Recording Procedure

Fred Murphy · Post by **Fred Murphy** » 3 Aug 2000 7:31 am

I an getting ready to try some recording on a Roland VS1680. At the present I am using an Evans dual preamp with a Lexicon MPX 100 effects unit. I noticed on a post about Hal Ruggs new CDs, that someone said the amps should be miked, instead of using a line out. What are the opinions on this, and if this is so, what type of mics to use. I can't afford a lot of expensive mics. I have one good one for voice, that is in the $1,000.00 range, but I don't want to buy two of these. Also I have the CD by Rudy Osborn and according to the notes on it, it was recorded direct to the mixer with no amps of any kind. He did get a good tone. I talked with John Hughey and he told me recorded out of his amps.

Jerry Gleason · Post by **Jerry Gleason** » 3 Aug 2000 8:31 am

I think you could make a case for either method. An experienced engineer will know what type of microphone(s) will sound good with a particular type of cabinet, and what type of mic placement works best. The home hobbyist, with a limited selection of microphones, may have to spend a lot of time experimenting, although that may be part of the fun for some. The home hobbyist is also less likely to have the high end mic preamps, compressors, and other processing equipment that studio engineers might use to enhance or smooth out the sound of a miked cabinet.

Myself, I usually prefer direct recording with the steel, and I am getting what I think is a good tone. The advantage to this method is that I can set my GX-700 for a certain set of parameters that I like, then store those, and record straight in with no outboard eq. That allows me to recall those settings and duplicate my tone exactly if I need to go back and patch up a part, which is often the case. It's sometimes difficult to reproduce the exact tone from a previous session with a cabinet and microphone. It also eliminates the problem of ambient noise, which can happen unexpectedly in a home recording situation.

In term of microphones, you'll get many opinions, I'm sure. The Shure SM-57 is a good, inexpensive standby that sounds good on many instruments, and is a good choice for mic'ing a speaker. I have an Oktava MC012 condenser mic that sounds fantastic on a cabinet, although that's not a typical application for a smaller diameter condenser microphone. Those can be had for about $150 or so at Guitar Center / Musicians Friend, and are really good for a number of recording applications if you have a mixer or mic preamp with phantom power. There are a multitude of other good choices, but you shouldn't have to spend a fortune.

Bottom line; try it both ways, and work with what sounds best to you.

John Lacey · Post by **John Lacey** » 4 Aug 2000 7:37 am

Fred, I'm doing that exact thing right now. I bought a 1680 about 6 weeks ago and I go direct from my vol. pedal into the Hi-Z input. From there I dial in some reverb and delay on EFX1 and 2. I also utilize the parametric EQ with these boosts:
Low=8db. at 500 Hz
Mid=4db. at 800 Hz.
High=8 db. at 1.2 KHz. and the Q set at 2.
I haven't tried using an amp as it's impractical in my house. I wouldn't discount trying it, though. Like Jerry Gleason, I own a GX-700, but it's been relegated to live use as the effect cards in the 1680 are pretty well identical.

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 4 Aug 2000 8:56 am

Fred, talk to Bernie Waldon about it, but we did a session back last winter and I used my Peavey Transtube Fex and it worked out great. Bernie has a copy of the CD and the first 5 songs were done thru a Nashville 400 and the rest were through the Transtube Fex directly to the board. See what you think.

David Spires · Post by **David Spires** » 4 Aug 2000 10:54 am

Fred,

Here is what I have done:

My "Just The Beginning" CD was recorded direct from my Peavey TubeFex, but my Gospel CD was through my rig, miked with an SM-57 on each cabinet. I liked the miked sound better, but I don't think the tone of my guitar on my first CD was bad either.

I've done several recordings both ways, but they are different.

Usually when running direct, you have to roll the high end (treble) off a little to get a similar sound. My advice is to try it direct, then borrow a couple of 57s, and record that way. You'll find something you like, but you don't need to spend $1000 on more microphones.

I'm trying out the Johnson J-Station to use direct for live gigs, so I encourage you to experiment. That is the best thing about having your own recording gear. If you don't like what you hear, re-cut it tomorrow!

Give me a call, and let me know how it works out!

Thanks,

David Spires

Joe E · Post by **Joe E** » 4 Aug 2000 12:39 pm

My 2 cents....As a musician/ engineer or may its engineer/musician these days, I find that the home studios, no mater how well equiped thay are, have to many variables for mic'd recordings. This is not to say you won't get a good recording but luck will play into this as much as anything. Besides the sound proofing of a studio, thier are many components to the size and shape of a room. Also the placement of not only the mic but as well the amp in relation to the room.

I have engineered some projects in some very well equiped home studios (better than some pro studios) and have still found that the variables of the rooms played to much in the role of getting good sounds to tape. We also see that most home studios are a 12x12 room witch holds the mixer, recorder and other. Besides the fact that a good mic will pick up all these noises, the room is just not big enough to lend to good ambiance. Most "live rooms are 30 foot long ( or more)and have a live end and a dead end. Although we hear of using bathrooms for recording amps, at that point the room is more of a melting pot for the sound.

