How to build a (cheap) homerecording studio

Hi everybody,

we already have discussions about pickups, microphones, recording devices, and often we read the question, how to record your own oud playing.

But lets do a further step.

With a little investment of a few hundred dollars, let's say around 300$ to start with, we can build up a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW), which enables us to make recordings in CD quality and even more ... we can do recordings that come very close to that done in a professional audio studio. usually such DAWs are very expensive, but nowadays it's possible to build one on your own with a very limited budget and a bit of reading ... you don't need to be a computer expert.

How about recording several ouds, though you are alone? And how about playing together with other instruments ... you might not even have available? ;-) Maybe you need percussion or want to play together with a flute? No problem ... play together with real instruments or use virtual instruments (VSTi), that will be simulated by the computer. Many VSTi are available free and sound very natural.

There are maaany possibilities, maybe you only want a bit of reverb like playing in a church?

So what do we need?

1. A good computer: In my case it's an 5 year old Toshiba notebook (1.5 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM), which would be the minimum, depending on the used software for recording. For several software, this notebook wouldn't be powerful enough. I think, most people have one, so I didn't count that in the above mentioned 300$.

2. An external audio interface: In my case it's a Tascam US-122 Mk II for around 140 Euros. This baby works as an external soundcard AND microphone and/or pickup input. But there are many other alternatives from different manufacturers and the choice is a bit depending on your needs and operating system ... check out, that the drivers from the manufacturer are up to date. For the beginning you can start testing with your internal soundcard, but most likely you'll encounter latency problems, which means, that playback and recording will not be in sync. Often this can be solved with special sound drivers called ASIO4ALL. But in my case it didn't work and an audio interface has much better sound quality anyway.

3. A good microphone and / or pickup: I myself would recommend a mic over a pickup, because first it let's the oud sound more natural and second it gives you the advantage of being able to record other acoustic instruments like percussion for example too and not to forget vocals. There are many mics on the market, but the best bet for our purpose is to choose a mic, that is designed for recording and not for stage. So a good choice would be a large diaphragm condenser mic, that has the reputation to be a good allrounder. A relatively cheap example would be the Audio Technica AT 2020, which you could get for less than 100$. But there are many other good mics on the market like an AKG Perception 220 or a Rode NT1-A for example. It's just a matter of your personal taste and budget.
And and not to forget ... you'll need a microphone stand

4. The Software: A simple recording of only one instrument can be done with Audacity, which you can download for free and which is very useful as an audio editor, for example to change the file format of your recording to MP3. But the most important software is the DAW-Software itself. I myself started with Reaper for several reasons: First it's extremely powerful and can compete with very expensive solutions like Cubase or Ableton and second it's Shareware, which means in this case, that it is absolutely unlimited in the testing period ... you have all functions available and it will still function after the testing period ended. But the best is it's price ... for private use it only costs 60$ !!! ALL other powerful DAW software costs several hundred dollars. So I highly recommend to start with this software, if you never worked with a DAW before. A further advantage is, that they have a very beginner friendly forum. Oh ... and not to forget ... Reaper is only a very small download and needs much less system resources than most competitors. An alternative would be to check out, if your desired audio interface is bundled with a DAW software ... mine ships with Cubase 4 LE ... but usually Reaper is more powerful, because bundled software often is highly feature reduced.

5. A MIDI keyboard: If you want to use virtual instruments too, it might be very helpful to buy a MIDI keyboard ... using a software simulated keyboard can be annoying A nice start might be a cheap Akai LPK25 for less than 40$.

6. The recording room: You should choose a room with "clean" acoustics ... no, the bathroom isn't the best place A room with a thick carpet is a better choice ... the less background noise, the better ... usually it isn't desirable to hear traffic, singing birds or playing children on your recording If you want reverb, you'll mix that in the DAW software, where you also can configure, how much reverb you want.

I hope absolute beginners found this tip useful and others, who already used a DAW soon will find a growing pool of information in this thread, where we can discuss several equipment (incl. software) and/or recording techniques.

PS: As soon as I got my first professional microphone I'll upload sound examples here to demonstrate the possibilities and sound quality. So far I only tested my equipment with virtual instruments like piano, bass and tablas.

Quote: Originally posted by Peyman

I always wanted to have a simple home recording setup.

Me too

Further info will follow ... currently I'm a bit undecided which microphone will best suite my needs and taste ... just from reviews I read and test recordings of a dealer I tend to an AKG C 3000 B (beware, the C3000 without the "B" at the end is a different, older model and less good). It seems to be a good allrounder with a good bass responce, that will suit the oud well, I think.

Too bad my local dealer doesn't have it ... I need to order it online.

PS: This mic needs 48V phantom power like most recording mics too. So a preamp or an audio interface (like my Tascam) with phantom power is needed.

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

... as good as what we hear on the most elaborate commercial CDs.

Quote: Originally posted by Peyman

It's going to be easier this time around.

No, they are connected by USB or Firewire, depending on your PC (if it has a Firewire port) and the interface. Firewire has more bandwidth and you can record more than 2 channels simultaniously ... if the interface has more than 2 channels.

In my case the Tascam is connected to USB 2.0 and the driver installation worked like a charm in Windows XP Professional. But I heard Vista, Windows 7 and MAC users had some problem to get it running smoothly ... that's why I told to check, if the drivers of the manufacturer are up to date. I case of the Tascam ... there are new drivers released for Vista and Windows 7, so the problems should be solved, but I'm not 100% sure. Vista and 7 is often a bit problematic with many interfaces. It's always the best idea, to download the newest drivers and look if a new firmware for the interface is available too ... that's what I did

Working with my Tascam is easy: I connect my headphone and a mic to the interface and can choose if I want to monitor the mic by the Tascam itself, the PC or both ... the monitoring by PC gives me the chance to hear also effects like echo or reverb. The Tascam also works like an external soundcard, that's why I can here effects too, if I configured them in Reaper.

