Guitar thread

[Raph]

Be careful what you wish for :) I'm not a fan of the genre, though your tunes are usually nice to listen to. It's tough building anything around a piano part, it's like the 'younger' blues guys said about the old timers when blues was electrifying; the acoustic guys were basically one-man bands, playing all the parts and the kids would say "They don't leave no place to play nothin on it!"

This tune was actually born on the guitar, not the piano... :) I do have a habit of filling up space, because I play solo just about always, so I know exactly what you mean.

[Nebu]

Nebs, links to the Fostex I mentioned. There's a 16 track version, but it's still only 4 live tracks.

Only $299?  Damn, things have changed. 

I have a spare bedroom in my house that I was planning to soundproof.  It has high ceilings for a nice echo, so I may just start with this and build something.  I've been hesitant to start messing with home recording because I know it will fast become a financial money sink, but with no MMOs worth playing, I think this is a perfect time.  Now I'm starting to regret having gotten rid of much of my old gear... hindsight and all that.

[Sky]

The 16 track version is only $50 more (MR16HD), I'd probably go that way if I were buying it today. I think I paid $250 on sale for the MR8HD.

I think one of my main dislikes of the DAW setup is the lack of physical interface, which is why (before I got weighed down with mortgage) I was considering the Digi002. Programmable motorized faders I could use traditionally or program with the Pro Tools software. Also, skills that would translate directly to modern studios. But....$$$$

in the simplest form you can just play the keyboard and it comes into the DAW basically as another track of whatever instrument it is.

Assuming you know how to play keyboard :)

[Miguel]

You don't need that much to get started.  I wouldn't record through a mixer, as most of the audio input devices (that have more than 1 stereo input, that is) have hardware mixers you can control in software.

If you don't mind single tracking, you only need an interface with one stereo input/microphone preamp.  If you want to record multiple inputs simultaneously, then adjust to taste.  MAudio and Presonus make some good units for less than a few hundred bucks.

If you are only tracking, and you are using a Mac, Garageband will do most of what you want for free.  For PC, a good option is Reaper, which you can get for $50.

If you want to record amps, acoustic guitars, singing, etc, you can't go wrong with an SM-57 and SM-58 pair.  The thing about the Shure dynamic mikes though is they need good volume to get a good sound, so if you are recording delicate instruments then a large diaphragm condenser may be better than a '57.

Also, someone recently turned me on to Naiant microphones.  You can get a matched pair for $40 and they sound great based on the reviews I have read.  If you have a good sounding room it's had to beat a stereo pair of omni's, but you would need two mic preamps to take advantage of them.

[Raph]

Miguel: The only reason I record through the mixer is because I mess around with multiple signals for the guitar. If you are happy with a direct sound, you definitely don't need one. For recording acoustic, though, I have had much better results in the end by having my choice of signals to mix. And my audio setup has limited inputs.

I tend to think of the Shure mics as better for live sound than recording, but they are certainly decent. Diaphragm condensers of course, you have to be careful not to drop!

Sky: quite a lot of the DAWs do hardware fader integration now. You're more likely to end up with that challenge on the controller side than the software.

You don't need to know how to play the keyboard, honestly. You can go into step recording mode, and go a note at a time! And these days, so many keyboards & VSTs do automatic arpeggiation, etc, that you can totally fake it. :P

Nebu, that song was recorded in a spare bedroom where one wall is sliding glass mirror closet doors. Just about worse case for bounceback. :P Start with the basics, improve the room second, is my advice.

[Nebu]

If you want to record amps, acoustic guitars, singing, etc, you can't go wrong with an SM-57 and SM-58 pair.  The thing about the Shure dynamic mikes though is they need good volume to get a good sound, so if you are recording delicate instruments then a large diaphragm condenser may be better than a '57.

I have both.  Dumb question: If I don't have a mixing board is there a way to directly connect the mics into the thing Sky is talking about or do I need some type of 1/4" converter like a direct box for each channel.  

To be honest, the only reason that I'd ever record more than one channel at a time were if I wanted to add a live drum track.  Since my kit skills suck, I may opt to go with a drum machine instead.

[Raph]

Nebu: It depends how many inputs your sound hardware has. You can get them anywhere from "one" to "lots, of all sorts." You can get them with XLRs, with 1/4", with RCA, with a mix... you get the idea. And you can get it with the inputs on a breakout box, or not, or even just as a wierd octopus. The Audigy 2 Ex I have has a small mix -- basically, one set of inputs per type, basically, on a breakout box. It is ancient, but that is why it is cheap. :) There's much better stuff out there now.

