Tech: Recording

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Nick
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 01:24 PM

Perhaps trade the husband in for something more up to date? If you are not worth £100 to him for years of use... (kidding).

I bought mine in February 2008 and it has worked without problem since.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 09:19 AM

.. if you do decide to go for a Zoom H2n
[maybe try convincing your husband he needs it as well, and it was his great idea to get one...]

It's worth shopping around on the internet for the "Zoom H2n APH-2n Bundle"
which includes the otherwise rip off priced optional accessory kit and power supply.

When I got mine, amazon were selling the total bundle package for just about the same price as the Zoom H2n on it's own.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Rumncoke
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 06:57 AM

Ho hum - the Zoom H2N seems like the thing to buy - unfortunately my husband sees no need for me to have one, nor any other piece of modern technology.

Oh well - I think that the cassette recorder on the old stereo system might still be working.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Nick
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 06:17 AM

I recorded a gig I played at directly from the PA hoping for a good clean result into the Zoom H2 and it clipped and distorted terribly. I didn't realise that I needed one of these leads or similar to get the input level suitably lower. It sounds pretty grim. Most of what I have recorded I usually have the mic gain at either Medium or High and it usually works out fine. Recording too low and then boosting it a LOT doesn't end with brilliant results as any background goes up dramatically.

Here's another example of something which I recorded with Zoom with it sitting in my breast pocket - a little jazz - and the quality is pretty good given the circumstances.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 02:15 PM

GAK [Brighton music gear mail order shop] have just emailed they are running a price discount promotion on Zoom recorders....

Maybe other shops are as well.. ???

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 12:39 PM

Get a Zoom, or the equivalent Tascam hand-held. Either will fit your bill.
If you PM me your email address, I'll send you the recording we made of the band on my Zoom H2 on Tuesday night.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Rumncoke
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 12:21 PM

As I was born with the ability to hear some types of bat squeaking some 'massaged' cds make me laugh a lot, and an overblown squeezebox can make me cry due to the higher harmonics produced.

My phone is not smart - it is a phone. It does phone things very well.

I do miss the old Grundig reel to reel tape recorder with the stereo setting. It made recordings which sounded like the real thing.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Stanron
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 10:20 AM

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 08:21 AM

The battery of my AIWA minidisc went flat and refused to ever charge again;
and this battery was some obscure shape and size that was, after many hours of googling and phonecalls,
absolutely no longer available for replacement....

These days, with a free app, any smart phone and tablet is a good on the spot discrete portable recorder
for quick easy capture of fleeting song ideas and chord progressions...

It certainly beats the old mini cassette dictation recorders...

I hardly ever use my mobile phone for it's intended purpose, instead mostly using it as a camera and recorder...

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:58 AM

I once recorded a whole four-hour session on my minidisc, but to save space I decided to pause the recording in between sets. When I got home I found that I'd paused for every single piece of music - not a one did I have - and recorded all the banter In between, which we'd all thought had been going to be totally private by dint of the pause button.From some of the stuff said as the pints flowed, I reckon I could have blackmailed everybody there! Naturally, I wasn't exactly innocent meself... Needless to say, that recording no longer exists!

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:50 AM

Yep, Stanron, that was the way to bypass Sonic Stage. It just took ages, that's all, and the received wisdom was that using the earphone socket lost some sound quality. Dunno how true that was.

With both minidisc and my Zoom recorder I'm always a bit scared of setting the mic input too high and getting digital clipping on the loudest bits. It means that my recordings tend to be on the quiet side, so I always need to boost the volume a fair bit in the editing. I also find that boosting "loudness" or compression adds a lot, to my ear at least, as long as I don't overdo it. I understand that most commercial CDs are treated similarly (but a damn sight more competently) in the mastering. But I'm out of my depth here! Discuss...

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Nick
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:39 AM

Agreed on the size of the display on the Zoom H2. I have hardly ever used any of the settings on it though. Once tried normalize but you need a week or two on even a small file. The 4 track WAV files are pretty enormous too when I've used them so I tend just use 320 setting and mp3s and the quality is good.
The only other thing is the record button. I once clicked twice and missed a whole song as it started and stopped and I failed to notice the steady red light wasn't on.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Nick
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:35 AM

Not this sort of ATRAC?

(Sorry couldn't resist it. Old technologies we have loved. Last heard in a Ford Anglia cEarly 1970's)

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:35 AM

Mine's in a box somewhere in the garage. Completely superseded by the ease of use of my Zoom H2. My only complaint about the Zoom is the minuscule, dim display, which my aging eyes find increasingly difficult to work with, but the sound for 'on-the-hoof' field-recordings, snapshot recordings of rehearsals, or working on new songs, is excellent - not studio quality of course, but very damn good.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Stanron
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:35 AM

I mounted my mic on a piece of sponge rubber to protect it from the knocks of pub tables. I got files onto computer by making a lead to go from the earphone socket to one of the sound card inputs and then recorded that in real time. A bit of a pain but nice enough results.