With a preamp only interface this is not possible, because it doesn't work like a soundcard, but only as a preamp for mics and maybe pickups too.

If I want, I can also connect active speakers to the Tascam and use it as my main soundcard. But I prefer using the Tascam only for recording and composing in Reaper, where it is configured as the soundcard to use. In Windows itself my onboard soundcard is configured so I can hear system sounds and media player from the notebook's speakers. But for serious listening the Tascam gives me much better sound quality, than the internal Realtek. I can switch any time as I like in system settings.

As you can see a good interface with good drivers works like a charm. So read reviews and user opinions about interfaces before you buy. There are many forums and review sites about homerecording out there in the Net ... just google a bit.

Hi again ... don't miss the Reaper Video Tutorials for a quick start, maybe even with your onboard soundcard.

Sorry I can't post the direct link, because the forum software changes the link

Go to the Reaper website, click on Ressources, then Wiki, scroll down to the end of the wiki page and in the Learning Resources section click on Tutorials.

Quote: Originally posted by Yori

I own an AKG C3000B microphone and I recommend it.

Thanks ... I'm already convinced

I read many reviews like THIS and found soundsamples HERE ... I even found hints, that two famous german Rappers use this baby in the studio. Oh ... BTW ... the new 2009 model in black (now the name is again C3000 without the "B" at the end) is identical to the former C3000B in silver, except the color. I found this affirmed by AKG itself in one review ... sorry, don't remember the link.

I compared it to nearly every well known mic below 200 Euros and this one is the best for my taste. I even found a forum report of someone who uses the C3000B with my Tascam interface, which also has 48V phantom power.

For those people, who can't afford it, I think the Audio Technica AT 2020 ("medium" diaphragm condenser) and the Rode M3 (small diaphragm condenser) might be the most interesting ... maybe the Studio Projects B1 too.

BTW ... for those still undecided ... HERE's an interesting article about microphones for home recording.

Quote: Originally posted by Yori

I also use Studio V3 from ART as a preamp (a tube preamp) which includes a 48V phantom power.

I bet many are interested in a virtual Darbuka

Found it a few minutes ago, so didn't try it myself yet, but definitly will.

Modern Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) can record sound data and MIDI on parallel tracks, like a multitrack tape recorder. MIDI is a recording of strokes that were played on a device like e.g. a drum pad with a MIDI connector, or a piano-like keyboard. An audio track that was played on an oud can play in sync with a drum track played by a virtual darbuka triggered by a MIDI keyboard or MIDI drum pads. The MIDI data is just "strokes", and the same MIDI data can play different sounds interchangeably. A pianist can play a synthesized french horn, etc.

There are string, wind, percussion and other instruments that output MIDI, and these are called MIDI controllers. Take a look at some of them:

http://keyboards-midi.musiciansfriend.com/midi/controllers

You can buy synthesizers, but why not let the powerful PC synthesize a bunch of synthesizers? Modern DAWs have "slots" that accept so-called VST virtual instruments that are programs that act as sound synthesizers, that will respond to MIDI that the DAW is playing, wherever it came from in the first place.

Finger pads are nice to play drum parts on:

http://keyboards-midi.musiciansfriend.com/product/Akai-Professional...

A good VST module will alter the sound in proportion to how strong the hit is on the MIDI controller, and there are ways to choose different drum strokes, etc.

With a collection of VST instruments entire arrangements can be played. A whole industry has developed around making the best simulated instruments. A typical piano, that is very hard to distinguish from a natural piano, might consist of 4 GB (!) of data that can be purchased for $200. This is much cheaper and takes up less space than the Steinway from which the sounds were sampled.

In addition VST modules include processing modules like echo, delay lines, filters, etc. Most of the commercial music we hear (good and bad) is recorded and edited on DAW systems, just as film and video are edited on worsktations.

Reaper, like any DAW, can be used with microphones as a high-power multi-track recorder without any use of MIDI or VST instruments. But the most important "processors", like filters, reverb etc. come in VST format as well.

Reaper has many of the features of the best commercial DAWs, and is worth exploring at no charge. People who are intrigued by this concept should look on Youtube by searching on MIDI, DAW, VST, Reaper Tutorial, and so on.

What Chris was saying is that (if you are interested) many virtual instruments and processors that are in VST format can be downloaded for free and tried out. They need to have their .DLL code modules in a common folder that the DAW program can find, the folder being usually called VSTPlugins. So activating or inactivating a specific VST is usually as simple as moving the VST's DLL in and out of that folder. Very handy for testing which %$#@%* module is crashing your DAW.

Virtual instruments/processors come in different formats. The VST standard is very popular. Those that are in DirectX or other formats don't work that way and have to be installed so their location is placed into the operating system's registry.

To illustrate the concept, the image shows a project in Reaper stopped at measure 18, with an audio track open above showing waveform of the bass line, displayed like an oscilloscope trace, and a MIDI track open below showing MIDI notes as little rectangles, with pitch vertically and duration horizontally.

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

MIDI is a recording of strokes ...

Hi again,

yesterday I recieved my AKG C 3000 studio microphone.

It comes with a very nice aluminium hard case and a shock mount "spider". And as it seems AKG considers this mic as a professional one, because in opposition to the Perception series, which lies in the same price range, this baby isn't manufactured in China, but in the headquarters in Austria. I also found out, that many pro studios use this mic, when a good bass response is needed ... too bad, that I don't have a chance to test it with a double bass

So far I only found the time for a quick test ... I just monitored the mic with headphones through my audio interface and gave it a short test with my voice first ... man, I didn't knew, I have the potential to become a Radio moderator ... then my 12-string western guitar and shurely my oud too.

