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

You'd still only be able to record a single stereo source - or two mono sources - unless you recorded live and fed it all through a mixing desk.

And reels are better - the tape transport is quicker and the tape is wider, so the sound definition is greater. Studer are great, but MCI JH24 is the ultimate

Certif1ed wrote: You'd still only be able to record a single stereo source - or two mono sources - unless you recorded live and fed it all through a mixing desk. And reels are better - the tape transport is quicker and the tape is wider, so the sound definition is greater. Studer are great, but MCI JH24 is the ultimate

I really liked the sound of Presto Ballet - Peace Among the Ruins, a 2005 album which was recorded on analog equipment only (the whole chain from instruments to the master tape, if I remember correctly). I really hear some "extra" warmth compared to highly digitalized recordings (Ayreon for instance), but to me it is not necessarily better than purely digital recordings.

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 ...

In that case, start with a small mixer that can be connected to the computer - and consider a Pod for the guitars if you can stretch to it.

For recording software, if you're only going to record the band live from one microphone, then Wavepad (which is FREE) will do just fine.

If you need to multitrack, then you'll need to think about Magix - or something more professionally oriented like Sonar or ProTools lite.

A mixer will allow you to do several things;

Most mixers have sockets for common audio equipment - so you can plug whatever you have into the mixer, and plug the output from the mixer into your soundcard.

Many mixers allow you to interact with music software through the hardware controls rather than muck about with the software itself.

The more channels your mixer has, the greater number of simultaneous inputs you can have to your soundcard.

There are other benefits - but I've got one of these; http://www.emusicgear.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=US224 - http://www.emusicgear.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=US2 24

It's really handy for jamming away - maybe keyboard and guitar, then add drums later, and vox later still.

A Line 6 Pod is the best invention for the guitar ever - it models amplifiers that most people couldn't afford, and allows you to choose a range of effects, different speaker cabinets - even microphone positioning, to mimic the recording of a live guitar.

http://www.line6.com/ - http://www.line6.com/

As for Mics under 30 Euros, I really don't know enough about budget mics;

All the vocal work I do is at a colleague's studio - and he's got a Shure and an AKG, neither of which would get much change out of €200.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: [QUOTE=oliverstoned] "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.

[QUOTE=oliverstoned]

oliverstoned wrote: goose wrote: oliverstoned wrote: 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. There will be always informations missing There is equally information missing in tape, because there is only a limited number of magnetic particles on it! There are just more than on a CD. False, the problem is that numeric is a simplified version of analog, with missing infos. DAT uses a metal tape as a support and the problem is the same cause the matter is that it's numeric. An analog tape explodes a DAT tape.

Oh how I would love to be like you - no need for explanations and rationality, living in a dream world.

oliverstoned wrote: goose wrote: oliverstoned wrote: 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. There will be always informations missing There is equally information missing in tape, because there is only a limited number of magnetic particles on it! There are just more than on a CD. False, the problem is that numeric is a simplified version of analog, with missing infos. DAT uses a metal tape as a support and the problem is the same cause the matter is that it's numeric. An analog tape explodes a DAT tape.

One of the biggest problems with Analogue, as far as recording sound is concerned, is that it modifies the sound - it can't help it - it actually introduces sounds into recording and playback - even the quietest analgoue system will do that, and more often than not. It can actually be an enhancement - but it's still something that the band may not have intended to be in the music.

Digital does not do that - it cannot possibly capture everything, but it captures the bits that it can, dependent on frequency of sampling and bit rate - and it is rabid at doing so.

Analogue also both loses and adds "information" (noise) during the copy process - something that digital ABSOLUTELY does not do, unless the software used for copying has a CODEC routine of any kind.

BUT digital sound lacks real dynamic.

Although all the audio data is captured and presented at such a rate that the human ear cannot distinguish the actual sound of digital from analogue, volume and certain other aspects of sound is logarithmic, so digital will always be fooled where there are great contrasts of dynamic, and at certain points in digital recordings you can notice dynamics increasing more sharply than they should, leading to a feeling of harshness.

This is easy to demonstrate;

Get hold of the vinyl LP or NON mastered CD of "Script For a Jester's Tear", and the 24-bit remaster (you should be able to pick both up very cheaply on eBay, and you can always sell them on if, for some mysterious reason you don't like them...).

Compare either the vinyl CD or the LP with the 24-bit Remaster.

The difference is staggering - the 24-bit Remaster has incredible dynamics, which blow the CD and LP into the shade.

But hang on, Cert, I thought you said Analogue was better for dynamics?

Good point.

Well, in the late 1970s/early 1980s, there was an oil crisis, and part of the knock-on effects was that vinyl LPs were made considerably thinner than their 1960s and 70s counterparts. LPs work by providing sound through left-to-right and up-and-down movement of the stylus in the groove. If you limit one, you limit (or compress) the music.

