably not utilized by most people anyways. Studio recordings of professional quality can be done in 16-bit from start to finish -- they were for many years!

Sample rates are the same way -- higher is not always better, there are a lot of factors to consider, some benefits and some drawbacks -- so while 24-bit 96kHz is the common (and IMO the best) standard, for those of you recording in 16-bit 44.1kHz, you can still get amazing results!

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='456682' date='Apr 7 2009, 06:46 PM']Regarding 16 bit vs 24 bit, I'm not talking about making rehearsal recordings, demos, etc.
Alex[/quote]

Ah right. But have you seen the OPs opening line? "I want to start recording our practice sessions"

[51m0n]

Eerrrrr I'm dead spoiled then

2 x Alesis HD24 (Controlled of a RBC I believe)
Mackie 32:8 plus 24:8 extension (only gets used for play back really)
Focusrite Octopre (mk1) to limit all 8 drum tracks
2 channels for bass (DI and mic)
2 channels for guitar (1 is clean in case we want to 'redo' the guitar tone in the line6 pro)
3 channels for hammond
1 channel for vox

A huge selection of yummy channel strips to pick and choose from (focusrite green channel strip, trakmaster, joe meek twinq, and some others that slip my mind)

And that would make our rehearsals the same as our recording anything, except we have to work really hard to get decent seperation of the kit cos the live room is the front room of a house. Need to figure out how to do that - suggestions on a postcard!

If we want to get serious we overdub whatever we need to, import it all into protools on the big beastie mac and have virtually unlimited everything. We can even swap the drums out wholesale for any kit in BFD2 now (apparently) - which may make some stuff a tad easier....

The whole lot is permanently set up so I dont even take my bass rig, I use the drummers Eden rig - which is, you know, OK

Sorry (I feel kind of guilty about this).

I do want an HD4 for recording gigs though, since bringing the whole studio isnt viable....

In 20 years of recording I've never heard anything that made me think - should have used 24 bit - and I was working in a studio when the prototype 196KHz 24bit systems were being touted as (and I quote) 'As good as 2" reel to reel'....

We routinely use 24bit cos its the drummers' studio and he likes to fill up hard drives (I think).

In all seriousness there is theoretical good reasoning behind what Alex says, but when all is said and done there's nothing in it once the mastering is complete and someone has squashed it down to about a 4 bit dynamic range.

[PURPOLARIS]

I use a Tascam US1641, it has 16 channels and takes up 1U rack space. (see photo)
It connects to the pc or laptop via USB 2.0 and records multitrack. It's a great piece of equipment for the money.

[attachment=23451:07042009360.jpg]

[51m0n]

[quote name='PURPOLARIS' post='456875' date='Apr 7 2009, 10:05 PM']I use a Tascam US1641, it has 16 channels and takes up 1U rack space. (see photo)
It connects to the pc or laptop via USB 2.0 and records multitrack. It's a great piece of equipment for the money.

[attachment=23451:07042009360.jpg][/quote]

Thats an excellent looking solution!

Nice one, might have to mention that for the gig recording solution.

What's the capacity??

Doh its just an interface - sorry (twonk!)

Edited April 7, 2009 by 51m0n

[alexclaber]

[quote name='dave_bass5' post='456725' date='Apr 7 2009, 07:35 PM']Ah right. But have you seen the OPs opening line? "I want to start recording our practice sessions"[/quote]

I was distracted by the talk of 8 tracks etc...

A minidisc and plug-in stereo mic is more than sufficient. Or a digital camera that can record video (and thus audio).

Alex