Setting up a home recording studio
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > Setting up a home recording studio
Posted on Jan 29, 2009 12:37 pm
black2002ls
Member Since: Jan 29, 2009
I work with a couple of local bands and they are at a stage where they are ready to cut some tracks of their new originals. I'm looking for some direction on setting up a home recording studio. I've got some recording experience though it comes from pulling out of hte mono signal on a mackie 1604. I've got the computer and the software, what kind of hardware do I need to go about recording a full band?
[ Back to Top ]
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 29, 2009 12:51 pm Do they want to all play at once?
Will people be playing through an amp? with speakers? or will you be able to plug directly into the computer?
Do you want to have separate tracks for each source (vox1, vox2, guitar1, guitar2, bass, snare, kick, etc).
What computer do you have : CPU, ram, OS, HD
what software do you have : sonar, cubase, traction, etc.
Do you have onboard soundcard?
All these questions will get us quicker to an opinion for what you're trying to do. Please be detailed, and then we can be. =)
Jan 29, 2009 01:32 pm so sorry about that.
I'm using a PC AMD athlon x2 64 bit. don't remember the speed its more than 2GHz though. 2 gig matched ram, and running windows XP with Sound Forge.
I would prefer separate tracks so as to be able to master each track. As for the arrangement I'm looking for recommendations. Would it be best on electric guitars to DI them before the amp? My thought is this would cut down on background noise from the mics. I'm really new to studio recording so the more direction the better. I'm using a soundblaster sound card. a bit out dated but its worked for the live stuff.
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 29, 2009 05:14 pm Sound forge? that's an editor, isn't it? I've not seen it, but that's what I thought it was.
You'll be much quicker to get a multitracking program. Kristal audio engine is free, as is luna. Reaper is a nice choice, as it's fully featured shareware.
separate tracks is one way to go, but you'll need inputs for each signal if you're going to record everyone at once. If they can record one person at a time, then you can start with drums, then add bass, then add guitars, then vocals, etc. But a lot of bands don't want to do this, plus it takes a lot longer.
If you're not inclined to use a many input sound interface, then you could use a mixer to get the whole band sound nice, then send a stereo signal to your PC to record it as a stereo wave file. This will stop you from editing any 1 person's track, but you can do it with a 2 channel card (left & right).
DI is certainly a nice option, as it's quieter, more controllable, and usually more reproducable. Plus, you don't need a decent mic, decent preamp, space, etc. That goes for bass as well, as bass is hard to sound good unless you have a nice setup, and a nice room. Some musicos don't like the DI route though, so that's a toss-up.
I guess the same goes for drums too. I've played with drum replacers, and can really see the usefullness of those. I haven't had a real project to try it out for real though.
I guess you can see where this is going. We've all pretty much been there: how much money to spend? how much real-possibility do I want? Will I do this more later, and is more hardware / software justified. I guess if you can pre-mix the signals down to stereo, then port to your SB card, see how that sounds, and do the bandmates approve. That will keep you cheap, and probably not be too bad.
hth.
Jan 29, 2009 09:06 pm I would like to get a decent set up for under a grand. Minus software. I've got some friends with different software for me to try out. I've gotten a good recording from the live set-up I use at the Music Venue I run. I think with a good condenser mic for vocals I might be alright to duplicate that on a home studio set up. I just like the the idea of the ability to master the separate tracks and put them all together. I've probably got some flexibility on that $1K budget. maybe to 1500. Any recommendations on mics and interfaces? I may be best to start with a mackie 1204 should I look into compressors or anything else?
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Jan 30, 2009 12:32 pm Minus software? I'll make a suggestion.
Motu 896MK3, 8 channels with nice pre's and has hardware comp, verb, and EQ built into the box so it does not tax your CPU. You can even set it up so you are only monitoring FX but capturing a dry signal (I prefer this so I can try different settings at will and am not locked into anything).
The routing is also very powerfull and all fully configurable in software.
They run right around $1000, if you want 8 more channels later on, tack on a Motu 8pre for around $500.
www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/896mk3/
Add the fact that it will fit un a 2 space rack and is firewire, you then have a very mobile recording solution if you own a laptop (I capture on my laptiop using an external drive which I then plug into my desktop and mix later on).
On the mic, I know MassiveMaster would reccomend an SM7b , and although I don't own one I sure wish I did. LDC for vox is not a requirement if you own a nice dynamic.
On software, I may be in the minority here, but I love Adobe Audition 3 as it is powerfull yet so simply to learn. It just reminds me of a mixer when looking at the layout. I will say, Audition 3 will do midi (VSTi's) but is not as powerfull as other DAW software. It is capable, but if doing full midi orchestrations I would look elsewhere.
Jan 30, 2009 02:23 pm I like the interface on that Motu. Though I like the tradition of the sound board. Comments??
