$200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Get that song on tape! Errr... disk?
User avatar
preservation
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3583
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:49 pm
Location: RVA

$200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by preservation » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:13 pm

about to turn my shed into a practice space/songwriting studio (no acoustic drums).
it won't be soundproofed but it'll be a few steps up from the basement room under my bedroom.

i have a little Mac mini that could run Audacity & an old version of Reason just fine, but using a computer
to record/write just KILLS the process for me.

i want something i can setup for 2-3 tracks at once wherein every time i press Record the sound will be pretty
decent - at least GBV 90's demo-tape quality. that's more than good enough for me, as i just want to upload
all my songs to Bandcamp for free and call it a day. simple.

could a used $150 Boss or Tascam 8-track do the trick just fine ? is overdubbing/editing a huge pain in the ass ?
i've been really inspired to record again after listening to Ariel Pink's 2014 "Pom Pom" record - it's like this beautiful
stream of consciousness record that sounds so good to me for various reasons.



what i have:
a pair of KRK Rokit 5s.
a PreSonus Audiobox 22VSL.
tiny Akai usb keyboard/controller (non-MIDI).

what i don't have:
a decent microphone.
any sort of standalone interface.
Last edited by preservation on Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
vale
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:18 pm

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by vale » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:53 pm

maybe a radical idea in these daw-is-everything times (but i'm a radical babe) but maybe get one of these? i can never remember which mine is but it's this sort of thing.
Image
http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/zoo ... ltitracker

you can pick up top of the range stuff from ten years ago for sub £100 easily now (anything by any brand zoom tascam etc with usb out will do) & use your laptop for signal processing/effects & virtual synth, all of which you can get free from vst.
record, mix tracks around, overdub, process, & when you have something you are happy with, usb it out to audacity into whatever format you want.

i am going to make my first steps into daw this year, just because i feel i ought to try it once. but i am only half convinced i am going to like the actual hands-on-experience of recording with a computer more than with one of these.

sitting at a pc screen with a keyboard & mouse is 'a work situation' for me. & then the wasted time trying to get things to work with other things. incompatibility, things not 'finding' things. i have enough nightmares with printers frankly.
whereas these sort of all-in-one mini studios, with real sliders & punch in/out (the whole thing), feel like a desk in a proper studio. everything is so intuitive & immediate & hands on. just chuck it on your bed plug in & go.

as for limitations, well every system has its limitations. daw has a ton of limitaions. so you balance what you want against what is available.
for me (personal preference) the experience is a really big thing. as i don't record professionally i'm prepared to sacrifice a few kbps of super-digital quality in return for a music making environment that feels more human & hands on.
just how i feel about it as a music maker. i like an intimate & easy set up.

people get so worked up about gear these days & totally forget that sgt pepper, psychocandy, loveless etc were all recorded basic basic. these albums exist to prove that it isn't about the tech, it's about the ideas & the attitude.

they are mad cheap now because fashion is behind daw. but i still like & use mine. call me old-school but i'm happy.
i am an animal.

User avatar
Grey
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2023
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 11:58 am

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by Grey » Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:02 pm

vale wrote:sitting at a pc screen with a keyboard & mouse is 'a work situation' for me. & then the wasted time trying to get things to work with other things. incompatibility, things not 'finding' things. i have enough nightmares with printers frankly. whereas these sort of all-in-one mini studios, with real sliders & punch in/out (the whole thing), feel like a desk in a proper studio. everything is so intuitive & immediate & hands on. just chuck it on your bed plug in & go.
That's what a MIDI Controller + DAW is for. With a hardware solution you're limited to what's provided in the package, DAW is all software meaning you've got endless options for expansion and loads of 3rd party VST's. You get all the power of a DAW with the functionality of tweaky knobs and sliders and buttons.

However, limited to such a strict budget, this may not be the best choice.

