Recording a pro level CD at home

[jazztwang]

Anyone here ever recorded their own pro CD? I'm talking about something you've released for public consumption, not a demo for bars or booking agents.

I'm thinking of giving the home recording thing a try. We (my band) did our first CD in a studio...had it mixed, mastered, the whole 9 yards, and it sounded good...but not great. I've heard some home recordings from friends that sounded just as good as our studio effort.

The equipment I have is a PC, a Fostex VF08 8-track digital recorder, and a Shure SM-58 microphone. I think I'm going to have to grab a couple more mics and most likely get a decent sound card for the PC (I only have the stock one that came with the PC). And I know I'll need some software like Cubase or Cakewalk.

So, let me know your pro CD home recording experiences and please pass on any suggestions as to software and equipment I may need.

Oh yeah, I live in a condominium so I would probably be recording bed tracks live off the floor at one of the band member's houses.

Thanks in advance.

[Jorge]

I have done it and one of swedens most popular artists this year did it. Mr.Salem Al Fakir. He recorded the whole album in his kitchen and he played everything by himself. And he didn't have alot of stuff.
Infact he wrote alot of the stuff on the album in the musicstore im in right now!

[DakineTX]

NO expert here but you may wanna consider somthing like reason or amplitude (they are programs that work with/inside sonar/cubase etc.) to 'tweak' guitar sound etc.
And then, for final mix to get everything 'polished' and 'equal' Wavelab is amazing.

[2ndstringer]

Try Reaper.

http://reaper.fm/

Cheap, powerful, great online community. All the soundshaping plugs you need come with the download, which is only 2 megs. The demo is uncrippled, unexpiring, just a nag screen.

John

[jumpnblues]

John,

Do I understand correctly it's just $39.95 for the "home" version? That's an outstanding value. I have a full blown Protools LE studio with a dedicated dual Power Mac G-5 and Digidesign Digi 002R interface and it doesn't do a whole lot more than the Reaper stuff. Great value.

Tom

[Leon Grizzard]

There are lots of CD's around recorded on home equipment. The quality of the performances is the most important factor in a good recording, but better gear and better ears will almost always make the pro recording better overall. That is not only when tracking, but knowing what needs to be eq'd how to sit better in the mix etc. A lot of people will do all the tracking and mixing themselves, and then have the finished stereo mix mastered professionally, to give it some polish, and to bring the level up to commercial CD standards, which is hard to do, so I am told, on home equipment. I have gotten close on my Korg D 1600, but only close. That final volume, or loudness, or lack thereof, is the biggest complaint I hear about home recordings. (There is, of course, a huge debate about the compressed loudness of modern recordings.)

[2ndstringer]

Originally Posted by jumpnblues

John,

Do I understand correctly it's just $39.95 for the "home" version? That's an outstanding value. I have a full blown Protools LE studio with a dedicated dual Power Mac G-5 and Digidesign Digi 002R interface and it doesn't do a whole lot more than the Reaper stuff. Great value.

Tom

Yes, and the "commercial" version is $199. They are the same thing, but if you use it to make money, you are supposed to pay more. It is all on the honor system.

I have an old computer and I am no recording whiz, so I probably use about 10% of Reaper's capability, but I certainly find it easy to use. There are refugees from Cubase, Pro Tools, Sonar, Saw Studio, Samplitude and Vegas on the Reaper boards. It's certainly worth a look.

John

[Tim Armstrong]

Leon's right, with the kind of recording gear available today you can get pretty darn good results, but the real difference between recording in a pro studio and recording at home is usually the skill of the engineer.

As guitarists, we know the difference (usually!) between a guy with a great guitar and a guy who PLAYS great guitar. Same thing with recording, there's definitely a learning curve involved in becoming a good recording engineer.

I know this from personal experience! I recorded and mixed our band's CD three years ago, and while it's not bad, it sure isn't as good-sounding as it would be if I was doing it today! I recorded my nephew's band's CD last year, using the exact same gear, and the difference in quality, particularly on the drums, is pretty dramatic.

Cheers, Tim

[Ben Harmless]

Originally Posted by Leon Grizzard

There are lots of CD's around recorded on home equipment. The quality of the performances is the most important factor in a good recording

+1. There have been some fantastic records made that way, and whether Musician's Friend wants you to know it or not, good performances and compositions make for a good record much faster, better, and more solidly than studio wizardry.