Now track down a genuine 1960s vinyl pressing of "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver", and listen to the dynamics alone. On good headphones, you can hear studio equipment noise, background voices and all kinds of things - on one track, I forget which, you can clearly hear John swearing as he fluffs a guitar part. It's like being in the studio with the Beatles.

There's no CD on earth that beats that

Er... I think I've got something work-related to do

oliverstoned wrote: I gave a clear and rational explanation to answer goose: that's not a matter of support -tape versus optic disc-, but a matter of recording technology used -digital versus analog-, but if you want to make irony... Moreover, you have been brain-washed by marketers who claimed that CD was perfect, and now claim that 16 bits CD was not, but SACD is perfect! Believe them...and loose all your pseudo-scientific mind.

It's all about listening tests ... which are dismissed by the "esoteric" people, and accepted by the "rational".

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: oliverstoned wrote: I gave a clear and rational explanation to answer goose: that's not a matter of support -tape versus optic disc-, but a matter of recording technology used -digital versus analog-, but if you want to make irony... Moreover, you have been brain-washed by marketers who claimed that CD was perfect, and now claim that 16 bits CD was not, but SACD is perfect! Believe them...and loose all your pseudo-scientific mind. It's all about listening tests ... which are dismissed by the "esoteric" people, and accepted by the "rational". The listening tests say exactly the contary as what you say. I know cause i've done it many times, contrary to you, who builds his opinions on theories.

You are referring to your own private listening tests, which none of us can duplicate. I am referring to the numerous public listening tests. Of course you're free to choose which one to believe ... and so am I.

oliverstoned wrote: The problem is in the numerization of sound which reduces a complex musical signal in an approximative numeric signal, where there are info missing.

Agreed.

oliverstoned wrote: The more infos you have (thanks 24 bits), the best it is, but as long as it's numeric, there will always be infos missing and human ear/brain is sensitive enough to detect it,

There we go ... this is just your opinion. 16.7 million steps ... MAYBE the human ear can discern more steps, but public listening tests suggest that it cannot.

oliverstoned wrote: and worst, digital played at loud volume causes ear's pain- even on big digital systems- whereas you can listen to good analog -a simple Rega Planar 3 with a good cartridge is enough- very loud during hours without being tired.

Simply add a low pass filter which cuts off everything beyond 17khz, and I'm sure that nobody could ever hear the difference, ESPECIALLY at ear shattering volume - but also at low volume.

oliverstoned wrote: What better proof do you want of analog's superiority over numeric? And magnetic particles are not a limiting factor at all, IMO!

You have presented no proof so far, just your opinion.

goose wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Analogue also both loses and adds "information" (noise) during the copy process - something that digital ABSOLUTELY does not do, unless the software used for copying has a CODEC routine of any kind. Quantisation noise at high levels and quantisation distortion level at low levels, while not actually recorded as such, are still an inherent part of digital signals that can't be removed.

Quantisation errors are what Oliver is talking about, if I'm not mistaken - the digital clock becomes "out of synch" with the audio frequency, and samples the analogue sound at the "wrong" times, producing what sounds like random noise, as the system truncates the values it cannot work out. This is because digital can only sample at set rates per second - and the amplitude of any given waveform may increase or decrease as well as simply be out of synch for that time period.

Increased bit depths help significantly, but most people use software techniques such as dithering to get rid of the random noise - but you're still left with the missing sound that analogue would not have missed, resulting in a slightly grainy sound, occasionally with tiny "artifacts" - like zooming in on a digital picture, and noticing that the sampling results in odd "splodges" in some areas where boundaries cannot be precisely identified.

The other big problem with digitisation is aliasing - which happens when a signal is sampled at less than half the sample rate of the original (the Nyquist Frequency). This results in a frequency that becomes part of the recorded sound. The effect of this can be heard in samplers - or by speeding up the playback of a digital music file.

Digital music is attenuated using anti-aliasing to filter out the aliasing, which has the same effect as over-compression - you end up killing some of the "live" feel of the sound.

The main problem is with reconciling the nature of analogue wave forms (music) with the nature of digital; At the top end of the dynamic spectrum, digital samples less frequently - and this is typically (if you examine any sine wave) where information is densest.

VS

For example, a 15Khz tone recorded at CD quailty has only 3 samples per second - and so a saw wave cannot be distinguished from a square wave - two options common on synths and fuzz boxes. Dense harmonic clusters simply get lost, unless they've been digitised first.

goose wrote: Please bear in mind it is impossible to discern which format is "better" by listening tests, only which one the majority of people prefer listening to. Just because it's more pleasing to the ear doesn't mean it's a more accurate recording.

The above is one good way of telling the two apart - aliasing and attenuation come across as "helium sounds", "digital noise" and compressed, lifeless music, and quantisation produces artifacts and "graininess".