The Zoom or it's equivalent is today's simple solution.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 06:07 AM

I think minidisc used something called ATRAC. I liked minidisc but Sony shot itself in the foot by insisting that we used its clunky Sonic Stage software to upload and by having pointless and draconian copy protection barriers. I still have my Hi-MD recorder but rarely use it. It needed a separate microphone that was a pain to locate on the pub table. Superseded by all these lovely Zooms with quality built-in mics I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Stanron
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 04:35 AM

Anyone remember the minidisk? I used to use a minidisk recorder to record sessions to learn stuff. I can't remember the file format. It was compressed but had a pretty good sound. I've still got one somewhere. Not used it in years. That would do exactly what the OP wants.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Aug 15 - 02:27 AM

i have a great little sony handheld..was prob 60 but i had a coupon and got it for 30..sound can be great and certainly would be suitable i think for a voice..don't know about guitar at same time but prob ok. sound is very very good on it. and it automatically does things in mp3 so you can plug into computer and send files.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Rumncoke
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 04:46 PM

Thanks all - I shall take a look at the various suggestions in the near future.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 08:23 AM

Will, gotcha. And with you all the way. Thanks, Steve.

Rumncoke, the easiest way to send your recorded work is using mp3. I am unable to tell you how to do that, but many people here will be. And I agree with all the people who have said that perfection is possible to attain but basically it isn't worth the time, money or hassle. People only hear 'so good' anyway.

Y'all take care.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 07:27 AM

Rumncoke - see my comments in my post of 26 Aug 15 - 02:08 AM.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 05:23 AM

Little bit

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 05:22 AM

I get that - but adding "a little big of magic" in the editing is time-honoured. A touch of ambient warmth, a bit more presence, upping the volume a bit, can be great, making up for the deficiencies of your recording environment. If you just want a recording that highlights your own issues so that you can identify and work on them, great, but if you want to keep it for posterity, well a tiny bit of discreet tweaking can work wonders. Hair-shirts not required!

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Rumncoke
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 04:18 AM

What I want is authenticity - not something created by the machine and nothing sophisticated in the sense of being false.

Making it sound better in the recording than I am is counter to my aim - I want to know what I sound like

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 04:00 AM

Yes, that's the kind of recording I was doing (and still do) - building up multi-instrumental/vocal projects one track at a time, all played and sung by me. Still not very brilliant at it, but it's a nice way to spend a rainy afternoon or evening with something 'solid' to show for it (as distinct from snoozing in my chair or watching the drivel they put on TV!).

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 03:53 AM

Great minds learn alike, eh? :-)

When I first started multi-track recording, it wasn't with live instruments. I used to do a huge amount of layered electronic sound work using my Korg N1 keyboard, and the resulting fairly frigid sounds were made even more clinical by fairly wide separation - using the whole srea of the "watch face". But this was exactly what I wanted at the time - a sort of ethereality - as much of it was for theatre production ambient music.

However, like you, I eventually learned that one size doesn't fit all!

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 03:34 AM

"One of the traps I fell into in my early attempts at recording was to take the pan - the placement of tracks - to excess. So, for example, I might put, say, the voice at 12 0'clock (imagine a watch face), the guitar at 9 0'clock and the bass at 3 o'clock. Then I slowly realised that the resulting tracks often lacked warmth and "togertheness". These days I separate them just enough to give a little sound clarity - say 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock"

Yep, you're not alone on that, Will!
My friend who works for BBC Scotland pointed out to me that the sound was way too 'wide'. I remixed with the tracks closer together and it immediately sounded nicer.
I guess it's an easy mistake for a beginner to make. All part of the learning process!

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,Bert
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 03:27 AM

I bought this little Olympus WS-600S. It cost just under $70 and makes CD quality recordings. I fits in a shirt pocket too.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 03:18 AM

Hi Guest - when I referred to "bleeding", I wasn't thinking particularly of mistakes - just the possible sound overlap when using multiple mics in a live take in one room.

So, if I have a mic positioned, say, 12" from my guitar, and another mic positioned near my mouth - depending on the technical specifications of the mics, of course - the guitar mic will pick up a little of the voice, and the vocal mic will pick up a little of the guitar. How much "little" is will depend (as I say) on the quality of the mics, their positioning.

I think all I'm saying is that this isn't really a problem. In fact, a recording where every track is recorded in total isolation can sound somehow sterile.

