Conference napalm::guitar

    I feel like I've heard this question before (like over in heavy_metal).
    Anyway, I'll offer my opinion again.
    
    $600 won't get you far in a studio.  Figure a 16 track studio costs
    $100/hour.  Thats 6 hours.  Figure 2-3 hours for drum set up alone.
    Just to give you an idea, we just finished doing a 5 song demo on my
    four track.  We've got at least 40 hours in it.  Thats not including
    production time (bounces, mix down etc...).  Thats just to set up and
    record.  It's expensive, and if you want to do it right, it takes time.
    
    Why don't you buy a dubbing deck and a 4 track with your $600 ?  Then
    you can spend as much time as you like doing your tunes...
    
    jc
    
    

    I already have a Fostex X26 but it doesnt sound professional no matter
    what I do.. I guess Would I should do is use that and rent some drum
    mics and a reel to reel? Would that be the best way to use the money? I
    dont understand how my band can play live,get it on my multitrack and
    hear it all happen... Wouldnt the drums mics pick up the guitar from
    the amplifiers?
    

    How 'bout shopping for a lower priced studio?  I think you can find 
    8-track studios for significantly less than $100/hr.  Also, a lot of
    fledgling studios offer packages for two or three song demos that
    might fit your needs.

    I don't know where you live....$100 an hour is real expensive in the
    Boston area.  16 track time can be as little as $25 an hour around
    here.  Supply and demand in action.
    
    							Brian
    
    					

    Does anybody have a list of the recording studios in Maryland? Is there
    a list availible somewhere?
    

Yeah Coop, where do you live!?  In Colorado (where I *think* Coop lives now :))
you can get 16 tracks starting around $25-$38 an hour depending on where you go
and how much total time you buy.  I'll bet that's the going rate about anywhere
these days.  Oh, you can pay $100 or more an hour, but that's not necessary.
Coop's right about time flying in the studio, though.  Don't waste any.  Your
$600 dollars is going to go faster than you think.

steve

    I've never done any REAL studio time.  I think it's a waste of money
    unless your under contract or wanna send a demo to Elektra or
    something.  ;)
    
    I'm a basement kinda guy.  IMHO, if a decent 4 track porta-type
    won't give you a decent sounding tape, then perhaps a talk with
    a producer/engineer would help...  Or read COMMUSIC.
    jc

    Re .7:  I guess it depends on your definition of 'decent', but IMHO
    it's impossible to get a tape with low noise out of a cassette format
    four track.  I use one to write songs and to have something rough to
    play for other musicians in preparation for a trip to a real studio,
    but it's too noisy for anything to distribute to the uninitiated.

    
    I'm having major success with my Tascam 688 - which runs the tape at 3
    & 3/4 ips and has dBx noise reduction.  Tascam claims 90 dB signal to
    noise ratio for this guy, which is in the ballpark with consumer CD
    gear.  Maybe you've just gotten some bad 4 tracks...or maybe you really
    could benefit from having a good sound guy check out your gear (no
    offense intended, OK?).  Even a basic home cassette deck should be able
    to get 70 dB with metal tape & Dolby B.  I'd expect a 4 track unit to
    be able to match that...
    

re: .-2 

I think you can get *decent* demo quality recordings out of
the cassette format. Especially using DBX and 3-3/4 ips.

It's not *studio* quality, but it's affordable... ;-)

    Like I said, everyone's definition of 'decent' varies.  If you play
    your tape for the average listener ( average :== person who likes
    music, but is not necessarily a musician), then the comparison is 
    drawn between what they hear every day and your tape.  What they listen
    to everyday is likely CD's made from 2in wide masters recorded at
    30ips, with noise reduction, or DAT.
    
    We've not discussed how many tracks Angry Toilets want to put down, but
    I'll guess it's more than four.  Then they're into bouncing and the
    noise situation is compounded.
    
    Don't get me wrong, four tracks cassettes are great tools.  I just
    would never use one to promote my band.  

    My two cents:
    
    I think the limitation of using 4-track for high quality demos is 
    NOT audio quality.  I.E. the reason to go into a studio isn't 
    because they have quieter recorders with more dynamic range.
    
    It's because what you can do is very limited if the purpose is to
    record a really good demo.  It makes it much harder to layer things
    (double vocals, guitars) and bouncing inevitably causes major
    compromises in the mix.
    
    THe other reason to go into the studio is the gear.
    
