Recording Equipment

Depends what you want to do really, and your budget, of course!

If you've already got the PC, that's the expensive bit taken care of - but really you need as much grunt (CPU power) and RAM as you can throw at it - not to mention hard disk space - and speed, if possible.

Those details can be gone into separately.

The other equipment you'll need are;

1. A decent soundcard. Creative Labs make OK ones if you're really tight for cash, but M-Audio packages with outboard input controls and bundled ProTools are outstanding value for money. ProTools is the industry standard software, in case you didn't know  Echo are next up the chain, and make superb soundcards for music recording (next to useless for gaming though...), with DigiDesign (makers of ProTools) hardware at the top.

2. Software. If you can't stretch to ProTools, or ProTools lite with an M-Audio package, Sony's ACID is completely brilliant and intuitive - I prefer it to Sonar, which is the next choice - and widely used. Steinberg's Cubase is the other notable - but I find it fiddly and over complex. A great budget choice is Magix Music Studio - at around £50, you can't get cheaper.

3. A mixing desk (for multiple simultaneous inputs). The Spirit Folio is reasonably priced - and pretty good. Tascam do a budget USB job that interfaces with Sonar, so you can control the software from the control knobs with no effort.

4. A keyboard - a MIDI controller keyboard will do, if you're prepared to buy "Soft Synths" and learn how to program the things... or something a bit better with an audio interface would be better.

5. A Line 6 Pod. If you play guitar or know a guitarist, these are indispensable. We use the Pod XT Pro (both bass and guitar versions), and we're still discovering new sounds on them a year down the line. The hardware effects processing saves loads of CPU time too...

6. Microphone. I think it's the SM 58 that's the jack of all trades (someone correct me...).

7. Monitors. Don't bother with computer speakers - you need decent nearfield monitors for your music.

8. Headphones. You don't want feedback from the mic, so use decent Sennheisers. There's no point getting Grados, unless you've got a top-end soundcard and record each instrument using 50 microphones... Headphones are also great for hearing details in the music when you're mixing - and are better for this purpose than the monitors.

9. Luxury extra: Antares. If you've ever sung flat, you need Antares in your studio. As someone with perfect pitch, it's a Godsend.

That's not exhaustive - but I'd guess it's more than a start

oliverstoned wrote: So you exclude analog recording on cassette, -which is by far better if you use a decent tapedeck-?

Not true, sadly, Ollie - even with a really high-end tape deck you're going to get some degradation, and even the best quality cassette has too narrow a bandwidth and the speed is too low for mastering.

There's no point mixing a digital source to an analogue store anyway - there would be loss however minimal. Not only that, but you'd actually be introducing equipment noise that wasn't there before.

If the source is digital, it's best to mix it all down to digital - because there is 100% no loss - guaranteed.

The only way I'd consider using a tape deck in a modern recording studio with a limited budget would be to get a TEAC - or better Studer 8 track, and record all the sources as analogue before mixing them down to digital. The better your source, the better the end result (you can't polish a turd...).

But then you'd need a decent mixing desk - like a Behringer or a Spirit - assuming you can't afford an Allen & Heath..., a shed load of rack-mounted effects processors - compression at the very least, and more than 8 tracks on your tape deck if you've got a proper drum kit and vocal harmonies.

The last thing you want to do these days is bounce tracks down

oliverstoned wrote: If you go by there... Studer A80

Those top-end Studers are good too, but ask any Pro (or at least, a large proportion...) which they'd prefer between the A80 and the JH24... You'll probably end up with a fight on a Pro recording forum - it'd be like asking who is better out of Genesis and Gentle Giant on this site.

I would suspect that Genesis would win the poll, but ultimately, GG are better technically, more original musically - and obviously have better production - it doesn't take more than a few listens to work that out. But most people, I'd suspect, simply like Genesis more - and why not?

A80s are cheaper and give better "bang for the buck", but for punch-ins, they're next to useless, and the playback isn't so good.

The JH24s are also easier to fix, and you can pick up parts relatively easily.

The big advantage with using Analogue all the way through the chain is that you don't need to keep compressing like you do with digital - the tape automatically kills some of the attack for a warmer, more natural sound, and the analogue gear itself behaves similarly, and introduces little quirky noises that all add to the warmth and depth of the recording.

Compare the remastered DSOTM with the 1st (or 2nd) press vinyl - it's like two different albums! I prefer the 1st press, because it sounds like a rock band at the cutting edge, as opposed to a slick, syrupy digital ambience-fest. Many people seem to prefer the "modern" digital sound, but I find it too clinical - and not at all like being in the same room as the band.

Compression can kill a perfectly good sound - especially given the modern habit of EQing "upwards". Good EQing should start flat and be chipped away at - reducing EQ in the various bands, not raising it. The more you raise the EQ, the harder you have to compress - and a great sound recording ends up a flimsy imitation of it's former glorious self. But EQing is a black art unto itself...

/ends waffle...

oliverstoned wrote: "If the source is digital, it's best to mix it all down to digital - because there is 100% no loss - guaranteed. " I know it was a little provoking to suggest using a tapedeck to record, whereas the final support will probably be CD, which means an analog/digital transfer which often ruins the sound, so you're right if it has to be digital eventually, it's better to be 100% digital, as it avoid an extra step which induced -not so much noise or info loss- but harshness due to musicality loss.

Actually, in part, I was agreeing with you (my answers are never simple );

If the source is digital, then it makes no sense to have analogue in the recording chain unless you're going for an effect.

However, if your source is analogue, the options are differet:

You might want to keep it analogue for as long as possible in the chain to preserve the feel.

Or you might want to transfer your analogue source immediately to high-definition digital to preserve as much of the original sound as possible and introduce as little noise as possible.

Or something in between...

oliverstoned wrote: "transfer your analogue source immediately to high-definition digital to preserve as much of the original sound as possible" I have to disagree there: Unfortunatly, high digital numeric is a joke, 24 bits doesn't change the numeric problem, so i disagree with that. Analog will always beats digital.

You know how many combinations are in 24 bits, do you? MUUUUUCH more than the human ear can discern.

oliverstoned wrote: There will be always informations missing, harsh high, soft low, flatness, harshness, lack of matter and dynamic in digital...

Utter nonsense. I respect your opinion, but - no offense - you also believe in astrology and other esoteric theories ...

oliverstoned wrote: You can't foll the human ear and brain! whereas when you listen to pure analog on good equipment, you don't have to make the smallest effort, you're really inside the sound. I know it cause i own big digital drive/converter set up which works great, but my Naka1000 explodes it...

 I still think that the music is much more important than the medium or the technology ...