You'd need to do some recordings to train your ear - using a 14 ips Reel to reel and comparing it with a recording made via a reasonable soundcard. Choose common but complex sounds, like bells, whistles, and guitars with fuzz boxes that have square and saw wave options

Obviously, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference - but for rabid audiophiles - especially those with access to top-end equipment - it's not too hard. The difficulty comes in explaining the qualitative differences, and why one is better than the other.

If you really want to hear the difference, you need to train your ears to the specific sounds, or you can just happily live in ignorance and enjoy the music

I prefer analogue. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy, and the artwork is BIIIIG. 

oliverstoned wrote: Digital Idealism vs Analog Realism http://stereophile.com/thinkpieces/599digital/ - http://stereophile.com/thinkpieces/599digital/

Rather Digital Realism vs. Analog Idealism. Like Astronomy vs. Astrology.

^ I think you're exaggerating a bit because 16 bit are 65k, and 24bit are 16,7 million "shades" of info. 32bit would be 2 billion ...

but think about it ... one second of CD audio consists of 16 bits x 44,100 = 705,600 bits. Now if you imagine how many magnetic particles are in the amount of tape that is used to store one second of audio ... I'd estimate that it's well over 10,000 billion. If you use SACD you get 24 bits x 96,000 = 2,304,000 bits.

BUT the thing is that the human ear doesn't have near as many cells to receive audio information. And even then the brain removes the better part of the collected info. So rather than comparing these meaningless figures, we should rely on listening tests ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile

... and in particular: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf - The Ten Biggest Lies In Audio

oliver: From now on I'll no longer comment on your "theories" ... I'll just enjoy the look of your magical esoteric equipment.

You'll continue to use good looking equipment, I'll continue to use mine.

goose wrote: You can really on listening only to tell you which sound you prefer, no more!

My points regarding the noises made my quantisation and aliasing (and the effects of anti-aliasing), whether technically sound or not (and I'm reasonably confident that they were) were that you can tell digital apart from analogue fairly easily if you know what you're listening for.

Analogue has all kind of faults that digital does not display, and vice versa. Both have distinct qualities too.

A good system will reveal these faults and qualities to someone that knows what they're listening for. I have a reasonable, relatively inexpensive system - the whole lot set me back no more than £1,500 in total.

I recently treated a friend who has a £5,000+ pure digital system to a whirlwind tour of some first press vinyl. He couldn't help but agree that the vinyl has a distinct sound and ambience that is better in many ways to Remastered DVD-A sound - and that was only after a single listening session.

He and I work together engineering our music, so we've both got "engineers ears", and it wasn't my superior equipment, because it's not superior - unless you class a pure analogue chain from turntable to speakers superior to a top-end digital system...

A high end system like the pin-ups that Ollie keeps posting  will definitely show these differences up to anyone but the sonically retarded.

A budget system and the average PC will make everything sound like my worst nightmare.

As you say, goosie, much is opinion, but much is also what you're used to - once you've heard DSOTM played from the original 2" master tape on an MCI JH24 through Crown DC 300 and D 150 tube amps feeding ATC SCM 300s, everything sounds inferior.

http://www.proaudioeurope.com/images/products/monitors/ATC_new/ATC300A.jpg"> http://www.proaudioeurope.com/images/products/monitors/ATC_new/ATC300A.jpg">

Rosescar wrote: goose wrote: Any multitrack editing software should have a mixer built in, regardless of how bad it is, so you won't need anything but a microphone connected to your computer, really. You can do everything software based, except playing (and you can even do some of that!) That's what I'm looking for. What would you recommend me for the both? Total price at a max of, say, 60 euros.

I'm very keen on http://www.magix.com/select.html - Magix Studio - for the money, there's nothing better - but it does depend how you like to work.

http://site.magix.net/english-uk/home/music/music-studio-11-deluxe/?version= - Details

http://http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0006397RS/qid=1134498789/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/203-0103278-7790374 - Buy last year's version on Amazon cheaply

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0006397RI/qid=1134498848/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_11_4/203-0103278-7790374 - Or the latest version, only slightly less cheaply

Certif1ed wrote: Rosescar wrote: goose wrote: Any multitrack editing software should have a mixer built in, regardless of how bad it is, so you won't need anything but a microphone connected to your computer, really. You can do everything software based, except playing (and you can even do some of that!) That's what I'm looking for. What would you recommend me for the both? Total price at a max of, say, 60 euros. I'm very keen on http://www.magix.com/select.html - Magix Studio - for the money, there's nothing better - but it does depend how you like to work.

Wow, so I had a total déja vu with the Magix thing o_o;;

And Microphone?

http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/d2/?page=shop/flypage&prod uct_id=2022&r=google - http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/d2/?page=shop/flypage&prod uct_id=2022&r=google

All you'll ever need

...although you really want one of these;