    My band decided to try recording our demo at home on my 4-track as
    an experiment before going the studio route.  Now I should mention that
    this is a GB demo and thus is supposed to sound fairly "live", but
    my feeling was that requirement translated mostly to compromises
    in arrangement and absence of studio tricks.
    
    We did surprisingly good; most people (even 4-track owners) are
    very surprised when they told it was done on a 4-track, but when
    I listen to it I can hear certain things when I compare it to a
    demo that some of the band members were involved in before our band
    formed and I have come to some conclusions:
    
    1) It would be hard for me to imagine getting vocals onto tape nearly
       as good as a studio can.  I think the major difference is a
       soundbooth and those $3000 mics.  
    
    2) There ARE some tracks on our demo where I think the drum sound
       is quite comparable to what we got in the studio but most are NOT.
       Recording drums takes LOTS of good mics, lots of know how, a good
       recording environment.  
    
       You can do pretty well on your own with modest equipment, but not
       without spending a LOT of time on it, and I really do mean a lot.
       We made all kinds of experiments and it was worthwhile, but it took
       time away from other things.
    
    3) I think you can get guitar and bass onto tape with excellent quality
       with fairly modest recording equipment (my favorite mic is still
       the SM-57 which goes for about $70 used) as long as you are getting
       a good guitar sound out of your rig.
    
       I would RATHER spend a lot of time getting my performance the way
       I want it recording at home, than being under a heavy time
       constraint and having to settle in the studio even though the
       sound quality might be better.  Thus I would say I PREFER recording
       guitar at home than in the studio.
    
    So in summary:
    
    	o I personally don't think signal-to-noise ratio is a 
          good reason to pay for studio time for the PARTICULAR purpose
     	  of demos.  Just my humble opinion
    
    	o I think the major reasons for using a studio are (in approximate
          order of my percieved importance):
    
    	  + Having a recording engineer who knows how to do it well (you
            can make up for this if you are interested in learning about
            the equipment and techniques but most of us are not)
    
    	  + Having extra tracks (more options during recording, less
            compromise at mixing)
    
    	  + Access to CERTAIN kinds of equipment that make a big difference
            but aren't affordable for your average 4-track owner. 
            Like Neuman U-series for vocals, and having a half-dozen
            or so good cardiod mics for drums (most 4-track owners can't
            afford multiple good mics).
    
    	    Also having massive quantities of noise gates, compressors,
            EQs, etc.
    
    	  + A good recording environment
    
    I won't claim to be an expert, but these were the impressions that I
    have formed.

    I agree Dave,  That was a good note.
    
    Another point I'd like to make is the stress involved in "rolling your
    own" - Doing the performance of a track while having to worry about
    "engineer sh*t", "producer sh*t", and a host of other stresses (like
    your dog scratching at the door).
    
    I also must agree with what you said about drum sounds.  We used 12
    mics (EV's and Shures), thru a 16chnl mixer, spent HOURS EQing
    everything, recording, listening etc...etc...  It was the hardest part
    of the whole scene - a good drum machine is SO much easier - but try
    telling a drummer to program his licks and tricks...No way.
    Anyway, after all the mixing and testing we still had a compromised
    drum sound.  Now that the demo is all done, we hate the drum track.
    Such a pity as the drummer has a really fine Tama Granstar set
    etc..etc..  At least if you hire a "real" engineer, you can BLAME
    someone else for a funky drum sound, and not have to worry about
    mic placements and FX levels on the snare etc..etc..  Let the pro do
    it.  BUT, it costs; in time and money (time IS money).
    
    The tracks we like the best were the bass and vocal tracks.  They came
    out really good with the use of Shures and EV's (vox) and running the
    bass thru the Mp1's clean (solid state) voice.
    
    jc

    I'll also second a lot of what Dave said. I've got a Tascam 234 that
    I've used to do demos for my group, and I've used other 4-tracks in the
    past. I also used to be a studio engineer. I'm seriously considering
    selling the Tascam and going to a studio for our next demo for a lot of
    the reasons cited, that have very little to do with the audio quality
    of the recording. For example:
    
    - I can guarantee you that there is *nothing* like a high-quality
    ribbon mike for recording vocals (like a Neuman). Shure's and EV's etc
    are great for performing, but there is a warmth and liveness to an
    expensive studio mike that comes through on tape like nothing else.
    They even make *me* sound good.
    
    - Recording and mixing is extremely time-consuming. If time is not a
    factor, you may be able to match the results of a good studio engineer.
    But that's like saying, if time was not a factor I could build a car
    myself. I don't have that much time.
    