I prefer to use, in those cases a direct to console aproach. IF you can find the sound you want in a pair of headphones, most likey it will be fine for the recording. You will find that you can add the ambiance of any size room later with a good FX machine.

I also agree with the post that said it would be easier to match punch ins and outs at later dates. (always write down all the variables when recording. Include the postion of all knobs, programs, position of the instruments, and which cable you use. Using a different cable alone could cause you not to get a match in sound)

My 2 cents anyway,

Joe

[This message was edited by Joe E on 04 August 2000 at 01:40 PM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 4 Aug 2000 3:11 pm

I recorded my Diatonic Adventures direct, using the onboard effects in my Roland VS-880. I was very pleased with the result.

I recently recorded some tunes direct from a Tubefex, and it was hard to get them sounding right. I did eventually succeed, though. I'm looking forward to recording with my new Lexicon MPX 100, when I have the time.

I don't have the guts to record with a mike. My house isn't quiet enough. There are teenagers next door with big sound systems in their cars, a Latino band across the street, and an occasional police helicopter overhead. I know I'd be right in the middle of the best take of my life, and some exteraneous sound would hit and ruin it.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Averybob.gif" width=64 height=81>Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session S-12 (E9), Speedy West D-10 (E9, D6),
Sierra 8 Laptop (D13), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (D13, A6)

Fred Murphy · Post by **Fred Murphy** » 4 Aug 2000 7:04 pm

I appreciate all the information. Jack I will get Bernie to bring them over to listen to them. I'll be looking forward to it. Also thanks David for the advice. I believe your Gospel CD does sound a litte better, although I thought both sounded good. Noise in the house is a problem, like everyone said. There is no way I can prevent the sound of overhead aircraft or sirens from coming in my house. I would just have to hope for luck. One question on recording direct to the Roland hi-z input. I don't think you can get a true stero sound that way can you? I'm pretty sure a stero sound is what I will want. It seems that is what most people use. I have just got my rack set up, so that I can record everything but the voice direct. I have a new Peavey Max bass preamp, a BBE 386 Acoustic guitar preamp, and an Evans dual preamp w/Lexicon effects. I also have a Roland JV1010 sound synth module for my computer for the drums, using cakewalk. I believe this setup should give pretty good results, I was just wondering if live mics was a much better procedure, if the Shure SM 57s is the way to go, I could probably buy them. I think I seen them for around $150 each. Thanks to all. I really appreciate the help.

Bill Llewellyn · Post by **Bill Llewellyn** » 5 Aug 2000 7:28 am

Hey, b0b, I'm patiently waiting on your BIAB tracks in the (e)mail so you can come by and try aome direct-to-Mac recording at my home studio.

Should be fun. I'm really looking forward to working with digital audio tracks of some well-played steel combined with MIDI instrumentation.

------------------
Bill (steel player impersonator) * MSA Classic U12 * email * my online music

Hook Moore · Post by **Hook Moore** » 5 Aug 2000 7:32 am

Direct from my processor seems to be my preference everytime..I like the ability to control the tone better than with amps or speaker enclosures...

John Lacey · Post by **John Lacey** » 5 Aug 2000 11:59 am

Fred, I just drove home with our sound man last nite and talked about just that, recording stereo. I can't see why a guy can't just bring it in mono, split the input onto 2 tracks and then treat them as stereo, processing them seperately. He also mentioned using different ratios of reverb per side, more on the left, less on the right. Once my steel is at home next week I'll experiment and keep you in touch. I've also done recording in large studios where I've miked the amp and lined in, mixing the two signals onto 2 seperate tracks then treating them that way. That might be a scenario to try. By the way, are you aware of the VS Planet website that talks about 1680's and others? Have fun, man.
John.
http://www.vsplanet.com/ [This message was edited by John Lacey on 05 August 2000 at 01:01 PM.]

Fred Murphy · Post by **Fred Murphy** » 5 Aug 2000 8:56 pm

Yes John, I have that website on my favorite list. I was thinking that I would probably need the stereo inputs on two separate channels, linked in stereo, on my Roland 1680. If you were only going to use reverb, I believe it would work well the way you described. However, I think it might sound better if you could get the delay effect between the two separate channels, from my Lexicon and it would give a broader, fuller sound. It may be possible to do with the built in delay effects. I'm just not certain about how these effects work. I'm not too good on this thing yet. It's taking me a long time to understand it. Thanks to all.

John Lacey · Post by **John Lacey** » 6 Aug 2000 5:45 am

Fred, try getting Laura Tyson's video to help you get up on the unit. It just covers the basics, but it's done clearly and professionally and has helped me. Go to your dealer and ask them for it.
John.

Robert Parent · Post by **Robert Parent** » 7 Aug 2000 10:08 am

Hi Fred,

I also have a 1680 and usually have the best results recording direct. I have mostly used a Rane AP13 preamp direct to the 1680 and record the steel tracks dry with no effects. After getting the tracks I use the internal effects card with a gated reverb and the Twin Reverb simulation to get what I think is a very nice sound. It does take a bit of time to get it all worked out but I think well worth the effort.

I also own an Evans preamp but just have not had the time to give it a try. I would think that it would work as well as my Rane does. Let us know how it goes.