Showing posts with label recording. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recording. Show all posts

Monday, 25 July 2011

Caramel


Caramel by glomu

Caramel must have been the longest ever recording project of mine. I heard the original song by Suzanne Vega first in 2003 and not long after that I felt I really wanted to create my own version , with a smooth jazz, bossa-nova approach to it. The initial recordings were done in 2004 and consisted of the followings:
Yamaha PSR 290


Drum track

It is not difficult to see that the drum is provided by a drum machine in the song. It was done by using 2-3 variations of the same style / pattern. My old Yamaha PSR 290 was used to generate the stereo drum track and fair play to him, I am pleased with the results, knowing especially the limitations of cheap digital keyboards. The only real issue with the drum track is that it was not recorded in stereo. At that time, I was heavily using a Zoom MRS4 machine, a great little 4 track recording device, but lacking real stereo capabilities. This results in a somewhat mono, somewhat pseudo stereo sounding drum track in the song.

Organ

The organ track was provided a sound bank called Click organ (if I remember well) also coming from the Yamaha PSR 295. It can be perceived as being a bit overtly cheesy, but I am happy with the sound overall. I am not happy though with the mono outcome, this track suffers from the same recording device limitation as the drum track. The only difference is that being panned to the right, you do not really feel the loss of a true stereo sound in the case of the organ track.

Bass

Peavey Millenium BXP 5
Originally, just to have as much of the backing track ready as possible, I used the bass sounds of the Yamaha PSR 290, but they sounded really MIDI and fake, so in 2007 I re-recorded the bass using a Peavey Millenium BXP-5 going through a Zoom B1. The sound quality of this recording really needed some cosmetics, especially on the EQs.

Guitar

At the time of the recording I had a cheap Les Paul copy named Apollo with a Zoom 707II multieffect. I on purpose wanted to create a very simple guitar track, though I have to admit that my jazz playing skills also were very basic at that time (and they have not improved :-)). Also, something I was less worried about in 2004, the Zoom 707II guitar multieffect is a bit noisy, which is easy to treat, once you pay attention to it. This is something I have not done in 2004, obviously.

Throughout 2007-2008, the song had a number of different versions which included piano solos, accordion tracks, long sustain Slash like solos and even a weird bass solo, but none of them really worked. Between 2008 and 2010 I did not really work on the song, up until I gave the old backing track to Michelle to give it a try and see how she likes the song. From there on, thing sped up and in March, 2011, we recorded the voice. Michelle's voice beautifully complemented the already existing track and set well upon the minimalistic but thick jazz guitar / organ combo.

In 2010, I met Saverio, a genius flute player who can do wonders with his flute in a number of different styles and genres by adding magical licks and solos to the song flow. The final song features his 3rd recording take, he was so much into the song that there was no need for any further retakes.

Technical details:

ZOOM MRS-4



The main hassle here was caused by the Zoom MRS4 multi-track recording device. I recorded most of the tracks in mono and in 32KHZ only. This means that once I started editing them on the computer, I had to re sample all tracks, which, obviously, did not improve anything on the quality. However, it allowed further recordings in industry standard qualities to take place.




Once we had the voice and the flute (both recorded in a noisy office room), noise reduction, psudeo stereo widening, compression, reverb and other cosmetics were used to put the somewhat limited source files into acceptable shapes.

So here we are with the results for the longest ever recording project of mine.

Caramel by glomu

Tuesday, 8 March 2011

Zoom R16 resources


After my recent ordering of Zoom R16, I thought I would collect the best Zoom R16 resources to one place, for reference.


1. The best, most detailed, insightful review of the Zoom R16 can be found on Jamon's page.

I would highlight the acoustic guitar sample recording and this electric demo. While none of them our outstanding in quality, these clearly show that the Zoom R16 clearly meets industry standards without any special tweaks. Also, let me steal his unpacking video from youtube:



2. Official Zoom 16 pages: Zoom Japan (check the style of the page :-), Samsontech

3. Zoom R16 users' manual, give it a quick look before pushing the "add to basket" button, just to make sure you are clear on what you are purchasing.

Zoom R16 Operation Manual ( 32.13 MB PDF file)
Zoom R16 Audio Interface Manual in PDF format ( 7.03 MB PDF file) 

4. Zoom R16 firmware updates

5. Trusted Zoom R16 reviews:
6. Relevant threads on Zoomforum.us

Monday, 7 March 2011

Buying a Zoom R16


As you might have already read in this post, I am a great fan of Zoom products in general. I would never say they are perfect, but let's be honest, there is no such thing as perfect, when it comes to home recording devices. At best, perfect means the least compromise you will need to make when settling with a model of your choice.

 
official Zoom R16 video from Samsontech

I have settled with the Zoom R16. After searching around on the net for quite a while, and having owned / tried a few Zoom, Tascam, Korg and Fostex portable multitrack recorders, I felt pretty safe and sure pressing the "Add to basket" button yesterday night at Europe's most well-known online music webshop. So, why the Zoom R16?