First impression: This mic is a real bass monster, but with the highpass filter kicked in (6 dB below 500Hz) it reveals a more balanced, "linear" sound. And it is extremly sensitive ... I placed the mic on the armrest of my sofa and sat in front of it playing oud ... you could here my breathing through the nose. I think, I will need a pop filter not in front, but above the mic

As it seems, it is very important to find the right placement of this mic ... if it's too close to a soundhole the bass blasts you away But I should mention, that my oud has a very deep bass itself, because of the rosewood body.

I hope to find more time for testing at the weekend and will post some audio test files then.

Regarding this first test, I think this mic has the potential to be a good allrounder, but as it seems EQing for each different purpose is essential, especially in a mix with several instruments.

PS: I forgot to mention, that the mic is extremly noise free!

Hi Chris,

I'm happy you are satisfied with the purchase of your new microphone. I never regretted my choice.

As you must know, it is important to find the right placement for any mic you use. The placement of the mic (with the right choice of microphone for the instrument to record) AND the room in which you record are the most important things to consider for achieving a good recording. Starting from there, anything is possible.

Well, the quality of the instrument and the musician who plays it are quite important also...) Enjoy!

Quote: Originally posted by Yori

I'm happy you are satisfied with the purchase of your new microphone.

Quote:

Well, the quality of the instrument and the musician who plays it are quite important also...)

Well, I like the warm sound of my oud very much, that's why I searched for a mic, that can handle it's bass, but I myself am still a beginner ... though keeping in mind, that I started playing oud in November, I think I'm not the worst oudist (because I played guitar before) ... you'll hear it soon

I hope people won't be shocked here in the forums ... I don't play arabic music ... I'm more Rock orientated.

PS: HERE's a nice article about micing acoustic guitars, especially with two mics, that will be very helpfull in oud recording too. But even if using only one mic, we can learn, which position has which advantages and downsides.

Hi again,

I did a first test recording ... this time I placed the mic near the end of the neck ... nearly perfect, less bassy, more overtones, sounds very natural even without EQ.

BUT ... the C3000 is that sensitive, that I have my breathing and the metronome I listened to on my headphones in the recording ... grrr. Next time I'll use in-ear headphones and I'll have to build some kind of windshield, I can place between mic and my nose

A bit of a hassle to get everything right, but I'm going to love this mic ... sounds great.

Hi again,

after my first recording test yesterday, I began analysing the recorded signal and did a bit of research about the frequency range of nylon guitars, which are very similar to oud.

I think it might be helpful to others to share my findings, because I learned a bit more about equalization and microphone choices to improve recordings of our beloved instrument.

First let's have a look at the frequency ranges of the strings of electric bass guitar, acoustic guitar and oud, assuming we tune to a = 440 Hz:

bass guitar:
E1 - 41,4 Hz
A1 - 55,0 Hz
D2 - 73,4 Hz
G2 - 98,0 Hz

guitar:
E2 - 82,4 Hz
A2 - 110,0 Hz
D3 - 146,8 Hz
G3 - 196,0 Hz
B3 - 246,9 Hz
E4 - 329,6 Hz

oud (arabic tuning):
C2 - 65,4 Hz
F2 - 87,3 Hz
A2 - 110,0 Hz
D3 - 146,8 Hz
G3 - 196,0 Hz
C4 - 261,6 Hz

The highest C5 on the high c-string at the end of the neck is 523,2 Hz.

So the main frequency range (without overtones) we record is between 65,4 Hz and 523,2 Hz ... pretty low

If we keep this in mind and compare this to the frequency response curves of microphones, it seems, that theoretically most mics are a bad choice for oud. For example let's have a look at the Rode M3, which many people seem to love for stage and even studio:



As we can see, the response drops to -10 dB at 60 Hz (starting at around 250 Hz).

Let's compare this to an AKG Perception 220, which is very linear in the oud's frequency range:



Here the bass drop off starts at 80 Hz and has -2 db at 60 Hz.

And now let me show you, why I got so curious about the AKG C3000B:



Here the range between 60-700 Hz is raised by +1 dB and drops to 0 dB at 1 kHz.

As you can see, it can make sense to check the frequency response curves of mics to find the ones, that are worth testing in a local music shop.

To improve a recording by equalization I researched in which frequency ranges we should expect the overtones and unwanted noises like breathing, screetching string noise, string buzzing and plucking noise caused by the risha ... you might remember our risha discussion, where we found out, that plastic gives a clicking noise and horn sounds smoother.

To find info about the overtones was most difficult ... I only found hints, that they reach up to around 10 kHz on nylon guitars.

Regarding the rest I was more lucky ... I found a list with equalization tips (how much to raise or drop these ranges) from a german pro studio:

900 Hz - fretless sound of fretless bass guitar (+ 3 dB)
1.5 kHz - plectrum clicking sound (-/+ 3 dB)
3-4.5 kHz - string buzzing (- 10 dB)
5 kHz - string screetching / gripping noise (- 3 dB)
10-11 kHz - breathing noise (- 3 dB)

To improve the bass of an acoustic guitar, it was recommended to raise the 80-100 Hz range (would be 60-100 Hz on oud) by up to + 3 dB and lower a small range around 250 Hz by - 2 dB, if it sounds too boomy.

I thought it might be interesting to share these findings here, before I test it myself ... let's share our experience to improve our recordings

Hi again,

at the weekend we visited a medieval market, where I found a nice wristband with small bells and I thought, it might be a nice percussion instrument.

And, yes it is ... listen yourself ... I created a short beat with virtual tablas and the recorded bells and put a slight stereo effect on the bells (the tablas are mono so far). No further effects used.

This should give you a first impression of the sound quality of the above mentioned equipment. If you have good ears and audio equipment, you might notice a slight humming noise on the bells track ... the microphone was placed too close to my notebook.



Attachment: Tabla-Beat.mp3 (631kB)
This file has been downloaded 405 times

Stay tuned ... oud recordings will follow soon ... it's not easy recording with microphone in my house ... too often noise ... grrr.