User avatar
vale
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:18 pm

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by vale » Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:17 pm

Grey wrote:
vale wrote:sitting at a pc screen with a keyboard & mouse is 'a work situation' for me. & then the wasted time trying to get things to work with other things. incompatibility, things not 'finding' things. i have enough nightmares with printers frankly. whereas these sort of all-in-one mini studios, with real sliders & punch in/out (the whole thing), feel like a desk in a proper studio. everything is so intuitive & immediate & hands on. just chuck it on your bed plug in & go.
That's what a MIDI Controller + DAW is for. With a hardware solution you're limited to what's provided in the package, DAW is all software meaning you've got endless options for expansion and loads of 3rd party VST's.
as i say, i haven't tried DAW yet & may be won over. i have a grasp of what is involved, controller interface, plug ins, etc.
but my comment was throwing in a quick & easy solution to meet the brief; a cheap studio in a shed that doesn't kill the music making experience (by draining time & energy into thinking about the tech).

i am not very tech so i dread computers & getting software to work with software. if you are good at those things you are lucky, but it's something i always struggle with. i'm not thick but i just get frustrated really easily with computers. they are quite cold & brutal objects to work with & i rarely enjoy the experience of dealing with them when they fuck up.

so i'm happy to sacrifice 'the possibility of infinite options' for something more fixed but that works headache-free all the time, every time. which is what i get from a simple set up.

definitely not to everyones taste. radical was my word.
i am an animal.

User avatar
Grey
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2023
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 11:58 am

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by Grey » Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:33 pm

Those are all good points. I'm only saying that while you (or anyone else) may not care about everything a DAW has to offer right now you may decide you want it later once you've gone through the whole "simple basic recording" phase.

It's true that you don't need a bunch of fancy gear to make good music, however, it's also worth pointing out that a lot of the gear people are pining for from "the old days" was top-of-the-line back then and they were using the best tools at their disposal. Obviously that's not true in every situation and I can think of more than a few great albums that were recorded with some seriously basic gear, but I can usually spot those recordings easily because of the sound quality. That's not something people really have to worry about anymore because technology has advanced to the point where such things have become trivial.

So my point is... I don't know what my point is. For the OP's $200 budget your suggestion is still the best one.

User avatar
vale
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:18 pm

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by vale » Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:00 pm

Grey wrote:Those are all good points. I'm only saying that while you (or anyone else) may not care about everything a DAW has to offer right now you may decide you want it later once you've gone through the whole "simple basic recording" phase.

It's true that you don't need a bunch of fancy gear to make good music, however, it's also worth pointing out that a lot of the gear people are pining for from "the old days" was top-of-the-line back then and they were using the best tools at their disposal. Obviously that's not true in every situation and I can think of more than a few great albums that were recorded with some seriously basic gear, but I can usually spot those recordings easily because of the sound quality. That's not something people really have to worry about anymore because technology has advanced to the point where such things have become trivial.

So my point is... I don't know what my point is. For the OP's $200 budget your suggestion is still the best one.
would agree with all of that. all sound.
Grey wrote:So my point is... I don't know what my point is.
that my post makes me sound like a luddite trying to rationalise a subjective personal preference. bang to rights!
i am an animal.

User avatar
budda12ax7
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 6795
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Mean Streets of OC

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by budda12ax7 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:35 pm

You could rustle up an ADAT machine with low hours, you would need a mixing board of some sort. We had an ADAT machine through an ALESIS 1620 or 1616 board in our practice space years ago. Just had all the mics pluged in and ready to record.

A simple 4-track cassette recorder might work. Look for some used Fostex x-15 or something like that. However, there are enough to digital stand alone pieces around for dirt cheap.

User avatar
preservation
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3583
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:49 pm
Location: RVA

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by preservation » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:06 pm

i mean, something like this with a Shure SM57 or two is what came to mind initially.
Image
the setup will be to mainly track guitars, bass, drum machine; in that order of priority.


i'll require absolutely nothing that's hi-fi, and i certainly don't mind if certain bits of gear "colour the sound"- i kind of actually hope they will.
as long as i'm not getting walls of static or awful buzzing i'll be set.

here's the Tascam version i suppose:
Image

i'd really prefer recording onto SD cards instead of cassette for convenience.

User avatar
marqueemoon
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 7343
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by marqueemoon » Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:17 pm

I'd go for a large diaphragm condenser with switchable patterns, and hopefully with a pad if you can swing it.