Push comes to shove, you can just daisy chain converters to get to what you want. XLR to 1/4" to mini-RCA will get a decent mic into a laptop. ;)

[Sky]

Nebu, my unit has XLR with phantom power for all 4 live channels, as well as 1/4" inputs with gain for DI. So you could do either/or XLR/1/4". I can then mix down on the unit or send the individual tracks to the computer via usb to mess around with in software. It's really a pretty cool device for someone like me who doesn't want to mess around with stuff much.

I'll have to look into some software stuff. The hardware integrations sounds $$$. Have I mentioned complexity and cost are my banes? I blew the last of my music budget on the sm57 and that money had been sitting on my dresser for over a year. No more music budget.  

Also, did step recording in music school   No likey. No likey faking it, either.

Have I mentioned I'm also curmudgeonly?

[Miguel]

I guess I should have qualified that:  there's nothing wrong with recording through a mixer, especially if you are tracking multiple separate mixes at once.  If the mixer is good that helps a ton.  Crappy mixers can be a real headache.

However if you are only recording one or two mics, it's better to not use a mixer, as mixers have a ton of internal busses before you get to the recording outputs (e.g. input trims, master bus sends, returns, etc).  If you aren't side-chaining, mixing effects live, etc, it's much better to do the whole 'mic+gain+into the computer', as you'll get a much better sound with less in-between the source and your track on your DAW.  This can be especially apparent when you get into mixing +4db and -10db equipment into the same setup, unbalancing of balanced sources, etc.

If your mixer has individual side-chain outputs for the preamps, that also works well, since side-chain sends are typically pre-fader, pre-eq, etc.  But you need to have as many inputs on your DAW as mic's you are recording, which can be a problem.

[Raph]

Yeah. I don't have that many inputs, hence why I use the mixer. :) It's a limitation on my hardware, actually, not the DAW itself. The soundcard can handle multiple inputs just fine, but I only have so many jacks of each sort.

Ideally, I would move to an interface with multiple XLR and 1/4" jacks, and maybe a separate MIDI interface with multiple jacks there as well. Then I could run all the audio signals to the one interface, and all the MIDI to the other. Right now, I use the Alesis SR-16 as an audio device rather than a MIDI one for example, because I don't have enough MIDI capacity, but I can handle a bunch of audio inputs into the mixer.

Edit: oops, everywhere I said Audigy 2, please replace with Audigy Platinum eX. Like I said, OLD.

[Sky]

Computers aren't real friendly to creativity imo. I like just hitting power, record, and recording an idea. Maybe if I spent more time recording longer sessions it might be a better deal.

Also, I loved the sound my band used to get taping rehearsals through a boom box, I love a hot messy mix (and bassy I've been told). I've mentioned before how that got me in 'trouble' in school. So I may not be the best person to recommend recording techniques, unless you dig the rebel underground sound. 

[Righ]

Nebs, links to the Fostex I mentioned. There's a 16 track version, but it's still only 4 live tracks.

Only $299?  Damn, things have changed. 

I have a spare bedroom in my house that I was planning to soundproof.  It has high ceilings for a nice echo, so I may just start with this and build something.  I've been hesitant to start messing with home recording because I know it will fast become a financial money sink, but with no MMOs worth playing, I think this is a perfect time.  Now I'm starting to regret having gotten rid of much of my old gear... hindsight and all that.

Much of your old recording gear would probably be a nuisance compared to modern equipment. The Fostex above is ideal for practice & demo work if you just want something standalone to record ideas. You know what it's the modern equivalent of. If you want as much control as the pros, you should think about a couple of grand of Pro Tools gear - something like this fits the home studio bill. Along with a control deck (the modern MIDI enabled mixing deck that can control software settings in computer editors) and some digital audio workstation software, you can build a system that will outperform the multi-million dollar studios you recorded in in the 80s for what is insanely cheap by comparison. Ten grand buys you everything you need to make professional albums apart from the CD pressing plant, but you've probably already got the computer investment taken care of. Apart from the fact that its quality stuff that's had all the kinks beaten out of it over the years, the big sell for Pro Tools is that its what most of the big studios use, so even if you use a cheap $300 system such as this, you can open the finished projects in the $250,000 Pro Tools HD based systems that EMI studios use. In fact, if you just want to fiddle, the Mbox 2 and a laptop is a great portable system that can go anywhere your instrument/mic can. I know musicians who go on tour with a MacBook Pro and one of the Mbox systems just so that they can compose while on the tour bus. There's a lot less downtime for a touring musician these days. 