PS: The MP3 is in 320 kbps for best audio quality.

Hi again,

I hoped to upload a nice oud recording today and what happened? Yes, this notebook fan made me mad ... I always hear it slightly in my recordings ... grrr.

But I think, I found a solution ... first thing was to place the notebook behind the mic ... that made a hudge difference, but it's still not that noise free as I want it.

The next step will be trying out ReaFIR, a VST plugin of Reaper, which enables you to create a noise profile, which then can be substracted from your track ... without affecting the sound quality, when done correctly. Those who want to use it in another DAW software, can download it separately.

HERE is a discussion in a different forum, where you'll find a video demonstrating how to use ReaFIR. I'll give it a try tomorrow.

Oh, btw, I'm finally very happy with the AKG C3000B ... when I position the mic slightly behind the neck joint pointed towards the upper soundhole, I get very natural sounding recordings

I promise to upload an oud recording next time ... with or without background noise

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

Noise is a reality, ...

But it's possible to get rid of it ... the front-to-back ration of -25dB of the C3000B is of great help ... I did a test normalizing my recording and guess what? You don't hear noise

But the timing in my playing was horrible, so I hope to find the time for a new recording tomorrow, which can be posted without making a fool out of myself

Oh, and there's something new to tell ... I got inspired by David Kuckhermann and am planning of getting me a nice framedrum, which is easier to get here than ouds.

Real percussion rocks more than virtual instruments ... especially for a former drummer ... and this "recording studio" is becoming really fascinating.

Ok, as promised ...

2 oud recordings, one with the standard setting of the AKG C3000 and the second with the high pass filter of the mic switched on.

Sorry, the strings are pretty old (D'Addario from November 2009) and lack a bit of overtones, but I think you can clearly hear the sound difference between the standard warm sound of the mic and the bass reduced version.

Let me know, if the recordings are loud enough. If not I'll upload a second normalized version with higher volume.

Btw ... do you hear my breathing?


Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-normal.mp3 (611kB)
This file has been downloaded 326 times

Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-high-pass.mp3 (590kB)
This file has been downloaded 359 times

Quote: Originally posted by Manil

The first version is much better!!!!!!!!

Yes, we HAVE to normalize if we're going to have anything like comparable impressions or sound files. I normalized yours and ran an FFT, here is what the two settings of the filter look like. Of course with 12 dB cut below 150 Hz, it doesn't sound very good, and interestingly it doesn't sound natural, even though every cardioid mic is boosting the bass by proximity effect. I don't think "most" large diaphragm mics tend to sound like the second recording.

I can't even begin to notice your breathing in there.

But I can't stand listening to mono tracks. A camcorder sounds better. I'm telling ya, use even any cheap mic to record a second track and matrix them (there are a lot of pseudo M/S matrixing schemes, or if you have any imaging VSTs like Wave's), and it will sound like it has depth and 100 times better. And even if that second mic has a 48 db S/N ratio and the frequency response of a potato you can correct any audible problems and it will still sound 100 times better than a mono track.

I think we are so used to stereo that mono sounds flat. In a pinch we can synthesize some spatial separation, like in that second file, and no not with reverb.

In that last one, that's "natural", boy can you hear scrapes and breathing! I also think I can clearly distinguish what these 2 ouds are being played with, the short thuk of the guitar pick vs the long leveraged pluck of the risha ;-)





Original Normal level normalized
Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-normalN.mp3 (617kB)
This file has been downloaded 306 times

Two mic positions synthesized by summing matrix
Attachment: Oud-AKG-C3000-normalNst4.mp3 (624kB)
This file has been downloaded 341 times

Recording using 2 discrete mics in M/S mode
Attachment: Suznaki004tX3n.mp3 (500kB)
This file has been downloaded 318 times

Quote: Originally posted by Manil

Do not cut the bass on a Oud!

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

Yes, we HAVE to normalize if we're going to have anything like comparable impressions or sound files.

Thanks, I'll check your sound files this evening ... here at work the monitor speakers and background noise are too horrible to hear any difference

Ok, you got me ... I used a guitar pick in BOTH recordings, because my favourite turkey wing feather, I used as a risha before, broke a few minutes before the first recording

Ok, I have spare feathers available, but the top of the quill needs to be shaped first. If I don't shape it, the sound of the strings lacks overtones dramatically.

So far for now ... I'll have to think about your statements of using two mics ... but I'm a bit undecided, if it's better to use a cheaper second one ... maybe the AKG C1000 or Rode M3 ... or maybe use a second C3000 for REAL stereo combined with EQ. At first sight, the second option seems to be the better choice.

Quote: Originally posted by Aymara

Look into the CD's booklets and you'll find out, that recording and mastering often took place in different studios.

Quote: Originally posted by Aymara

So far for now ... I'll have to think about your statements of using two mics ... but I'm a bit undecided, if it's better to use a cheaper second one ... maybe the AKG C1000 or Rode M3 ... or maybe use a second C3000 for REAL stereo combined with EQ. At first sight, the second option seems to be the better choice.

Since you already have a good large diaphragm why not go for the versatility of having the added choice of a small diaphragm condenser too? Your studio will be more versatile that way, and you're unlikely to get a perfectly matched second C3000 anyway.

In my own last recordings I used a combination Lge & sml diaphragm condensers, and to be honest, as much as I wanted to love my new impressive looking big mic, I actually prefered the warm clear focus of the small one.

but all the best to you, it looks like you've got the bug and while your sitting staring at the waveforms on the monitor of your computer just remember to make music with your ears and not with your eyes

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

But I can't stand listening to mono tracks. A camcorder sounds better.

Sorry, but this is absolutely nonsense How good something sounds, is not (only) a matter of mono or stereo, as you know.

