|
|
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 33
| Anyone have a Zoom R16 multi-track recorder? They came out about a month ago and have rave reviews. All you need is a Windows XP/Vista or Mac confuser and I recommend an MXL w/USB connect mic. and you have a 16-track recording set-up that for the $ is probably second to none. Let me know if this can be beat. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | great for a home system but it is not studio quality by any stretch of the imagination especially the mxl mic |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4536
Location: Flahdaw | Originally posted by BIG O:
Anyone have a Zoom R16 multi-track recorder? They came out about a month ago and have rave reviews. All you need is a Windows XP/Vista or Mac confuser and I recommend an MXL w/USB connect mic. and you have a 16-track recording set-up that for the $ is probably second to none. Let me know if this can be beat. I pulled this up online and didn't see where you could connect a USB mic to it. Looks like a nice unit though, particularily with the onboard effects and amp modeling. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 33
| The mic has the USB that plugs into the computers port. Al says it isn't studio quality though and that's what I needed to know. Can you record with this unit and shape everything later? Al? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | don't get me wrong it will work and it will sound good but not great.
sgt pepper was recorded on 4 track tape |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2006
Posts: 3969
| I have an older Zoom 4-track. I plug my mics in for phantom power to a small mixer, then feed the mixer output to the Zoom. I don't use any of the effects built into the Zoom, prefer to do that later. I then export the raw sound files from the Zoom to my computer for final effects and mixdown (use your favorite flavor of software DAW - I'm currently using Reaper). |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2008
Posts: 489
| Well, I read the specs until my eyes started to glaze over.
It seems to me that if you want to record your band's demo, this could be the ticket. You could easily burn through 400 bucks in studio time. And believe me, I've heard a LOT of "studio" demos that didn't sound a whole lot better, if at all, than demos cranked out on someone's computer with Audacity.
If that's what you have in mind, I'd say go for it. If you're a one man operation putting together tracks, however, I'd forgo the 400 bucks and use the aforementioned Audacity or slightly more expensive n-Track on your computer. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 33
| I'm not looking for a "wall of sound" effect but it seems you can 4-track record and then later "enhance" the sound. How is this done. G8r may have just answered this. How is "enhancing" done. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2008
Posts: 489
| Not sure what you mean by enhancing, but one trick I learned a while back to get a "big" guitar sound is to record the guitar in stereo with about twenty ms delay between tracks. You get the sound of one guitar, but in the stereo image it does sound, well, large.
Nowadays I simply record the track, clone it and then move the cloned track along the time line until I get the desired effect. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2006
Posts: 3969
| Originally posted by BIG O:
How is "enhancing" done. You have to start with the cleanest signal you can. You want plenty of headroom on your signal and NO CLIPPING so you can play around with "enhancements." Once you have that it becomes a matter of the software digital signal processors you have available. Reaper, Cubase, Audacity, etc. can all use what are called VST Plugins. These are small bits of software that give added functionality to the main program they're "plugged into."
There are tons of VST plugins available, some pricey, and many free. Generally, the more complicated and/or reliable (like Autotune, for example) the more expensive they'll be. Google "free VST plugins" for a boatload of them, many of them quite effective and easy to use.
The trick is knowing which ones to use, and how much of their effect to apply. As somebody stated in another thread today, less is more. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 33
| Losov,"Enhancing" ie. the Beatles new cd's or Dennis Wilson's "Pacific Ocean Blue". The sound off these newer releases is more ambient and airy or should I say should be. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 33
| Thank you G8r. I realize this is a trial and error procedure and you've put me on the path. I'm familiar with Reaper and have access to that software. Less is always more, even if it does'nt seem at first, it allows you to sit back and see the affects of those that push the "more envelope to see those results without committing yourself to a waste of time. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | I don't know for sure, but I doubt there was much in the way of 'enhancing' on the new Beatles releases.
The original 60's Capitol releases were the EMI stereo mixes 'enhanced' for the US listening audience - and sounded terrible compared to the original mono masters. Even the EMI engineers did not care much for the stereo mixes.
The first 1982 CD releases were 'enhanced' for CD - and sounded worse than the Capitol vinyl masters they were taken from.
I think what you're hearing on the new releases - that clean, airy, unmuddied quality - is the result of very talented engineers producing very well mastered reproductions of what the original recordings sounded like, without any need of 'enhancements'.
G8r said it, "You have to start with the cleanest signal you can."