You'll want to read up on things. I've learned quite a bit from online forums such as the ones found at prosoundweb.com and gearslutz.com. Then just find music you like and teach yourself to listen critically. Figure out what it is about the recordings of music you like that makes it special. Figure out what you think could have been done better, or just differently. See if you can figure out how they did what they did.

Home recording can be a fantastic way to go, but it's a long learning process. Most of the musicians who have made great albums that way have had a lot of experience in studios, where they could pick up techniques that they liked. Prepare to invest time, and do not be discouraged if you don't get what you're looking for right away. Ask questions here, and on other boards. Have honest people critique your work.

Enjoy it. Recording music is part of making music. It should be fun!

[Larry F]

In my youth, when I had loads of time, I developed the habit of recording a complete song from scratch every Friday night. I recorded on a 4-track recorder and bounced down as much as I needed. I played and sang all the parts myself. At the end of the night, I mixed it to stereo.

It was a fantastic learning experience. If you have time, doing a song a week would be a great way to go. Every song gets better. Mixing, in particular, is a skill that takes a lot of practice.

I'd recommend subscribing to Mix, a professional recording magazine. They have lots of insights into the recording process.

Yeah, get decent equipment, but most importantly, get hands and ears on experience.

[gtech]

My brother-in-law used to be in a rock band in the '70s and learned how to mix a band on the way.

He then decided he wanted a real life (read $$$) and got a job in a sound company because of his experience.

He can now make a home recording sound good because he did the sound mix for many shows, and he even had some well knowed performers call him at home for their shows.

So if you could find someone like that to help you, it would be the easier to do, and I am sure the results would be very good.

I heard a few homemade recordings that were as good as some studio recordings and I can tell you that it is easier to do than before because of the equipment available these days.

Gilles

[2ndstringer]

Originally Posted by Leon Grizzard

There are lots of CD's around recorded on home equipment. The quality of the performances is the most important factor in a good recording, but better gear and better ears will almost always make the pro recording better overall. That is not only when tracking, but knowing what needs to be eq'd how to sit better in the mix etc. A lot of people will do all the tracking and mixing themselves, and then have the finished stereo mix mastered professionally, to give it some polish, and to bring the level up to commercial CD standards, which is hard to do, so I am told, on home equipment. I have gotten close on my Korg D 1600, but only close. That final volume, or loudness, or lack thereof, is the biggest complaint I hear about home recordings. (There is, of course, a huge debate about the compressed loudness of modern recordings.)

Actually, making it loud is not a problem, at least on a computer-based multitracker. Even I can make it loud. Just put a compressor on the master channel, squish it, and crank up the gain until you are hitting 0db without clipping. I like Sinusweb Peakcompressor for this because it gives you a visual display of the wav form so you can see where to set the thresholds for the compresser and the limiter. Loud is not a problem. Making it sound good, however, requires ears and experience.

[jazztwang]

Some good food for thought posted. Thanks guys.

Another question...Any tips on soundproofing a 10 x 10 room in a condominium? I won't be able to record drums at my place and I can go direct with a bass or even a guitar. But I might try recording some live vocals or try miking a guitar amp (at a reasonable but good sounding volume).

[Tim Armstrong]

My recording space isn't particularly soundproof, so I use isolation boxes for guitar amps (basically an insulated wooden box with no bottom, big enough to cover an amp and short mic stand, that I place over the amp) and a portable vocal booth setup made from a pvc pipe framework holding padded mover blankets (easy to set up and break down!).

Cheers, Tim

[WickedGTR]

I just recorded a bunch of songs at home and got a record contact, so ...uh...yes!

[maestrovert]

Leon mentioned the Korg D-1600, there's been quite a few releases that were recorded on 'em....
Forrest Lee Jr's "Telethon" to name only one....

[Yutaka]

Well, if this would be of any encouragement..



The recording & mixing of the second song "Montmartre à l'aurore" on this myspace page, http://www.myspace.com/chrislung , was all done at my apartment pictured above (except the recording of the drums which was done at the living room in the drummer's house - even smaller than my apartment). The song will go out on a compilation CD from a small label in UK, so I guess it can be considered a pro recording...

My room is't acoustically treated, so I've used the Reflexion Filter from SE Electronics to keep the room sound out of the recording of vocals & guitar.