Keep in mind, that on most professional CDs many instruments are/were recorded in mono and the stereo effect results from mixing the mono tracks into the stereo panorama. Only a few instruments are/were recorded in real stereo. Even a drum set, which is a very good example, I think, because stereo placement of the single drums, hi-hat, etc. is important, is usually not only recorded with an overhead stereo mic set, but also each "instrument" solo with a single mono mic and all these drum tracks are mixed into the stereo panorama.

There are also VST plug-ins available to create stereo tracks from mono recordings, but the use of these often results in phase problems, so that the stereo track lacks mono compatibility. An alternative is to work with dublicated (copied) tracks.

So ... recording in real stereo or pseudo-stereo, when using just two different mics, has it's uses, yes, but it's not a must and depends.

On oud (or nylon guitar) it might be useful, to work with two mics ... on vocals on the other hand usually only one LDC mic is used. But even, when we record an oud with two mics, the option to use just one mic combined with (post-recording) EQ sometimes is the better choice ... except on a solo oud recording with nothing else (no vocals, no percussion, etc.), where a real stereo recording with two identical mics is the best choice in my opinion.

Quote: Originally posted by Sazi

..., and you're unlikely to get a perfectly matched second C3000 anyway.

Yes, that's a real problem and the reason, why the industry is selling matched pair stereo sets

But I think the difference should be that big, that it can't be compensated in the mix, though this will cause additional trouble. Or am I sooo wrong?

Hey, don't let me die as a stupid man

Which one was it? Could you please upload a small test file? It might be a nice inspiration for me as others too.

PS: Wasn't it you, who was so thrilled about the Rode M3?

Quote:

... music with your ears and not with your eyes

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

The way I see it, a good recording engineer/producer is like a composer and a painter, not a snapshot photographer.

I like this sentence very much ... maybe because I'm a photographer too. My favourite is infrared photography, because I like it to show the world "beyond the visible" and draw people into a "dream world".

With oud music it's similar ... I step into another world ... though I don't play arabic music ... so far.

Oh ... btw ... I made a good deal today ... I got a Meinl Tar in 18" (incl. bag)

I think it will be a nice pair with the oud. But I need to get used to it ... I played drums and Congas is the past, but on framedrum a very different technique is needed.

Oud, tar, recording ... so much fun

PS: You're right ... normalization is a good choice.

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

Two mic positions synthesized by summing matrix

Quote: Originally posted by Sazi

..., but we think the output level, or maybe that's the sensitivity, could be higher.

I think, the output level is often a problem with small condensers, when the preamp is not that powerful, as on my Tascam audio interface. That's a further point, which influenced my decision for the AKG ... I read in several reviews, that it has a higher output than most (LDC) competitors ... and I'm very satisfied ... an input level at 2:00 a clock is enough (the range is from 7:00 up to 5:00 on that control knop) ... preamp noise is only hearable from 3:00 onwards. Because the C3000 itself is a very low noise mic, I can record very noise free ... except my breathing

BTW ... the Rode M3 is often compared to the AKG C1000S ... but regarding output and sensitivity, the M3 seems to be the winner, when we have a look at the specs. The sE 1A might be worth a look ... slightly more sensitive and a very much better frequency response curve than the M3, especially in the bass bands ... should be great for oud. But regarding sensitivity, the sE 4 seems to be a real "blaster" for a SDC But that baby costs a bit more than double the price of the M3 ... but it might be worth it ... HERE is a review.

Have you ever thought about using a LDC for stage? Maybe that's worth a thought ... or do you expect too much feedback problems?

Regarding the "El Cheapo" chinese mic you mentioned ... I read many discussions about mics the last weeks and most people were astonished about the difference between most chinese mics and famous brands like AKG and Rode. But there are exceptions ... the sE Electronics brand for example has a very good reputation ... the sE 2200a for example is said to blow away most competitors in it's price range.

Forget, what I recommended for spectrum analysis in my previous posting ... I found the perfect free VST, that blows away the other two:
Seven Phases Spectrum Analyser

With the help of the hold function, which can be set to infinity, I did the following screenshots of the above oud recordings ... perfect to find the ideal EQ settings The curve above the bars is the sum of the whole recording ... the result of the infinity setting.

For example have a look at the range between 1-3 kHz ... here we have the clicking sound of the plectrum/risha, which Tony noticed. As it seems, I should raise this range in the first recording by +5 dB.

PS: The 3 dB difference around 12 kHz seems to be my breathing, which is more present in the second recording.

Hi Chris,

What's new with your gear?

I'm looking for a home recording studio now (just a few months to save money and make the best choice for me) and this thread is useful! Thanks

My dream : analog Nagra ...

Like a journey within a journey, I used to listen to this CD (and read the book) during a long trip -> and

http://www.4shared.com/audio/4je_vESz/09_Clarinette_Persane_1_Tabri...

He left with a Nagra handmade by Kudelski.

Just for fun ->

http://www.4shared.com/audio/UzHN_Jg0/07_Piste_07.html

Thomas Loopuyt uses an analog Nagra.

(On the CD player a oud is on the right and one on the left).

My cheapest choice :

Mic -> Sony ECM DS70P

Audio interface -> Griffin - iMic USB - for Mac

Notebook -> Macbook air, 1.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 Go 1067 DDR3, SSD 128 Go, USB 2.0

The compromise :

Mic -> AKG C3000B sounds good, what arsene posted about Rode M3 sounds good too ...

Audio interface -> M-Audio Fast Track Ultra - High-speed 8 x 8 USB 2.0 Interface with MX Core DSP Technology

Notebook -> ditto

I must add that I use a keyboard, Roland EM 15 oriental. I wonder about the way to record it ...

I'm going to use the notebook only for recording.

And I'll use GarageBand at least.

What do you think about the compromise? I think I would be able to record myself with a keyboard (drums) without problem. I'm hesitating with the cheapest choice because I'm afraid to wast money in vain.