    - There's a lot more to studio recording than just having a good tape
    deck. There are compressors, limiters, equalizers, effects, etc. I
    can't afford to buy all of these, even if I got consumer quality stuff.
    Even if I had them, it would take more time than I'm willing to spend
    (see above) to set things up. I don't have dedicated studio space, so
    portability and convenience are considerations. So I try to live
    without these things, and the result suffers somewhat.
    
    Those are a few arguments against rolling it yourself. I also agreed
    with the comment that I'd rather be focusing on the music than trying
    to juggle engineering, production, etc, but some people might not find
    this a problem.
    
    - Ram

    The best instrument sound is from the guitar but it still is not great
    probably because I dont bounce tracks and therefore dont overdub the
    guitar.. The bass always has too much bass to it and since its so low,
    when I solo with the bass you cant make out what the bass is doing..
     
    The drum sound is terrible.. Definitly need drum mics.. Singing usally
    sounds 'fuzzy and when I turn it down its not loud enough..
    
    I totally agree with whoever said they just use the 4track to put ideas
    together.. Im playing a tape I made and then put in something from the
    '...and justice for all' tape in and it makes my music sound EXTREMELY
    weak..
     
    Actually, I like listening to a recording of our band playing live if
    all the instrument are at about a = volume.. It ALWAYS has more energy
    than the multitrack.. You cant sing well unless you are surrounded by
    people playing thier instruments loud... If you are singing in a quiet
    room you can never 'get into it'
    

    Just a few comments that I learned from the school of hard knocks 
    (bad recordings).  I still have a lot to learn but I've done a few
    demos on my four track (in fact I just finished one).
    
    >The best instrument sound is from the guitar but it still is not great
    >probably because I dont bounce tracks and therefore dont overdub the
    >guitar.. 
    
    Nah, it may not be great cuz of mic placement.  This is a BIG deal.
    I spent hours perfecting this little ditty.  Of course, doubled guitar
    tracks DO sound cool...  Anyway, use the built-in mixer to use TWO mics
    for your guitar tracks.  One right in front of the speaker...Then walk
    around the room while playing.  Where the guitar sounds best is where
    you ought to stick another mic...I put second mic across the room in
    a corner and run it thru the DSP128+ on a 'verb setting.  Gives you a 
    wicked ambient room effect.
    
    >The bass always has too much bass to it and since its so low,
    >when I solo with the bass you cant make out what the bass is doing..
    
    Try using a compressor and EQ the snot out of it.  I found that my 
    ADA Mp1 does a WICKED good job with the bass direct (because it's so
    compressed on the clean channel.  What used to be the worst track is now 
    the best track.
    
    >Singing usally sounds 'fuzzy and when I turn it down its not 
    >loud enough...
    
    Compression and EQ.  Watch your levels - betcha $10 your 'fuzzy' is
    coming from overdriving the meters... Also watch the person singing,
    singers move around and change the distance to the mic making the level 
    go up and down even more.  Put a screen up in front of the mic and make
    sure they put their lips to it.
    
    With the exception of the DSP128+ on the ambient mic, I recommend you
    record everything dry.  No effects until mix down (another thing that
    adds noise).
    
    Hope this helps The Angry Toilets...
    
    jc (Engineer/Producer wannabe)

    Agent Cooper speaks the truth!
    
    For those of you who have to record at home on the cheap, and who don't
    have access to things like compression and are forced to bounce
    down etc., I've found (from doing solo stuff) that if possible it's a
    good idea to put the bass on last to keep it as punchy as possible. On
    my set-up (we are talking dead cheap here), by the time I've put a
    couple of dubs over the bass it gets pretty woolly-sounding. On the
    other hand, a couple of dubs on top of an acoustic can have some
    interesting results - it can end up sounding slightly more cutting or
    ringing.
    
    Bob

    I don't have a lot of experience with this but one thing I've found on
    the 4-tracks I've used, it helps if you record with an overly bright
    (treble) sound, as it helps keep it from sounding muddy after a couple
    of bounces and mixdown noise.  
    
    I found that a guitar sound that sounded too bright coming out of the
    speakers sounded just right on tape. Bass seems to be the same way, if
    you record a sound that you like, then it's probably going to sound
    mushed out after everything's done.  Make it a bit more bright and
    punchy.
    
    Greg
           

    
    Agreed.  Definately.
    
    jc

    I forgot, one other reason to go into the studio.
    
    One BIG advantage the studio has for getting a good sound (and again
    this has NOTHING to do with tape quality) is the control room.
    