Hanging a blanket behind the singer was still necessary, though...

I think it is very important that you have a good mic & a preamp. The signals recorded through the low quality preamps won't take EQ and compression as well as the ones recorded with the pro-level preamps. Also, try to get a sound card of decent quality as well. RME HDSP9632 I've been using really doesn't sound like what you get at the pro studios, but it is pretty good for the money...

Most of the guitars were recorded direct through the Behringer V-amp2, and then fed to my blackface Princeton Reverb from CubaseSX3 later using Little Labs IBP (its primary use is for phase aligning the two mics aimed at the same source, but it can be used for matching the line level signal to the guitar level signal also). Recording direct and then re-amping later is great. You can record at any hours you want for any length of time, and then when you are done with everything, you can just send the finished tracks to your amp. This way you can be done with the 'loud' amping part in 30-40 minutes par song, and keep your neighnourhood in peace.

I didn't plan on using those V-amp2 tracks for the final recording, though. It was one of those, "the demo had a better vibe...." situation.

[Leon Grizzard]

One advantage of DIY is you can spend as much time as you want mixing. I was listening to our newly mastered record, which has six project studio tracks, and ten tracks recorded on my Korg D 1600. On one level, the project studio tracks are better - better mikes and other equipment, 24 bit vs. 16 bit, crisper sound, more experience, etc. But our mixes are better; they ought to be, since they got a dozen tweaks each, as opposed to about a half hour each, plus a follow up on a couple of them, with the clock running at the project studio.

[Ben Harmless]

Originally Posted by 2ndstringer

Actually, making it loud is not a problem, at least on a computer-based multitracker. Even I can make it loud. Just put a compressor on the master channel, squish it, and crank up the gain until you are hitting 0db without clipping. I like Sinusweb Peakcompressor for this because it gives you a visual display of the wav form so you can see where to set the thresholds for the compresser and the limiter. Loud is not a problem. Making it sound good, however, requires ears and experience.

I was all ready to try and gently correct you there, and then you made the good point - it's an ear thing as much as a gear thing. You can throw a compressor across any 2-bus and make the product "louder" - meaning higher average level, but that will most likely make your mix into something it wasn't before. If, say, you've got a really powerful kick drum in the mix, then it'll be putting out peaks that cause the compressor to trigger each time it's hit. This results in "pumping." Turn on any modern rock radio station, and you'll hear the effect - it's the woosh that accompanies the loud low notes. That's not how it's supposed to sound, it's the result of the broadcast compressors getting hit really hard by idiot radio engineers (I know 'cause I am one*) who run their program way to hot all the time in an effort to be the loudest on dial.

The answer is often judicious use of EQ and multband compression. Normal compressors will affect the whole signal equally. Multiband comps use a crossover to compress different ranges of the signal at different levels. Then, there's always your ears.




*I don't do that. Plus, I'm in public radio, so we don't have to compete like that - and we don't have kick drums.

[Skully]

This results in "pumping." Turn on any modern rock radio station, and you'll hear the effect - it's the woosh that accompanies the loud low notes. That's not how it's supposed to sound, it's the result of the broadcast compressors getting hit really hard by idiot radio engineers (I know 'cause I am one*) who run their program way to hot all the time in an effort to be the loudest on dial.

Of course, "how it's supposed to sound" is a subjective thing, influenced by sonic trends of the day. In "The Mixing Engineers Handbook" put out by Mix Magazine, a lot of the big name dudes go into detail about how to get that pumping sound and feel they want from the rhythm section.

[Ben Harmless]

Originally Posted by Skully

Of course, "how it's supposed to sound" is a subjective thing, influenced by sonic trends of the day. In "The Mixing Engineers Handbook" put out by Mix Magazine, a lot of the big name dudes go into detail about how to get that pumping sound and feel they want from the rhythm section.

Well, by "how it's supposed to sound," I'm really referring to how the record was actually mixed as opposed to how it sounds in your car after it gets butchered by broadcast limiters.

It's my understanding though, that the "pumping" that the big name engineers are looking for is not that horrible fake sound you hear in the car, but is a rhythmic pattern based on the release times of a compressor that can create space or texture in a song - usually within a single track or maybe a drum submix. When it occurs to the stereo mixdown, that's a problem. I know engineers who can't listen to their own work on the radio because of it.