Essentials for a Home Recording Studio

[HeavierThings]

Dunno if this is the right place to put it but I would like to start working on a home studio, buying little pieces at at time. This is a long time project I want to start, I'm now 15, that when I'm older and a more experienced musician I will have finished. So here I asked you my question : Whats the Essentials for a Home Recording Studio? I don't want the cheap answer of " all you need is a $5 mic" I am looking towards a professional level ( or around that ish ). Thanks guys, I'm asking you cuz you guys know it all

[sliding-tom]

Tell you what I have and I can make complete recordings and print-ready CDs with that:
16 track Digital audio workstation incl. automated mixing, dynamic processor for each channel, two effects processors and a couple more features(CD burner)
D.I.box and Tech 21 Trademark amp for going direct.
Several mics - Sure SM 57 for sure, Rode condensers (quality mics but not high bucks)
Alesis drum machine (used for demos )
Monitoring system: power amp and a pair of good speakers, good set of headphones
And if you're going to record amps or instruments or entire bands in a room, you'll need a good sounding room.

[seagate]

If you want to do it on the puter, you'll need an audio interface (I use a Motu 828mkII) with good preamps, software (Cubase or whatever, I use Logic Pro) instead of the workstation. This has the advantage that you can easily replace components for faster or better units.

sea

[TonsofBlues]

The first most important part is goin to be your computer... you'll need a good one, or at least a decent one... Ain't nothing worse that recording something and having the computer crash half way into it. I'd recommend a G4, or even a G5.

[Mikey]

I might add a note of caution here.
Be careful to think through and read up on what's coming down the pike as far as technology goes. Wouldn't want to spend a pile-o-bucks on something now only to have it become obsolete the year after you get it and two years before you open your studio.

[nabskater]

No less than 120 SM57s! You can use them for everything! YEAH! and check this out.


You get a free T shirt to tell everybody how much you love the SM57! haha.


I just thought you guys should see that shirt if you haddent already, cause its quite humorus. I actually have 2 SM57s and i like them a lot, they are good quality mics. So while you might not need 120 of them, one or two can never hurt. Plus i doubt theyll get out-dated soon.

[Gravity Jim]

My twelve cents:

1. A computer based system like Fezz describes (with big-fast drives) will expand as you do.
2. MOTU rules for cheap, great interfaces.
3. It for sure does not have to be ProTools. I used to use ProTools because I thought I had to, but I've been running my jingle/advertising/TV-post/radio production room on Digital Performer for 7 years and I love it. Use what makes you efficient.
4. SM57s are not the best cheap mics of all time. They're just around. Nothing wrong with them, but if you own a couple of LDCs, you'll never use your 57s. (Ok, maybe not never, but hardly ever.) That is, however, a very cool shirt and I think I need one.
5. Here's the big wordy answer you've all come to expect from me.

It doesn't matter what your record on... the important thing is what you are recording. The spirit and the groove of the music trumps any piece of recording gear. You know how everybody says over and over that "Sgt. Pepper" was recorded on a four track? Yeah, well, it sounds like it. I think these are better examples:

Don Was recorded the master for "Walk The Dinosaur" in his living room, using a cheap pro-sumer Tascam console to track and mix it. That record is too funky to be real.

Much to the chagrin of the entire industry, Glen Ballard recorded all of "Jagged Little Pill" on 3 blackface 16-bit ADATs. I don't like Alanis Morissette, but that record is undeniable. The album has digital "overs" and pre-amp distortion all over it. Ballard knows it. He decided that the performances were more important than audio cleanliness.

Tom Scholz recorded almost all of the first Boston album in his basement using a 12-track Scully analog machine and a bunch of processing of his own design. When the record company insisted that the masters be re-recorded, his producer at Epic (John Boylan) arranged to have a mobile truck come to Tom's house, where they ran a snake out the basement window and simply transferred the masters to two-inch tape in the truck, redid some vocals in LA, and then presented them to Epic as having been re-recorded. Regardless of whether or not you like Boston, I think any of us would be happy to have produced those basic tracks in our homes.

So, there you go. Like Fezz Says™, it's your ears, not the gear.

[Kap'n]

You know how everybody says over and over that "Sgt. Pepper" was recorded on a four track? Yeah, well, it sounds like it.

Not a big fan of that album either. However, I think it was recorded on two four tracks, each using one track for synch, for a total of six tracks.

[Gravity Jim]

I believe that's correct, Kap'n... not mention the endless "bouncing" of groups of tracks down to stereo, and flying in SFX records during mixdown. There are zillions of individually recorded parts on "Sgt. Pepper."