True, most of the Beatles recordings were done on 2 and 4 track recorders... but they were done on the highest quality equipment available at the time, operated by people who knew how to get exactly the sound they wanted onto that tape, because they didn't have the luxury of going back and 'tweaking' the individual tracks post-recording. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2008
Posts: 489
| Originally posted by BIG O:
Less is always more, Exactly. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 119
Location: everywhere | Originally posted by BIG O:
Anyone have a Zoom R16 multi-track recorder? They came out about a month ago and have rave reviews. All you need is a Windows XP/Vista or Mac confuser and I recommend an MXL w/USB connect mic. and you have a 16-track recording set-up that for the $ is probably second to none. Let me know if this can be beat. Listen, it doesn't matter what gear you have, the one thing you can not buy is "Ears" By "Ears" I mean the abilty to hear a sound and know how to mike it, record it, process it and mix it.
Some of the best-sounding recordings were made 3 to 5 decades ago on, by modern standards, basic gear. Right now consistently mediocre music is being produced by f**kwits with the latest software.
All you need is a good room, a few good mics, maybe a coupla great mic preamps and some ears. Oh yeah, and a few GREAT musicians. The ears and the musicians come first, then the
the room. Anything else is just a bonus |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2009
Posts: 61
Location: on the web | 'All you need is a good room, a few good mics, maybe a coupla great mic preamps and some ears.'
Yeah, look at what Traveling Wilburys did with just that. And the room was a living room with foam taped to the walls.
Hey CR, howzabout you and me start a band - we'll call it "The god Botherers" |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 119
Location: everywhere | Great band name, but I prefer "The Creationists"
or " Not More Than 6000 BC"
or "I'm Not A Monkey"
or F**K R***ard D*wk*ns
Any of those would work for me. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | Strum a chord and I can hear if the b string is a few cents flat or sharp but as far as recording, I have sucky ears.
Any recording success (within my meager standards), I might have is more than 50% luck.
I've had the pleasure to be in the company of some folks who have really good ears. It really put things in perspective. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 119
Location: everywhere | Brad, that's a whole different thing. Experienced "recording ears" are scary. They are both technical and creative at the same time. It cannot be taught, but it can be learned. It's something you cannot really comprehend until you experience it first hand, with someone who is a master at it |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 2491
Location: Copenhagen Denmark | KORG D3200 |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 119
Location: everywhere | GNBD Z6522 |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 2491
Location: Copenhagen Denmark | STAR TREK |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 119
Location: everywhere | Oh, now that's just rude. He asks me in his secret Danish code to blow him, and I tell him he's not my type, and then he just gets nasty. Where are the moderators on this site? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | "STAR TREK"
No, that would be ... NCC-1701 |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 119
Location: everywhere | NCC-1701? Oooooooh, now that's just filth! Brad, you need to PM me, you dirty boy! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 2491
Location: Copenhagen Denmark | yIDoghQo |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2008
Posts: 747
| Originally posted by Caravan Rooubishe:
...Right now consistently mediocre music is being produced by f**kwits with the latest software.
That's the way it goes. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 2491
Location: Copenhagen Denmark | what`s mediocre music .. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2008
Posts: 747
| Originally posted by FlicKreno aka Solid Top:
what`s mediocre music .. There's lots of other names for it but "crap" would sorta sum it up in a word that's easier to spell.
Actually, "mediocre" might be an overly generous term for what Mr. Rubbish was referring to..lol |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 2491
Location: Copenhagen Denmark | Originally posted by Joe Rotax:
Originally posted by FlicKreno aka Solid Top:
what`s mediocre music .. There's lots of other names for it but "crap" would sorta sum it up in a word that's easier to spell. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2008
Posts: 747
| Originally posted by FlicKreno aka Solid Top:
.. is that how they spell " rap " in Canadian .. No, rap = crap in any language..lol |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2008
Posts: 489
| Originally posted by Caravan Rooubishe:
Some of the best-sounding recordings were made 3 to 5 decades ago on, by modern standards, basic gear.
It's unfortunate that the OP won't be with us for a while. I do feel he would benefit from the wisdom of Rooub's post. OP was talking about light and airy - great - AFTER you've got solid basic tracks, at which time you can add all the bells and whistles you want.
I am reminded of a quote from a music publisher I read years ago, "Putting more reverb on a bad song is not gonna make me like it." |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2005
Posts: 3411
Location: GA USA | Originally posted by Joe Rotax:
Mr. Rubbish :D |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4833
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | |
|
| |
Superb recording studio around $500-