    I mentioned doing experiments to find the best mic, best mic placement,
    etc. and if you don't have an acoustically isolated control room,
    the only valid way to make these experiments is to TAPE the experiments
    and then play them back over.
    
    You can't make a valid experiment if you're listening both thru the
    speakers and to the original source (and forget about headphones for
    this purpose).
    
    Obviously this is time consuming and less flexible.  You can't  listen
    AS you move the mic around, etc.

    Bingo.  Right on the head again.  This "tape it and play" stuff is
    tedious as he!! 
    
    jc

    Will someone please explain "bounce" as used here?  It's always easier
    to follow a discussion when you understand the jargon.
    
    --Chuck

    
    
    From Chris' musical dictionerry...er dictionary
    
                 BOUNCE: verb,
    		 Something done in a desparation move to cram a little more
    	         music onto a tape.  The last resort, What any
                 underfinanced producer does just bfore he runs out of
    		 tracks and the tune still needs a third harmony and 
    	         melody guitar track...The result of poor planning...
                 The combining of two or more previously recorded tracks
    	         on another track..usually at the expense of sound quality.
    		 

    re: .22
    
    "Bouncing tracks" is a way to record more tracks than your recorder
    has.  It involves mixing several tracks onto OTHER tracks.
    
    Here's a 4 track example:
    
    o Record snare on track 1, bass on track two, rest on track 3
    
      Playback the tape mixing tracks 1,2 and 3 and record the
      output of that mix onto track 4.  That's the "boucing" part.
    
      Tracks 1-3 can now be used for other purposes.
    
    o Record bass on 1, guitar on 2.
    
      "Bounce" tracks 1 and 2 onto 3, tracks 1 and 2 are available again.
    
    o Record lead vocals on track 1 and backing vocals on track 2
    
    You've now recorded 7 tracks on a 4-track.
    
    The disadvantage of this method is that once things are mixed together,
    they can't be separated.  This means that if you mixed the snare
    too loud, you can't adjust for it as you could if it still had
    its own track.
    
    Also means that you can't apply effects to the snare without applying
    them to the rest of the drums.
    
    etc. etc.
    
    Good technique for low quality demos, a big compromise for high quality
    stuff.
    
    	db

    And one other thing: When you bounce add the noise from the source
    tracks together.  The signal ceiling doesn't change, but the floor 
    is brought closer to the ceiling, so the overall S/N suffers...big
    time!  In theory you can bounce forever, getting 100's of tracks on
    a four-track machine, but the noise will bite you if you try to 
    bounce an already bounced track.

    I have never tried putting the effect in at mixdown. Where do you plug
    in the effect pedals? tape sync? aux? Does it make that much of a
    differnce?
    Dont you need a guitar plug to audio plug to do it?
    

    My 4 track has a built in FX loop.  I think most of the higher quality 
    multitracks out on the market have them...
    
    jc

>    My 4 track has a built in FX loop.  I think most of the higher quality 
>    multitracks out on the market have them...
 
    While the distinction may be blurred due to the packaging, it should
    be noted that the FX loop is a function of the mixer, not the multi-
    track tape deck.
    
    I'm sure JC knew this, but most "higher quality" multitrack decks
    DON'T come with an FX loop. The loop comes with the mixer.
    
    Edd   
 

    >I have never tried putting the effect in at mixdown. Where do you plug
    >in the effect pedals? tape sync? aux? 
    
    Aux.
    
    > Does it make that much of a differnce? 
    
    The reason for doing it that way is that it allows you to adjust the
    effect according to the context of the mix.
    
    For example, when you're recording the guitar track with reverb,
    you tend to adjust the reverb such that it sounds good with just
    you playing guitar by yourself. 
    
    But the amount of reverb you want playing without any accompanyment
    is different then the amount of reverb you might want in the context
    of a mix.
    
    The usual problem is that you apply too much reverb and that in the
    mix, the guitar doesn't come "to the front of the mix" (recording
    jargon but you probably know what I mean) or just doesn't cut through.
    
    Basically adding effects at mixdown time just allows you to adjust
    the effects for the FINAL product instead of just one track.
    
    As for if it makes a difference, I think it depends on how anal
    rententive your are about mixing.  I'm pretty AR - the mixdown
    process for my last effort took about 5 solid nights!
    
    If you're going for the highest quality you can get, it makes a
    difference.  If you're not into diddling to get it "perfect" than
    there are probably other things to spend time on with higher payback.
    
    >Dont you need a guitar plug to audio plug to do it?
    