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

Thomas Loopuyt uses an analog Nagra.

The Rode is a great stage mic, the AKG a great studio mic ... in my opinion.

But the AKG needs a bit of equalization to get the perfect sound. On the other hand with EQ it's a great allrounder, which can record everything nicely, be it any instrument, voice or even drums. And I don't know any other mic below 500$, that captures such a nice bass.

If money matters much, the AKG Perception 220 might be worth a tought. Not as good as the C3000, but better than the Rode, I think ... I prefer large condensors for the studio.

I like what I have It's not the cheapest solution overall, but the cheapest solution with really satisfying results ... for my taste.

BTW, the Tascam US-122 MK II is compatible to Snow Leopard (MAC OS X).

Thanks for such a quick answer. I feel really like a beginner and I have to follow someone's advice ... When I say "what do you think about the compromise?", I don't even know if what I wrote works! I'd like to click on one button, but OK, it's time to go further

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

..., but OK, it's time to go further

Yep ... I think, it's a good idea to check some recording forums and different oppinions on equipment.

Home recording can be a long journey ... from a simple recording to a pro sounding CD

But it's fun to explore

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

David, I'd say you can do better with what nowadays can be purchased at a guitar shop for a fraction of the cost of a Nagra. I sold my analog 24 track to a fetichist years ago.

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

Relax and start by reading, reading, reading.

You're right, I need to relax
When I come back home after work I run after minutes to play music, and your advice would be mine to someone in the same situation as mine!

Now I've got two points of view and I can start somewhere, thanks a lot.

Hey you guys!

First off - great thread, I just stumbled upon it now! This subject is very close to my heart as this was (supposed to be) my line of work before I got into tax law (I know, it sounds weird - I'll explain later ), and it's very useful to have these discussions here, as nowadays so much is possible in terms of recording without breaking the bank.

Much has already been said but I read a few things I felt I could maybe add to.

First things first - the old cliché is definitely true: it's not the gear, but the skill that makes most of the difference. In other words, it's no use owning a fully fledged Pro-Tools and SSL equipped studio if you don't know what you're doing. A good engineer will get great recordings with minimal gear.

Having said that, if you have plans to take recording a step beyond just rough "demos for the band" it does pay to invest in something that at least doesn't color your source (and that goes for every part of the chain).

Starting with the element closest to the source: the mic. I was very enthousiastic about the ruggedness and sound of the M3, and it may very well be suited to studio work. It is indeed a bit noisy compared to most studio mics, in a live situation thats ok, but in the studio you want your sound as clean as possible (like sazi said, the output is not as great as other studio mics).

But! I was very happy to see that fernandraynaud already posted the link to my favorite brand of hi-q "budget" mics: Oktava! And even better: Oktavamod. Quick history: Oktava are basically Russian rip-offs of Neumann (seriously, sometime during the cold war, some capsules got switched in a recording studio in East Berlin, and the rest, as they say, is history). So on their own they're already pretty solid. But there's this guy, Mike Joly from Oktavamod (he didnt pay me to say this I swear!) who turns those russian tanks into BMWs! He cleans up the wiring, changes some things in the dome, anyway a lot of technical stuff. I own two of his modded MK-319 (imo superior over the 219) and they're absolutely fantastic. Vocals, guitars, trombone, violin, sax... and of course oud - it nails them. Plus they look cool too http://shop.sound7.be/WebRoot/StoreLFR/Shops/62056072/4880/F96C/366...

Granted, he's upped his prices a little since 2005 (when I had them modded) but it's still a good deal. An even better deal is if you could find a 319 (or 219) really cheap somewhere and send it to him to have it modded.

Anyway, I've recorded with a bunch of classic mics (including old AKG's and Neumanns). When Joly told me his 319 would rival the U87 he wasn't kidding around, but I had to hear it for myself to believe it. I've bought and sold many mics, but the 319 has always remained! So, absolutely recommended.

As for mixers - if you're just going to track yourself (and maybe a friend or two) you really dont need them anymore. A lot of affordable and good soundcards come with multiple ins. the EMU series are good bang for the buck. I'm a fan of Focusrite though. At home I use a simple Saffire 6. Two ins, two outs. Nothing fancy. Awesome pre-amps. That's it, you really don't need more unless you're recording an ensemble at once - and they have products for that as well.

The DAW is completely up to you - whatever you feel comfortable with and whatever has, for you, the easiest learning curve. Remember it's all about the creative process, not about the data process! There's tons to choose from, Cubase, Logic (apple only), Pro Tools or Sonar (Win only) to name a few of the classic ones - or there's new stuff like Ableton Live, etc. That's just something you'll have to figure out by downloading demos, etc.

Last but not least: monitors. Not the light emitting ones you're looking at now, but speakers I mean. I dare say that if you HAVE to skimp on something to save money, don't skimp on microphone or speakers. I could write a book why decent studio monitors are important, but many have written better books before me, so let me just say that if you want to make sure you got the right sound, you need speakers that tell you the truth. So no hi-fi speakers (they are like salesmen, they make it sound so nice, but once you take it home it's lost all its sheen) and no headphones either (near impossible to get the right EQ, however can be useful when checking for stereo imaging). Decent monitors needen't have you apply for a third mortgage - my brother recently got a pair of M-Audio BX8 D2 and I was astonished at how great these sound - very balanced and amazing stereo imaging! Another nice option are the Samson Rubicon ribbon monitors. And also the Samson resolv 65a do an excellent job, if you can get a pair second hand (they're discontinued) for a good price you've more then you'll need for a while! And of course there's the budget KRK or Genelecs... But for the money I'd rather get the big M-Audios than a small Genelec. (if you can afford the big ones... by all means! I'm a fan of ADAM also).