But even though I'm not wild about the album, it does prove the point that desire and imagination is more important than gear.

[TonsofBlues]

I've always loved adobe audition... industry standard in radio... great software for recording, editing, and such. Around 300-400 bucks... Master it, and the only limit is yourself...

I only wish it worked on macs!

[Gravity Jim]

I think that Adobe felt squeezed out of that market, Tons... I can't think of another explantion for why they didn't port software that had run on Macs for years (as Premiere), except that there are just too many solid and well-entrenched solutions in the market.

[nabskater]

I also use audition, and i love it. Theres an endless amount of stuff you can do. The only problem is that (as with all digital stuff) you cant do phasing (or at least i couldnt figure it out), you know where the sound seems to be coming from "beyond" the speakers? But its a very good digital recording program.

[Gravity Jim]

The only problem is that (as with all digital stuff) you cant do phasing (or at least i couldnt figure it out), you know where the sound seems to be coming from "beyond" the speakers?

nabskater, the effect you're talking about is a psychoacoustic thing... you can do it with high-end reverbs and with spatializer hardware (or software)... why do you think that you can't do it when you're recording digitally? And what phasing process are you talking about that works only with analog stuff?

[Wilko]

Ear not gear. For sure.

Even the Mac mini comes from the factory with more recording power than almost every recording studio had during the 70s. Of course you can only do two tracks at a time. But after that, the sky's the limit. Tons of "outboard gear" is all packed in thier. Even rudimentary midi control and midi instruments that sound pretty darn good with the built in software synths.

[nabskater]

@ JG
these is the instructions i had on it
"Im mixing you might want to have some fun with phase. Say you have a big band with a dozen instruments, and the guy on the B-3 is just playing subtle pads and swells, a supplemental role. If you have recorded the signal in sereo in stereo, you can put it out of phase and make it sound like he is sitting to the left or tight of the speakers."

Sine im trying to do this digitally, i figured i could just make an exact copy of the track, insterad of recording in stereo.

"First combine the two stereo tracks of the B-3 with an aux send or bus. Then return that new mono signal to a fader. In simpler terms; send equal ammounts of signal form each of the B-3 tracks to the aux send. This will create a mono "mix" of the stereo B-3 signal. Patch out of that mono "return" to an open fader. Pan the origional tracks hard left and hard right, and the new mono signal up the middle. At this point when you push up the new fader, the oorgan should just sound louder. But when you pop the phase button on that fader, reversing its phase, reversing its phase relationship with the origional stereo B-3 youll hear an odd thing happen. It will sound as though the B-3 was "pushed" to the sides, even wider than the actual speakers. As you play with the faders, you can decide how much of the signal you want and how wide you want the organ to appear."

I had no idea how to go about this using a digital program, so i just tried a few different things, and eventually ended up getting frustrated because the sounds just cancled each oterh out.

EDIT: sorry for the little bit of thread hijack!

[Gravity Jim]

nabskater - The problem with this isn't a digital thing. If you put a track 180 degrees out of phase with an identical track AND sum them to mono, they cancel each other out completely. Also, putting one channel of a stereo track out of phase with the other will cancel out identical frequencies in both tracks, leaving behind only what is NOT identical - this is the basis of the old "vocal remover" trick.

The good news is that the total cancelation you achieved proved that your software is running properly and keeping tracks in sample-accurate alignment. If you DIDN'T get total silence after doing what you described, it would be bad news.

You can try the trick you described easily with a digital system, depending on how your software handles stereo files. One easy way.... pan the two sides of the stereo image of the B-3 to hard right and left, and buss them to, let's say outputs 1 and 2. Arm two mono tracks with 1 and 2 as inputs, and hit record. You now have two mono files, each identical to one side the stereo track. Now pan both sides of the original stereo track straight up, buss them both to output 1, let's say, and re-record the file creating a third mono track that is the sum of both sides of the original stereo track.

Now, pan the first two new tracks hard right and left, and the third track straight up. Select that third track, look for the Reverse Phase command in your software.... send the command, and there you are. The more you turn that third track up, the more phase cancelation you will cause in the Left and Right tracks.

But here's the deal... you would have to record the original file in stereo. If you make an exact duplicate of a mono file, reverse the phase of one and collapse them to mono, they disappear. Totally. Absolute cancelation, matter and anti-matter. That's why it didn't work for you... because your first step guaranteed that you would achieve total phase cancellation, and nothing else. :)

I have never heard that this trick would create a "beyond the speakers" effect. I'll have to try it, but I don't see how this would do anything but create total phase cancelation, whether you do it in a DAW or on an analog console. To be honest, it sounds like a snipe hunt.