[Sky]

Yeah, a digi003 or mbox2/mbp would be perfect. It would also run you close to 3 grand, either way :) Maybe the only purchase I regret not making before buying a house.

Now excuse me while I cough up a kidney to find $1000 for repairing my chimneys.

[Nebu]

All I want is something that I can dabble with but eventually use to create complete arrangements.  I play many instruments and would ideally enjoy making full scale works while playing everything myself.  If I can do that on a portable 8 track, then that works fine. I don't mind ping-ponging, but sometimes you need everything separate for the final mix.  

Maybe I need to look at something PC driven?

[Miguel]

Maybe I need to look at something PC driven?

Let us know a few things:

1) What is the budget?
2) PC only? Mac?
3) How many inputs do you want to be able to record simultaneously?
4) What kind of sources do you want to be able to record simultaneously?

[Sky]

All I want is something that I can dabble with but eventually use to create complete arrangements.  I play many instruments and would ideally enjoy making full scale works while playing everything myself.  If I can do that on a portable 8 track, then that works fine. I don't mind ping-ponging, but sometimes you need everything separate for the final mix.  

Maybe I need to look at something PC driven?

I'm just going to go ahead and make assumptions ;) Unless you've got a big budget... The reason I went with the unit I did is because I can have the ease of quick recording without dicking around with the computer, but then I can send those tracks to the PC and work with them in something like Audacity or Acid later (or garageband on the mac). Unless you outgrow the 4 inputs simultaneously, it's a pretty decent compromise, especially with the 16 track unit.

[Nebu]

1) What is the budget?

I want bang for buck.  If that costs money, I'll find it.

2) PC only? Mac?

PC only.

3) How many inputs do you want to be able to record simultaneously?

At most 2.  I'd either record the instrument directly or with two live mics.  I'd record vocals myself or with a friend singing harmony. 

4) What kind of sources do you want to be able to record simultaneously?

Instruments, microphones, or both.  Brass, strings, and woodwinds would need to be miced.  I would love to have 4 inputs for live drum tracks, but I can do that with two live mics in a pinch.  My skills are such that I'd stick with a drum machine the majority of the time.

[Sky]

Ah, drum mics. Forgot I'm going to need two more mics for snare and kick. D'oh.

Well, after a shitload of practice, anyway. Watching that funk drummer lesson in another thread reeeally has me thinking about building a drum riser. Somebody subscribe to me, at least you'd get something for something :) Even if it would just be shitty blues rock recordings.

[Miguel]

...requirements...

Ok that is a good place to start.

So what you really need are:

1) The PC (assuming you already have this)
2) An interface

There are a ton of two+ channel interfaces out there.  It sounds like you'll need at least two preamps on it as well.

I would suggest one of these:
MAudio Fast Track Pro USB - 2 mic pre's or instrument inputs, MIDI, SPDIF, headphone monitor outs, balanced and unbalanced outputs, just about everything you need.  It is class compliant, so if you are only recording 16bit/48KHz you don't even need drivers.  It comes with Ableton Live Lite for basic recording needs. About $200 bucks online.

Digidesign MBox 2 USB - 2 mic pre's or instrument inputs, MIDI, SDPIF.  Basically the same features as the MAudio unit, but also comes with Protools LE.  About $450 online.

3) Recording SW

If you go with the MAudio unit, you can buy ProTools M-Powered, which is basically the same as Protools LE (but works with MAudio HW).  Protools M-Powered is about $250, so the cost of the two packages above is about the same.  Other good choices are Steinburg's Cubase and Cakewalk's SONAR.

Going to higher price points gets you more inputs, (hopefully) better mic pre's, and wordclock inputs/outputs.  Pretty much all of the interfaces can record at 24 bit (and I would recommend always recording in 24 bit) and at higher-than-redbook-cd sampling rates, if you so desire.

The nice thing about the setup(s) above is that as you expand your recording palette, you can start bringing in external devices, like discrete mic pre's, DI boxes, external preamps for instruments, etc, and still get full use of the great A/D convertors in the MAudio/Digidesign input boxes.

[Righ]

All I want is something that I can dabble with but eventually use to create complete arrangements.  I play many instruments and would ideally enjoy making full scale works while playing everything myself.  If I can do that on a portable 8 track, then that works fine. I don't mind ping-ponging, but sometimes you need everything separate for the final mix.  

Maybe I need to look at something PC driven?