The Zoom R16 (in theory) ticks most of the boxes when it comes to budget home recording. Let's see a list of the features that are the most appealing to me:
  • 8 tracks simultaneous recording
  • 24 bit recording
  • built in mics, same as the ones you will find in a Zoom H2 (wow)
  • can be used as a DAW interface
  • sends 8 independent channels over USB to any multitracking software
  • up to 96khz sampling when used as an audio interface
  • records on SD card, up to 32 GB
  • utilizing Secure Digital (SD) memory
  • battery operation (no humming bird :-)
  • USB host function
  • 8 XLR / jack combo inputs
  • phantom power (but on 2 tracks only)
  • Mackie control emulation 
  • runs on battery for 5-6 hours

Good stuff, but will probably not use that much:
  • 100 built-in studio effects
  • mastering effects
  • multi-band compressor
  • Steinberg Cubase LE 4
For more official info, check the official websites here and here. On the second site, you can have a listen to an example recording of a live session using Samson mics and the Zoom R16. First of all, it is an average mix at best, but more importantly, the singer is really out of tune here and there. Not a wise choice for showing the capabilities of the Zoom R16.

So, if Klaus is fast in preparing my shipment, I shall be able to start testing the Zoom R16 this weekend, to see if it ticks all the boxes in reality as well, and not just in theory. Fingers crossed.

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Hardware or software multitrack recorder?


Both answers can be right, it all depends on your needs and working environment. I have had my share of both worlds, and after shifting from one to the other and back a few times, the only good advise I can give is to try and have your finger in both solutions.

Investing in both hardware and software based multitrack solutions is the best way to go in my experience. Both of these systems have their advantages and disadvantages and can be understood as complementary to each other instead of being supreme.

My extensive, money-burning budget-studio-home-recording experience tells me the followings:
Hardware based multitrack solutions:

 
Tascam Neo 2488 - One of the highest level portable multitrack recorders

Pros:
  • Reliable in most cases (apart from some bad series from Tascam and others)
  • Easy to use for basic multitrack recording
  • Silent operation, especially with the memory card driven ones, but even HDD based solutions are fairly quiet these days
  • High portability
  • Dedicated knobs for many functions like PAN, EQ, EFFECTS
  • One-stop solution from recording to CD burning (models with CD burners)
  • Connectivity to PC for further editing

Cons:
  • Can be very complicated for complex recordings / mixes
  • Can be very limited in number of tracks
  • Usually very limited in number of dedicated stereo tracks
  • Small LCD screen, in many cases with terrible view angle
  • Multi level menu driven operation
  • Limited or no future expansions or upgrades
  • No options to save user settings (except for a few multi thousand $ models)
  • No mixer automation
  • 'As is' solution with almost 0 customisation opportunities
  • Expensive
Software based multitrack solutions:


Pros:
  • Can be cheap ( software available from free / 25 EUR)
  • Runs on any standard PC or Mac
  • Works with any standard sound card
  • Easily upgradable
  • Expandable with third party software like effects, virtual instruments
  • Can save and restore any user settings
  • Offers maximum mixing automation (volume, panning, effects etc)


  Cons:
  • Can be highly unstable
  • Might be fairly complicated to use (Logic Pro)
  • No dedicated knobs and buttons
  • Works best with a high quality sound card (starting around 70 EUR)
  • Requires a computer

The last one seems pretty obvious, but if you are mostly recording yourself alone at home as I do, or you regularly have recording sessions at non-real studio environments, you will not have the luxury of a separate, sound proof control room. This means that the computer that serves as your recording tool with be in the same room where you recording is taking place.

Multitrack recording software usually require quite a substantial amount of processing power from the computer. The best way to go is to work on a laptop as they produce significantly less noise than desktop machines. Still, even with a laptop, at least from time to time, the CPU cooling fan will switch on during your recording. After the first few tracks have been laid down, due to increased system loading, the CPU might come often fairly often.

If you want to do a proper, studio like acoustic recording, you will have to get rid the CPU fan noise. The only way to do that if you do not have a separate control room and a supporting engineer, is to use a hardware based recorder for acoustic recordings. While you can play around with mic placement for recording voice for instance, you will never be able to eliminate the fan noise from a quiet, finger picking recording.

Tascam DP 004 - one of the smallest multitrack recorders

And with that, we arrive to the conclusion I already revealed at the beginning of this article. Unless you never record live acoustic performances (eg, you use the cable output of your digital piano, amp, electric drum etc), you will sooner or later feel the need of a standalone, quiet solution. This is not a must to start with, but if you are into acoustic recording, either you will have trips to a local studio (which, in fact, is not a bad idea), or you will invest in one of the available solutions that usually start around 150 EUR in price.