Then you're basically done. In this day and age, unless you have tons of money lying around, you really dont need huge analog gear anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for analog myself (great, big analog synths that create that fat, lush bearded Greek style sound are my guilty pleasure) but consider this: they are prohibitely expensive, they take a lot of effort -and money- to take care of, they can be a hassle when recording, (usually) no saving option!! (very important for me ), etc etc etc... Sure, they may be more fun! But will you still be smiling when the repairman asks you 3000€ just to repair a voice chip (happened to a friend of mine's Yamaha CS80... ouch. Meanwhile I'm Vangelis-ing away with Arturia's virtual version! But I'm getting side-tracked here).

Anyway, my point is, you can make amazing music with half-decent gear, but unfortunately also the other way around In the end what counts is your skill - most importantly: mic placement, room acoustics, the use of EQ and compression (or even better: knowing when not to use it). You nail that, heck, you can record great tracks on your iPhone (with the very handy app FourTrack, which is, as the name suggests, a fully fledged 4-track recorder!).

Well I may have lost some points along the way, but I hope this helps with the creation of your home studio...

But let's not kid eachother... That analog fetish is here to stay, whether we like it or not.. all we can do is convince ourselves from time to time we have enough and we are happy with what we have... but G.A.S. is a serious affliction and one day, when you will be least expecting it, it will rear it's ugly - but oh so warm sounding - head again...

Fernandraynaud, well said, 95% in agreement, except for the headphones: I'd still get (budget) monitors over headphones - the M-Audio Bx5 for example are excellent and come in at around 250€ a set (from memory, I think it was sth like that).

But this is absolutely key what you said: "start out with what YOU understand. This is important. You have to build your studio by YOUR OWN wits, or you won't know how to take advantage of what you have." and "get GOOD at using what you have".

I suppose that was also the point of my long, long post

Quote: Originally posted by arsene

95% in agreement, except for the headphones

I myself would always prefer good headphones like the Beyerdynamic DT-880 over budget monitors. In the long run we need both, good heaphones and good monitors. If I only have money for one of these, I would definitely start with the headphones.

I think a further good tip is to choose a DAW software with a good community ... that's one of the reasons, I chose Reaper ... I found countless good tips in their forum, including where to get good free VSTs and VSTIs. For Windows users Reaper is the best start: it's free in the beginning and fully funtional and you get free tutorial videos, that explain step by step, how to start. Not to forget a detailled biiig manual in PDF ... did I mention it's free?

Hey guys. So much information im struggling to get through it all!

A little question though! As predominantly a saxophonist, ive never really had to think about recording or amplification however with the oud ive realised im gonna need a microphone at some point for live performances. Im also (and probably more) interested in home recording (looking to upgrade my microphone from my 1990 apple mac microphone).

However, from what ive read im still unclear whether mics for the studio can be used well for performing live, and vice versa. In other words guys, I aint got a clue.

The two mics that im thinking about were previously mentioned, the Audio Technica AT2020and the Rode M3. Im more inclined to the AT2020 because it looks like it has a better bass response than the M3, but i could be reading the frequency response curves wrong.

Do either of these mics stand up to both home recording and live performance? Would one these mics provide any major advantages over the other in both the recording vs. live context.

Many thanks

Mehran

Hi Mehran,

In principle, there's no law that says which mic to use in which occasion: if it sounds good for that particular performance, it probably is good. I've seen many a vocalist recording in a studio with SM57s and it sounded wonderful for their voice.

Having said that, there are some general pointers to keep in mind when choosing a mic. First, studio sessions are (usually) quiet enough that you can use a very sensitive mic (most condenser mics would fall in this category). Especially if you're recording at home, chances are you'll be playing every track separately, so since you're the only source (apart from car horns and birds outside perhaps ) you can use a nice, sensitive mic with a broad response to really get all those nice harmonics. You'd ideally go for the best ratio of output level and noise level - since oud is not the loudest instrument around, and especially if you're playing solo oud, you want to get a good, clean level (from your examples, the AT2020 is probably the better choice, as the M3, while having a nice sound, doesn't quite have the lowest noise levels).

There's nothing against using condenser (sensitive) mics live. Especially if you're playing solo or with just one or two instruments more, this might be the best option as you can get a nice full sound out of it. If you're part of a big ensemble however, this might give feedback problems so many opt for dynamic mics (like Shure, or beyerdynamic to name a few) or pick-ups in their oud. Keep in mind such a situation you don't need a full sound at all, that would just conflict with the other instruments. Oud is not a bass instrument, so you'd ideally want to get rid of anything under 90Hz (or even higher) anyway. Even in the studio you should probably cut everything below 70 or 80Hz (or higher), you'll see it will sound cleaner and less "busy"... with instruments like oud, guitar etc, a lot of rumble and noise sits in those lower regions and you don't need those for a good sound anyway. In a busy mix, even a bass guitar is usually cut below 60, 70 or even 80hz! Even if you're recording solo oud you really don't need anything under 50 - 60 hz.

I myself use the M3 for live situations but almost always use a large condenser for studio purposes.

But don't make your choice based on sheets and specifications. Many music shops (at least here in NL) offer the possibility to come test their mics, so the best way to proceed is probably to take your oud and head on to the nearest store, grab some mics and a pair of headphones and start listening

Quote: Originally posted by arsene

In a busy mix, even a bass guitar is usually cut below 60, 70 or even 80hz! Even if you're recording solo oud you really don't need anything under 50 - 60 hz.

i agree with aymara and would say that the lowcut/highpass filtering is always applied after the recording (... in the signal chain...). the goal is always to capture the full range of frequencies. many tube preamplifier use sub-bass frequencies to produce overtones for making the bass part more stronger without making the bass signal itself louder. after that the recorded signal is probably filtered around/below the frequency of the base-note to avoid problems with low/low mid frequencies in the mix (the "mud").
... so a high sensitive mic with a big membrane and a nice (tube) microphone-pre-amplifier is my choice for recording ouds.
sorry for that really bad english.

greetings from germany too.

falk

The Blue Yeti Pro uses both : XLR and USB.