Lots more budget interface options now than when I last looked. The Roland Rubix 22 looks pretty promising.

User avatar
vale
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:18 pm

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by vale » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:16 pm

budda12ax7 wrote:A simple 4-track cassette recorder might work. Look for some used Fostex x-15 or something like that. However, there are enough to digital stand alone pieces around for dirt cheap.
i started with a tape fostex X-15, & the tape hiss is bearable on the first four (dolby helps but you lose peaks) but when you start bouncing things get unlistenable really quick.

as a potential positive i spose that brings with it a need for discipline (self-restricting to four tracks) that could be seen to have virtues; it forces you to refine & edit ideas as you go along (not get bogged down in a thousand overdubs), to get things right first time (it has a punch in/out facilty on a puffer but can be literally hit & miss), & to be clear about what you are setting out to achieve before you begin (rather than noodle around & cut & paste anything that works).

but i would stick to digital four track (brands & models are interchangeable really with a set up so basic), which requires many of the same disciplines, but is far cleaner.

am not sure if an argument can be made for 'analog warmth & tone' with tape over the digital. i never had both at the same time so can't call it. i just remember being surprised (shocked) how clean the digital sounded by comparison. though thinking back some of that may have been me refining my technique. obviously first attempts at recording will be rough as.

but i envy you having a little space you can call your studio. just that idea of 'in this space only my music will happen' will probably really help you focus your thinking & not be distracted. don't even take your phone in there. keep it sacred.
i am an animal.

User avatar
UlricvonCatalyst
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 7193
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:05 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by UlricvonCatalyst » Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:16 am

I've always been a fan of the Zoom H4 (now into its nth generation with several alphabetic suffixes). It has decent built-in mics but also a pair of XLR inputs with phantom power and a built-in 4-track ministudio.

Perfect for catching a nice ambient band in stereo then overdubbing vocals and/or fairy dust.

Can be had within your budget, I think. Also, a large-diaphragm condenser of some sort will be a step up from an SM58/57 in most cases (though those are perfectly respectable vocal mics if there's no better alternative available).

User avatar
UlricvonCatalyst
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 7193
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:05 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by UlricvonCatalyst » Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:27 am

Digital multi-trackers definitely offer better tracking quality than hissy low-speed cassette portastudios, but I've found the Eq quite a limiting factor. On my Akai DPS-12 3-band Eq counted as one of the two available FX. As vale said, using it for tracking then mixing in the 'puter is a better approach, though it sounds like rough'n'ready results will suit you fine.

I have an old first-generation Tascam portastudio that I quite like - the Eq is fully sweepable and it runs at double-speed, so the sound's a wee bit richer, but if anything I'd probably just use it as a mixer rather than recorder these days.

The key to good recording is getting as close as possible to the sound you want as you're laying down the tracks. Forget about trying to fix it in the mix afterwards.

User avatar
marqueemoon
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 7343
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by marqueemoon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:21 am

I wouldn't rule out a standalone hardware workstation if the tracks can easily be dragged into a DAW for mixing. My drummer has an 8 track that we've used this way to good effect.

User avatar
Dok
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2225
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:39 pm
Location: Ojai

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by Dok » Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:06 pm

Mac Mini? You can just use Garageband. It's as simple and transparent as it gets and you'll hit the ground running, and you can get a great microphone for $200.

I feel like one of those digital 8-tracks would come with its own struggles of getting it to work properly, especially if you have to go diving through menus for anything.
Local milk person

User avatar
marqueemoon
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 7343
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: $200 hit-the-ground-running budget

Post by marqueemoon » Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:04 pm

Dokterrock wrote:Mac Mini? You can just use Garageband. It's as simple and transparent as it gets and you'll hit the ground running, and you can get a great microphone for $200.

I feel like one of those digital 8-tracks would come with its own struggles of getting it to work properly, especially if you have to go diving through menus for anything.
Missed that the OP had a Presonus interface already. Yeah GarageBand is not too much of a leaning curve, and would be free to try out since all the parts are there. If it's workable then spend the budget on mics.

Post Reply