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 30, 2009 03:15 pm sound board? like a mixer desk?
if so, then there's the maudio i/o desk thing, though it runs 1300 or so. I think tascam has a desk that's an interface as well, but I can't remember it atm.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Jan 30, 2009 04:55 pm I had the mixer\interface for awhile, I do like the option of mobility in my case though. If you never plan on leaving the studio with it, a desk would be nice.
Personally, I have grown to appreciate the software interfaces, they have improved much over the years.
Feb 03, 2009 09:34 pm Will that motu allow me to master all of the tracks separately? I'm new to all of these interfaces. So I'm not sure if it sends a single input signal through the firewire link or if it sends them all as different signals....If that makes sense.
Feb 03, 2009 11:15 pm I don't mean to split hairs here, but this is about *mixing* - Not mastering - Big difference / totally unrelated subjects / etc.
Feb 03, 2009 11:31 pm I understand the difference, maybe I worded that last post wrong. My concern with recordings is being able to edit the vocals separate from the instruments after its been recorded. Just curious as to whether the Motu is going to send my recording to my computer as separate tracks in the recording program, versus one track. I'm relatively new to the recording side of music. So any direction or clarification anyone can provide would be great.
Feb 04, 2009 01:00 am The 896 will allow you to record 8 tracks simultaneously without additional preamps. If that's enough, then you're set. If not, you need more.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Feb 04, 2009 11:12 am Correct, 8 seperate channels and expandable to 16 or 24 through the optical link if you need later on.
Feb 06, 2009 02:39 am You could think about Presonus, they are known for their preamps. They have a few interfaces one rack space, 8 XLR ins, I assume it's all mics. You'd have 1/4" inputs for keys too.
MOTU is good too. Presonus might be more budget friendly. Then there's RME, check out the Fireface 800, that's what I have, but only 4 XLR built in, can do 56 channels total!
Feb 06, 2009 11:12 am I currently have just a small Presonus interface with 2 XLRs and 2 1/4 jacks, but the pre-amps are rock solid. As well as the Line 6 pres in thier toneport setups. But if its many inputs your looking into, then niether of those are for you.
As far as pres go though, like stated by Kevin, Presonus is a good budget friendly way to go. If interested in hearing samples from them, I have an acoustic song posted in my bio where all vocals and guitars where recorded using the Presonus pre amps.
Feb 09, 2009 04:24 pm My first choice was a presonus unit. Though my main concern is being able to edit tracks individually, i.e. vocals, guitar, etc. Will things like the motu and pre-sonus interfaces show up in my recording software as 8/16/24 channels or will it record as one channel and require me to do all mixing/editing before recording to get the sound I want? Maybe I need more direction in the recording process.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Feb 09, 2009 05:20 pm All inputs will show up as spereate signals.
For instance you would create a project that has 8 channels for starters. You then tell each channel what to record, these inputs will show up something like (Mono 1, Mono 2). Once you get the basics of your interface down it is quite simple.
Alas, no need to worry about it that much. If an interface hooks to your computer via firewire, USB2.0 or even PCI addon card chances are that the signals will be seperated. While many still record with a mixer sending one stereo signal, I like the control of each track as well.
On the two units discussed (presonus, motu) both have decent clean pre's in them. And yes the motu has a premium over the other. I think the fact that there is hardware based compression\verb\eq outweighs the cost though.
Why? Unless you have outboard gear (or line6 emulation) you would have one heck of a time monitoring a singer with some comp\verb without significant delay (I have found some singers perform better when a tad of comp\verb is used, keep in mind these are not PRO singers). Anyway, the Motu alleviates that with hardware driven FX. And once again, you don't have to record the monitored signal but can still record dry.
Feb 09, 2009 07:13 pm Thank you! Thats the explanation I've been looking for. So the Motu has built in compressors for vocals and such? I'm assuming these can be turned off and on? I'm still undecided on which to get. Though budget constraints may lean me toward the presonus so I can spend some money on a good mic for vocals
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Feb 10, 2009 11:24 am Yes Motu has some built in processing, yes they can be turned on\off, and you can monitor FX while performing yet only record the dry signal (no FX).
But; If you are needing mics and are budget constrained then the presonus will do what you need just fine and is also expandable later if need be.
The pre's and convertors are probably very similar quality wise.
I like the monitoring FX thing, but with a good performer it is nothing you can't do later in software.
With your budget in mind, I would say presonus. Although, the older 896HD (no fx processing) can be found used for around 5-600 on ebay.
So... what have you decided on mics? What do you have so far and what do you need?
Feb 10, 2009 05:28 pm As for mics. I can borrow what I have at my venue which are beta 57's and SM57's. I have a couple of DI's in my personal collection. I would like to invest a little money in a good mic for vocals though. I haven't made any firm decisions. I've been hit with some auto repairs which are going to set me back about $500