One of the traps I fell into in my early attempts at recording was to take the pan - the placement of tracks - to excess. So, for example, I might put, say, the voice at 12 0'clock (imagine a watch face), the guitar at 9 0'clock and the bass at 3 o'clock. Then I slowly realised that the resulting tracks often lacked warmth and "togertheness". These days I separate them just enough to give a little sound clarity - say 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock - which means, incidentally, that any bleeding from one sound source into another doesn't make much difference!

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 02:10 AM

U.S.??
WTF??

us!

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 15 - 02:08 AM

If all rumncoke wants to do is make a simple recording as a means of 'auditing' his/her live performance, one hand-held would do the trick. I use my Zoom H2 for exactly that purpose - when I'm learning a song (to dump the recording via my laptop to CD for playing in the car while I'm learning the words) and also with my 3-piece acoustic band. The band actually did this last night, to record our entry for a local song competition - my Zoom on the front-room coffee table, with U.S. Playing and singing round it. The result was very good.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 10:18 PM

That could be. What did I miss or misunderstand?

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 09:14 PM

Not quite sure you're with Will on this, Guest número...

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 08:35 PM

"There's inevitable "bleeding" from one sound source to another, but that's not irrepairable."

I would suggest that at times it is. Depends on the mistake that has to be corrected. Put a 3/4 guitar rhythm against a 4/4 voice track and that kind of error from either voice or guitar cannot be fixed because of bleed from v to g or g to v track. There are other errors that can. But the times have to be in 'tempo sync'. Depends so much on rhythm fed to the mics. However, your guitar ability is so exact that you likely omit that consideration from the equation :-)

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 06:02 PM

Individual sound sources for guitar and voice are a good thing - they allow you some separation and the ability to balance one volume/placement against another.

I actually have two Zoom H2s, and I've often set one up to be close to the voice and the other to the guitar. There's inevitable "bleeding" from one sound source to another, but that's not irrepairable.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Rumncoke
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 05:47 PM

Thanks for all the names and clickies - I don't want to multitrack or do anything other than get a facsimile of what I sound like - so perhaps a second mike for the guitar and something to plug into and create balance is what I need to source, and then sort out the software.
Then I can hear what I have been inflicting on people.
I used to rehearse and practise different things - something I have been neglecting for a long time.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 05:11 PM

Here's a multi-tracked recording I made earlier this year - my own arrangement of Fats Waller's "Honeysuckle Rose" plaued on acoustic bass, guitar and lead tenor guitar:

Honeysuckle Rose

How I did it:

1. I created a new file called "Honeysuckle Rose" in Garageband on my Mac Book Pro, and set up a basic click track at the preferred tempo.

2. I listened to the click track (quietly) through earbuds and recorded the lead tenor guitar track live using my Zoom H2. (I also recorded the video for this at the same time with my Sony Camcorder).

3. I uploaded the Zoom H2 tenor guitar track as a wav. file to my Mac Book Pro and opened it with Audacity.

4. I used Audacity to check the volume level, topped and tailed it, and saved it as "Tenor guitar.wav."

5 I added "Tenor guitar.wav" to the Garageband file as a second track.

6. I deleted the tenor guitar track from my Zoom.

7. I repeated Steps 2-6 above, but this time played back the Garageband click and tenor guitar and tracks while recording the acoustic bass with the Zoom.

8. I repeated Steps 2-6 above, but this time played back the Garageband click, tenor guitar and bass tracks while recording the rhythm guitar track with the Zoom.

9. So, after three recording passes, I had a Garageband file containing (a) click (b) tenor guitar (c) bass and (d) guitar.

10. I deleted the click track from Garageband, and then synched, panned and EQ'd the three instrumental tracks within Garageband.

11. I saved the mixed Garageband track as "Honeysuckle Rose.wav - and then synched it up with the video in iMovie.

There's a reason for adding the rhythm guitar last - it's to give the feel that the guitar is actually listening to the lead. which it is.

Hope this is of use. It's actually less complex than it might initially look.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 11:39 AM

If I read the OP's initial post proberly, there are three things at play.

1) The microphone(s) and its hookup to the PC.
2) The program with which to record.
3) The method of transmitting the recorded product, whether by a CD-like device or a wav/mp3 setup.

Would that be a way to tackle the explanation so it's clear for Rumncoke?

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 11:25 AM

I'd say it depends how happy you are with computers and software.

If you're happy to learn how to use new software, then go the PC (or Apple Mac) route. Buy an interface and a microphone, learn to use Reaper or Audacity or Logic or Cubase or Garageband.

If not, then go for one of the many Zoom products people have recommended. In some ways that is probably closer to what you were used to using tape.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 11:00 AM

GUEST,# - yeah makes sense if anyone here feels like posting.

But these days, whatever good quality budget priced basic digital recording gear you buy,
the results are all going to sound at least fairly good.