[clayville]

You can get into this stuff without spending a penny through freeware and compromised input options -- and you'll certainly learn a lot about the process and whether or not you personally would get good value out of a heavy investment in better stuff.

My answer to the original question though is: invest your first serious money in good mics and tube preamps. Those things won't be obsolete nearly as fast as some of the other items you'll need in the digital domain.

The 'puter will be "behind the times" a year after you buy it (or less), no matter what it is. The software you use to record and edit with will likely also want to be upgraded a year after you buy it. Doesn't mean you have to every time there's a Feature Creep version upgrade, but whenever you're ready to get the good stuff, be prepared to have to keep feeding the beast as time goes on.

14 months ago I treated myself to an expensive, close to top-of-the-line for this sort of thing ProTools LE/Mbox setup on a new, dedicated Mac with beefed up memory and an outboard drive. It works great (now that I have some idea how to use it) and I'm really happy with it, but in no time at all the software, the Mbox and the 'puter itself have all been passed by new versions on the market.

Technology marches on. Microphones and playing chops don't expire!

[Gravity Jim]

Is it the rhyme or the ™ that you're diggin'?

[lure555]

I get some great stuff with an Mbox, eMac, Presonus Blue Tube, and some cheap MXL mic. It's all in the way you use it.

[Wilko]

"It's in the way that you use it"
® ©1991 by Eric Clapton and Peter Robertson

[NeoFauve]

What would be the bare minimum specs for a dedicated recording PC?
I may have an opportunity to get a freebee.
An older Dell. I'm guessing it has Windows 98 or so (maybe 95), 40G hard drive.

I wouldn't want to rely on my current home machine to do music, since it has a bunch graphic software already.

I've been noticing stuff like the new Fostex MR-8 Mk II, (seems pretty dumbass-proof, portable and affordable). Also the Tascam DP-01's.
But upgradablity seems like a good thing, eventhough I have yet to record a note.

[NeoFauve]

Oops.
Dbl-post.
Damn rickety dial-up!!

[Kap'n]

What would be the bare minimum specs for a dedicated recording PC?

One of the issues with '98 is that it doesn't handle memory very well. I ran a PIII with '98 and 1GB of memory with Cubase 'light' and I still had wierd dropouts. It might have been the Tascam US-224 I was using, which was a piece of shit.

[LPTwin]

you might want to try surfing over to www.gearslutz.com for more info from other experienced people in the recording biz... i'm not shilling for the site but have been there some and picked up some useful info.

[TonsofBlues]

you might want to try surfing over to www.gearslutz.com for more info from other experienced people in the recording biz... i'm not shilling for the site but have been there some and picked up some useful info.

I never really liked gearslutz (lots of little reasons). I'd pick TFF over that one anyday...

[Rickenjangle]

I had good luck recording with Cool Edit Pro on Win98, but any newer program will probably be too much for it to handle. You'll need to get at least a PIII or equivalent, as well as a fast hard drive, and there's no reason to only have a 40 GB HDD anymore.

Try to get an XP machine if going with a Winbox and by all means get all the RAM you can afford.

I, personally, would still consider a standalone, but only if it has at least 16 recording channels at once, and hopefully a full control surface with 16 XLR ins. The Korg D3200 is what I've been thinking about. I didn't really care for the workflow on the 'puter as much as the old-school, analog-style workflow afforded by the standalone workstation.

I have a Tascam DP01FX that I use for demo'ing, but it only records 2 at a time (though it is dead-simple to use).

[photoweborama]

The MOST important thing you will need to get recording is a reliable source of recording information from people that really know their stuff..

Well lookie here!! Fezz and Gravity Jim are already here!!!

Actually the majority of the users on this system that record really know their stuff. Most other forums there are guys that record, but their experience is not rooted in fact or experience, just their own theories.

Just to add that the pros on this site have more published music, tracks, etc. than all the other forums combined. I'm I'm not taking about small stuff. I'm talking about major mediums that thousands, if not millions have heard.

I'm still learning, and have a lot to learn, but I've had a few people hear my stuff and tell the production is fantastic. It's not me.. It's the help from the pros on this forum that have really allowed me to hone my skills. Without them, I'd be nowhere.

I know I'm biased, but if Fezz and Jim say it works, then it works.

[Gravity Jim]

*blush*

You're too kind, Mr. PhotoMan. I know almost nothing. Fezz has the dirty lowdown, fer shizzle, but I'm just twisting knobs, and mostly virtual ones at that.

[photoweborama]

You guys never blow your own horn.. So I'm going to do it for you!