    You mentioned that you own "pedals".  Chances these won't work in the
    AUX (EFX) loop of a 4-track.      
    
    The issue isn't just plug-type, it's signal level.   The effects loops
    uses "line level" inputs and outputs.  Guitar pedals use "instrument
    level".
    
    They do make converters, but you're much better off getting a decent
    line-level effects box (like a used MIDIVERB II or MicroVerb).  It's
    probably not worth going to too much trouble if the effects box is
    a stomp box - there's only so much you can do with those.
    
    	db

    Re:.29
    
    I'll disagree a bit and say that stomp boxes can be used in FX loops
    most of the time.  Just be careful about driving the FX "send" too
    high, you may overload the stomp box inpout, and in some cases the
    "return" may not provide enough gain or be noisier than you might like.
    Despite this, I've used stomp boxes quite effectively in my recordings
    for quite some time.
    
    
    							Brian

    Brian, cool personal name !
    
    Anyhow, yeah I've ussed stomps with the four track with mixed sucess.
    Brian is correct about driving them too hard making a lot of noise.
    And again, I agree with DB about mix down time.
    
    General rule of Coops thumb coming up:
    
    For every hour you spend actually recording, multiply by a factor of
    2 for production time (bounces and final mix).  Ergo, you record for
    4 hours (and you get everything right), then you have your bouncing 
    and mixing to do...  8 hours.  Hows that sound ??
    
                                                     

    I have aux right,left and send. I dont understand how the effects are
    applied. When to I add the effect? Do I do it for each track or does it
    treat them all the same? Do I add it during mixdown?
    

    Each channel should have an efx send control.   You use this to
    determine how much effect you want for each channel.
    
    You run a cord from the aux send of the 4-track into the effect's input.
    
    I couldn't tell you where to plug the effects output into.  It depends
    on your 4-track.  But try pluging it into aux.right, and if that
    doesn't work, plug it into aux.left.
    
    It might end up that both of those options causes the effect to only
    occur on ONE side (left or right) but probably not.   If so, there's
    other controls we have to look for.

    Aux send to FX box input.
    
    I trust the device would be stereo, so the outputs of the FX box go 
    to the AUX return (left and right).  It's just an FX loop.
    The DSP128+ that Scary has 4-sale would BLOW your mind away used
    in the FX loop...
    
    jc

    Adding to what db said, you could take the output of the FX and patch 
    it into the input of a vacant channel on the mixer.  That way, you can
    use the EQ available on that channel to color the effect.
    
    It's diagram time. In this mixer diagram, inputs are along the top and
    outputs are along the right.
    
    		|
               raw                       +-----FX patched here-------+
    	    signal in                  FX in                         |
                |                        |                           |
    	  ------o---------FX buss--------o----------[FX fader]---- ===
                | \pt A                  |\pt B
                |                        |
          [channel fader]          [channel fader]
                |                        |
          ------o---------left-----------o----------[ left fader]---
          ------o---------right----------o----------[right fader]---
    
    pt A is the FX fader on the raw signal channel: it controls how much
    raw signal you feed TO the FX buss.  Take the output of the FX buss
    on the back of the mixer and feed it into the effect.  Take the output
    of the effect and feed it into an empty channel.  The only caution is 
    that you make sure THAT channel's fader is zero; otherwise, you get
    feedback.
    
    Then you can treat the 'effected' sound just like another raw signal:
    you can mixer it with the original 'dry' sound at the stereo master
    faders, or put 'dry' on the left and 'effected' on the right, or...
    
    Just another way to accomplish what db said.

    re: .35
    
    Remember that this is a 4-track, probably with a 4-channel mixer.
    Blue Jay has a bit more in the way of channel resources.
    
    But if you've got the extra channels, go for it.

    Ok.. So I could use the BOSS Digital Reverb stomp box in the AUX?
    

    > Ok.. So I could use the BOSS Digital Reverb stomp box in the AUX?
    
    According to Brian in .30, you can. 
    
    I'm sure it will "work", the only doubt I had was whether or not
    it would be noisey because aux loops are intended to take a slightly
    different type of signal (line level) than a guitar amp input
    (instrument).
    
    Anyway, try it.

    Not that any of y'all electrical guitar dudes care, but I found through
    MONTHS of playing around with a cheap casette recorder and a classical
    that the mikes are best placed about 10 feet off the ground, far as
    practicle away and apart. 
     In the small live room I used the mics were about a foot from the
    ceiling, 90 degrees apart from the source and 20 feet away. I wished I
    had even more space to experiment.  
    
    
    Mad'rew