It's not like the old days of listening to and comparing home recordings to hear which had least hiss, distortion and tape flutter...

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 10:54 AM

Needs a YouTube or Soundcloud account or similar, IIC.
I have neither.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 10:41 AM

Will Fly used to post links to some guitar pieces, Dick Miles to some songs, etc. If the people with some experience recording could show how they got the specific recording they did it would be more helpful I think than a bunch of technical jargon with no 'substance' to give it meaning.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 10:27 AM

It would be good if some of you could provide examples of your recorded work (with details) so the OP knows what was arrived at how, otherwise it's just an academic exercise.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 10:18 AM

The Zoom H4 actually has a multitrack recording mode. I've never got my head round it and I believe it's clunky and awkward to use. I keep meaning to have another go. But if you're good at that sort of thing...

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Nick
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 10:14 AM

Meant to say that the M-audio also comes with a copy of Ableton which is a proper (and good) digital audio workstation. I have never used it because I use something else and can't be bothered to relearn the limited bits I know

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Nick
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 10:04 AM

Depends what you want to do as other people have said

I have a little Zoom recorder (H2 an older one) which was about £130 when I bought it (probably cheaper now) and is a stalwart for me. Plonk it down in front of you or in the middle of a group of players (or plug it into amp though you would need to mess about with levels or it is too high I found and so bought a lead with a little volume control on) and you will have a decent recording.

Probably need something to clean it up afterwards and Audacity is fine but I never spent much time using it rather preferring Reaper - which can do multi tracking (like other ones) and all sorts of things - as long as you are ok reading the (very good) manual

I used to use (rather sadly) an old akai cassette deck as a preamp and then route it into the computer but bought an M-Audio M-Track for about £58 (for example ) which makes recording things better for me. Plug it into computer stick the jacks or xlr lead in and off you go.

I like reaper because it does offer a lot of ability to clean up stuff and multi track pretty easily when you have got the swing of it.

Like most software it depends what you are prepared to put in time (rather than money) as to what you get out the other end

Three examples that are were easily accessible (not anything wonderful just examples of what you can SIMPLY get out of stuff) -

ZoomH2 recorded outside with the Zoom sitting on a table - hear the scrunch of the pebbles. Normalised in Zoom

Live gig with a keyboard stuck over the top afterwards - in response to the 'minus keyboards obviously' comment :)

Recorded Reaper via m-audio - work in progress. Multi tracked with some midi stuff chucked in. Excuse the dodgy singing and iffy harmonies I have yet to re-record

I used to use Cakewalk Guitar Tracks when doing some stuff for a friend. Same sort of principle of being able to multitrack. My friend was very happy when this was broadcast on local radio so I guess the quality can't be too terrible given the cost was negligible apart from personal time

Cakewalk

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 09:38 AM

Another vote for the Zoom H2, for simple, 'on the hoof' recording. I have one and it's great for that.

But if you want to do anything using, for instance, multiple tracks building into a complete piece, it's useless, you need a computer and software, or one of those stand-alone 'Portastudios' such as the Tascam DP-FX.

I record several tracks of guitar, mandolin, bass, and multiple vocal tracks for lead and harmony vocals - the hand-held recorders like the Zoom don't do it very well, if at all.

Usual disclaimers - IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I'm sure someone will come along shortly to tell me I'm talking through my anal sphincter! 👍😜

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 09:33 AM

Also worth mentioning - a lowish cost decent quality compact analog mixer
eg: Yamaha MG102c [or whatever this years product version is]
still has various useful functions in a basic digital recording kit.

Many of the better quality old 4 track cassette recorders still have viable mixer sections,
even if the tape heads and motor are knackered...

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 09:27 AM

What do you want to do with the recording?

There are plenty of good hand held recorders out there, the Zoom H2N is an excellent purchase. The only caveat I would offer, apart from reading the manual many times - it is a complex beasty, is:

be careful handling it while recording. The battery cover squeeks, it is too easy to squeeze and though you won't hear much it will be serious on the recording.

Fits on a tripod. can do highly directional mono recordings, or 4 channel surround recordings. It will act as a metronome and instrument tuner.

For more immediate recordings I have , a cheapo watch that plays and records. It was red too! (other colours available)
The point of it is to grab the moment, and it has to be to hand to do that.

Subject: RE: Tech: Recording
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Aug 15 - 09:11 AM

I'll add this to above good starter advice...

The reasonably affordable and versatile ZOOM R8

Can be used as a stand alone basic multitrack,
or in any kind of combination with the more compact zoom H series recorders,
and/or PC & laptop recording setups.

My current gear is a Zoom R8, a Zoom H2n, and a variety of USB audio interfaces acquired over the years..