I would go for the Mbox 2 at $500 for a home PC system. You've already got the PC, so the full hardware and software solution will cost you $500. That gives you a computer recording system that can go up to 96 (48 stereo) tracks. You'll only have two analog inputs and 16 MIDI channels, but since you're planning to play everything yourself and edit, that will work just fine.

It will afford you much more versatility and capability for $200 more than a discounted Fostek portastudio thing. The Fostek is good for something cheap and portable that you can take to band practices, although again I'd be after the $330 Mbox unit so I could have all the goodies on a laptop instead.

Go look through the bumpf on the Pro Tools software and all the plugins you can get for a ProTools LE based DAW and then tell me you don't want that power for $500. I personally think its worth it for the score editor alone.   

[Nebu]

I wanted to thank everyone for the input.  I'm heading to Minneapolis, Chicago, and St. Louis over the next week and will likely use this as an excuse to hit some music stores along the way.  Once I get something setup, I'll probably mess around with a couple of covers before doing some original material.  If I feel brave, I may even post something.

I appreciate the help.

[Sky]

So I heard back from the studio that does analog to digital transfers. $250+25 to get the tape back. Going to have to wait, as I'm broke. I'm pretty excited to hear that old crap...but that's almost what it cost to record it in the first place!

He said they use a broadcast wav file, I didn't know there were different kinds of wav. They also offer aiff, but I think I'm better off with wav, right?

The other thing is sample rate, I hadn't thought of that. They offer 44.1, 48, 88.2 or 96kHz. I want the highest, right?

[Miguel]

He said they use a broadcast wav file, I didn't know there were different kinds of wav. They also offer aiff, but I think I'm better off with wav, right?

The other thing is sample rate, I hadn't thought of that. They offer 44.1, 48, 88.2 or 96kHz. I want the highest, right?

Braodcast WAV is regular WAV with some metadata extensions.  Most players will ignore them.

AIFF is just Mac's version of uncompressed PCM encoding.  Mac's can play either format, not sure about Windows support for AIFF...probably just a function of the particular player.

I would get the highest sample rate:  you can always down-sample to CD standard if you want to make discs.

Did they offer you a bit depth option?

[Sky]

He seems very receptive toward making the best transfer and having it just the way I want it, within his studio's limits, of course. So I'll ask. What would be good to go for with that, I use 192 VBR for my AAC stuff, I imagine I'd want something higher. 256? More? Or is bit depth different than rate? Damn computers!

[Righ]

Bit depth is not the same as bit rate. Bit depth is the number of bits allocated to store a single sample. For a compact disk, the sample rate is 44,100 hertz, so there are 44,100 samples per second. The bit depth of CD is 16 bits. Digital masters will probably use 24 bit samples at 96,000 samples per second which is common on A-DAT hardware. If you want make a digital archive of an analog source, you want the fastest sample rate and the greatest bit depth you can 'affordably' get, and in most studios, that means 96kHz and 24 bit. The most modern, high-end studios can offer 192kHz but frankly you're doing crazy stuff with inaudible frequencies if you need to sample that fast.

Lossy algorithms such as MP3 and AAC are not comparable technology. Don't get confused with terms used to describe their behaviour.

[Miguel]

Sky, if you want to think about linear PCM in terms of 'bit rate', it's pretty easy:

Bit Rate = Bit Depth * Sample Frequency

So Red Book CD is 16 bits * 44.1k Samples/Sec = 705 kbps

24 bit * 96k = 2,304 kbps

Also note that linear PCM would be considered a type of CBR encoding.

But like Righ says, gets the highest bit depth and sampling rate you can get without going crazy with file sizes and cost.  A 24/96, you are looking at about 288 KBytes per second of audio.  So an hour's worth of material will be almost 17GB of data...and that's PER TRACK!

[Miguel]

Correction...cause math is hard!

CD 16/44.1 = 310 MB per hour per track
24/96 = 1 GB per hour per track
24/192 = 2 GB per hour per track

[Sky]

Rereading the email, he does mention the wavs are 24 bit. So it would be 24/96 WAV.

Going to have to put it off for a while ($1k chimney repair), maybe contact the studio I got my master from and see if the owner wants to go in on any more transfers, since half the cost is setup for the studio maybe I can split it with him.

[Sky]

Summer time, out with EQ2, in with guitar. I get a lot more focused (well, as much as I can manage) during the summer. It's odd to be able to play some cools songs, but not remember them, heh. Finally got back to working on Jessica, got it down up to the piano break. Learn the overall form and plug the riffs in, since it's mostly repeats of the top I know. Then it's a good platform for some major scale improv, aka kryptonite.