The connectivity USB female -> XLR male seems to not exist yet ... But I don't know if it's possible : On the Yeti, XLR vehicles analogue and USB vehicles digital. To me, you can't use G track and AT 2020 without going through the audio interface into the microphone. What you have is already digital, the best is to work on it with your computer
Sorry if I'm saying stupid things, my knowledge about this topic is brand new (a couple of days).


By the way, I read a little bit about microphones and this is so huge that I focused on one small insignificant trademark ... Neumann

In a way, it's not useless to know the best in order to understand the worst


I guess the M 149 Tube must perfectly fit to the oud (with a good tube preamplifier off course). And I'd like to know more about your recording Falk.

Does anyone used the U 87? As an international reference I just wonder.

At last I'm really curious about the TLM 103 D. The digital solution is really interesting ... Here I'm still stuck about something : How one should connect the DMI-2 to the audio interface? It's AES/EBU, XLR output. Does it mean this connectivity is necessary? ->

At last, I guess an AES/EBU input is necessary on the computer, as it is written :

'Computer for
Recording System with AES/EBU Input & Remote Control Software'

How does it look like? Same as the external audio interface for the computer, or PCI audio interface is the only way?

The first diagram page 10 of the pdf file -> http://www.neumann.com/img/Linkgraphics/Solution-D_E.pdf

First of all, about the Neumann TLM 103D Digital Microphone System -> http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/article/neumann-tlm-103d-digital-mic...

OK, I made a mix of what everyone wrote and I think I've found something suitable for me. Great advices here!

While I was searching I found this app -> http://www.ear-machine.com/myMicSoundIntro.html

I think it would be interesting if someone wanted to add samples of oud.

Quote: Originally posted by antonis

Do you know any way to connect a usb mic to xlr in (cable or something)?

If you want maximum sound quality, I think the answer is: Yes. I might be wrong, but I don't think the Samson can compete with a good large condensor like the AKG C3000 or the Rode NT2A.

And I don't think, it makes much sense talking about Neumann ... the topic is CHEAP recording studio, not pro

Quote: Originally posted by Aymara

And I don't think, it makes much sense talking about Neumann ... the topic is CHEAP recording studio, not pro

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

p.s. I see several Oktava Large condenser MK219 mics second hand for around $100 at Guitar Center in the US. Personally, I would grab a pair of those with the $15 warrantee they offer, and if one of them (or both) needs it, have them service it! If they will ship to France, you can't beat THAT. Read some reviews of the mic etc. http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=30

Quote: Originally posted by arsene

Anyway, I've recorded with a bunch of classic mics (including old AKG's and Neumanns). When Joly told me his 319 would rival the U87 he wasn't kidding around, but I had to hear it for myself to believe it. I've bought and sold many mics, but the 319 has always remained! So, absolutely recommended.

Quote: Originally posted by Aymara

HERE I found interesting sound samples, where you can compare AKG's studio reference for vocals, the C414, with AKG's C3000B.

I started to read about "cheap" mikes, but how is it possible to ignore "pro" mikes in this context? In other words, I took the problem upside down : which mike is the best for oud (in my opinion), and which "cheaper imitation" to buy?

And now everything becomes subjective : Falk is for a "cheap" tube solution, which is already more expensive in comparison with a transistor solution. Also the digital solution by Neumann seems to be the future, and you can plug the mike directly in you audio interface (S/PDIF) without preamp. If "cheap" means "save money", here we are! And last but not least, you save the sound :

"In contrast, analog signal processing is characterized by
limited precision, error accumulation, a lack of redundant
signal information, and no possibility to include error
correction procedures. In the analog signal transmission
chain, every processing step is thus associated with a
deterioration of signal quality. This results in a progressive
decrease in dynamic range, due to the introduction
of noise voltages and nonlinear distortion."

OK, the TLM 103 D is not the "cheapest" mike, but pretty soon other brands are going to offer their own digital solution (maybe Blue? China ...).

I maybe wrong, but if you are a neophyte like me, it might be interesting to read and listen to the references, otherwise you'll think a Sony ECM DS70P sounds good enough Then be realistic and buy what you can buy by comparing.

Does it make sense?

There is another approach to choose a mike :

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

While I was searching I found this app -> http://www.ear-machine.com/myMicSoundIntro.html

This approach is objective and I regret there's no oud sound file in the collection

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

I started to read about "cheap" mikes, but how is it possible to ignore "pro" mikes in this context?

Quote:

... I regret there's no oud sound file in the collection

I posted MP3s of the C300B on page 2 of this thread. It would be nice to hear further oud recording samples ... especially the Oktava

Quote: Originally posted by Aymara

I posted MP3s of the C300B on page 2 of this thread. It would be nice to hear further oud recording samples ... especially the Oktava

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

OK, the TLM 103 D is not the "cheapest" mike, but pretty soon other brands are going to offer their own digital solution (maybe Blue? China ...).

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

... + a computer or an iPad!

Latency !?
The audio comes to the computer (iPad) directly converted.
It's an USB mike with a pro capsule, I do not say "it's the best mike", but we arrive at something pro and really affordable. That's good news

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

Latency !?

Quote: Originally posted by Aymara

Quote: Originally posted by David.B   Latency !? Yes, latency. If you only want to record single tracks, it doesn't matter, but we're talking here about digital audio workstations, where you usually record multiple tracks, e.g. oud and percussion or two or more oud tracks. And then you need a PC without latencies.

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

OK, I make too much digression, ...

Not really, because some people only want to make small recordings just to archive musical ideas or to document their learning progress.

So I bet, there are people, who found your tip very helpful.

Also interesting is the mono versus stereo debate ... it's all a matter of one's own goals and taste