Going to work through my repertoire list and polish up some stuff.

Also a cool link:

http://www.stewmac.com/freeinfo/String_action_and_setup/a-famoussetups.html

[Sky]

ZOMG major scale soloing is difficult. Still working on the improv sections of Jessica, focusing more on playing correct scales that the musicality is suffering. It's one of those odd things about my playing, in a minor key I can just focus on the melody of what I'm playing because all the scales are imprinted in some section of my brain. So going back to the drawing board to learn the major stuff, with all the different sweet bendy spots and go-to licks just sucks! Cry more, newb, I guess.

Watched some of The Song Remains the Same last night, jammed along with the mighty Page. Took his jam section from the middle of Dazed and Confused, basically Em to C with a little walking bass riff; expanded that out to work on fretboard knowledge, playing it all over the place using different fingerings and positions. Then tried voicing the walking bass line in different parts of the chord depending on how I was fingering it. Some real fun stuff, and basically the way Pagey was doing it anyway.

Love watching him live, it always makes me want to get my shit together. He's just so goddamned knowledgable across the board, and a very creative and active imagination. Watching him play a song across several recordings is a good lesson in improvisation. The video stuff is funny, too, because I love watching JPJ and Bonham working behind Page, they have pretty amazing stage communication.

[Nebu]

Page and Jones had an amazing understanding of the fretboard.  Every time I watch them play live I learn something new.  I wish they had shown more footage of Jones... the guy is so underrated. 

[Sky]

There's one section, maybe in that break for Dazed and Confused, where Page is just jamming, leading into the jam section. JPJ and Bonham are trying to figure out when to come in and they keep going "nope.....nope...." and laughing. Probably my favorite part of the movie. I wish they'd show how Page was playing the Rain Song on there, I'm pretty sure he's playing it differently than the way I learned it.

[Miguel]

Not too change the subject (too much)...especially since there is no 'Bass Thread':

I've been wanting a Steinberger bass since I first saw Geddy Lee play one.  I finally got the opportunity to play one (an XL from the late 80's I believe), and I really liked it.  I'm not sure if it is the same scale length as a normal bass (various web sites have it at 34", which I believe is standard for 4 string basses), but the strings definitely felt much less 'flabby' than my other basses (which are an old Peavey, a 5 string fretless Carvin B5, and a Ibanez SRX505).  The tone was tight and consistent up and down the fretboard.  I really like the '0th' fret idea as well.

I really like aggressive tones:  the Ibanez comes fairly close, but can be fiddly with intonation and setup.  It's also HUGE and HEAVY.  The Carvin plays nice, but I don't have a need for fretless anymore since I stopped playing in a Jazz group.  The Peavey is garbage, but is good for a beater.

I'm thinking of selling off these three bases, and investing in a headless bass.  The original Steinbergers are going for the multi-thousand dollar level, so are way out of my price range.  The new Steinberger Synapses can be had for around a grand, but they have changed the shape and the electronics and I haven't been able to locate any sound demos.  I have found some headless copies made by Hohner, but they are all wood, so I don't know how their sound compares.

Any chance anyone has tried one of the Hohner's?  Apparently they are made in the Cort factory in Korea.  They sell for about $450-$500, are all maple (neck through) and play well.  One downside is the electronics are apparently pretty crappy, but I have installed many pickup and on-board preamps in my day so it doesn't scare me to much.  I'm mostly worried about build quality of Cort/Hohner, and if a non-graphite instrument would play in a similar fashion.  Unfortunately nobody around here carries any of them, so I would be buying sight-unseen.

[Nebu]

I played a Cort headless in the 80's and found it to be a very fast and playable instrument.  Unfortunately, while playable, it isn't much for tone.  They are gimic basses and I'd never use one for anything but live work.  In the studio I'll still take a rick, fender, or G&L.  I love my 70's fender jazz. It's not as fast on the fretboard, but it's got such a great tone that it's irreplaceable. 

[Sky]

There is a bass thread...this one! It's a bass guitar!

Remember, Nebs and I are bass players, though I've reconverted back to mostly guitar these days. I've never played a headless bass, though. I loved my beater Peavey (back when everything I had was beater)! One of the local blues guys always plays a fretless bass with some kind of plastic strings, it's fun to play but kind of odd.

I would never buy an instrument without playing it first, though. Way too much variation in factory quality. Most SGs I play are crap, but my 61RI is the best guitar I've ever played.