Search options (Page 40 of 121)

I already edited that one removing the link to the website, in the hope that our first poster was legitimate.

I'm not convinced. 

We play a Gretsch Electromatic every day in the band, and it's fantastic.   He runs it through Fender tubes and abuses the Bigsby tremolo with fantastic results.   The only real problem he's had with it is the strap nut stripped out, but that is a relatively easy fix.

Great guitar.

I'm going New York based on the relative weakness of the Pats defense.

Well, to understand why two mics, do the following.  Pick up your guitar and strum it.  Then put your ear right next to the top of the guitar, and move it around. You will hear a radically different sound depending on where you listen and where your ear is.  So if you are only using one mic, you are only hearing part of the sound that is resonating off of the instrument.  If you use two, you'll capture more than that.

I think you're using dynamic mics, which also aren't going to be ideal for recording an acoustic guitar.  If you have condensers available you'll have better results.  If you are using dynamic mics, get the capsule as close to the guitar as you possibly can.

Eventually you will end up with three tracks in your songs.  Two for the guitar and one for the vocals.  You will play each song twice.  You're going to play the guitar parts and not sing at all.  Then you're going to go back and play the guitar parts into a set of headphones and record your vocal track over it.  Then you can mix it and adjust it how you like.

Is this an acoustic guitar, or electric?

If it's electric, then you have no problem

Guitar---->PedalsPedalsPedals--->Amp--->Mic--->Alesis--->Computer

If it's acoustic, I'm wondering what effect you are trying to achieve? I'd try to find a way to make the room you are in sound better and capture that when you record. 

What kind of mic are you using?

"Better off" is relative.   My opinion is that if you are looking to modify the tone of the instrument, then you should do that "live" with pedals and instrument setup.   Get the instrument to sound like you want, and then spend your recording time ensuring that your recording is as high fidelity as possible to capture that sound.  If you are looking to fix or otherwise polish a track (remove some hum or pick noise, for example) then that is "better off" done at the workstation.

Reverb is a bit different, though, as the intent of reverb is to mimic the real life acoustic sound of a great sounding room or concert hall.  Obviously the best way to get that kind of tone is to play in a great sounding room or concert hall, but since most of us suffer in basements and living rooms, we don't have that option.  The "The Point of Reverb" thread I started was to kind of demonstrate this.

And here is Willie with another less on how to be awesome in an awesome room.

"I Never Cared for You" from the Teatro album, which was recorded in an old movie theater.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdwsLtNx2E

That's the best way to approach it.  Pick a DAW and just learn it.  That's what I did with Reaper, and I'm so glad I did.  I've been working with it pretty much exclusively for about 18 months, and I figure if I keep that up for another 18 years or so, I'll have it all figured out. 

And just because, I bought a new mixing board for the band, and it came with some VST plugins that I really like.

http://betabugsaudio.com/plugs.php

The Crayon filter is pretty nice.  It's like a combination parametric EQ and gain.  You overdrive only certain parts of the frequency spectrum for some nice color effects.

Bands without labels can have their music downloaded.  The Greatful Dead didn't care about taping, and Pearl Jam released about 80 bootleg tapes to the wild.  The copyright holder completely controls distribution, which is why downloading music you aren't supposed to be downloading is theft.   

The artist signs with a label to gain access to huge distribution networks and gain exposure.  That is his right.   It should be respected.

The Dot = Carmen, because she's big and red.
Breedlove Atlas = Joy, because... Well duh!
Stingray Bass = THUNDERSTICK!!!
Uke = Mohala ("Blossoming" in Hawaiian)

The lap steel hasn't told me her name yet.  I gotta play her more.  But she's pretty and sits on my lap, so it will come to me soon... 

VST = "Virtual Studio Technology."  It is a standard for writing audio plugins so that any conformant DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) can make use of them.   And almost everything out there, including Audacity is VST conformant.   The professionals using Pro Tools spend thousands on various effects, and because the VST is an open standard, there is a small army of people out there producing plugins for free, too.

Here's an example.

This is a VST plugin I love called Bittersweet.  It is a transient manipulator, which means I can use it to either smooth out transients (say, pick noise on a guitar track) or enhance it (line on the attack of a snare drum) as needed.  It is immensely useful, and it costs absolutely nothing.

http://www.fluxhome.com/products/freewares/bittersweet2

I can download it and install it, and it is on my computer, not attached to any one program.

If I use Reaper, I can attach it to any track, route the audio from the track to the effect, and listen to the change in real time.  Here I have it attached to a ukelele number I'm noodling on.  I can turn the dial and push the buttons and monitor the signal just like I could if it were a bit of hardware bolted into a rack.

Now, her is the exact same plugin in Audacity.

Now, the first thing you'll notice is that this doesn't have the nifty interface that it had with Reaper.   As long as you understand what each of those inputs means it's not a problem. I don't happen to know what they mean, so for me, that's a problem. I know if I had that nice dial I could just turn it and see how it effected the sound of my track.  Some effects have dozens of inputs, though, so the ability to render a nice interface can be important.

What you can't see in the picture is that with Reaper, I can play the track and tweak the effect at the exact same time, just like it was a send effect on a real mixing board.  I can even send live signal through it from an instrument or MIDI device just like I could a stomp box or racked effect.  Audacity doesn't let you do that.  It simply takes a section of track off of the disk and applies the effect to it, then writes it back to disk, so you can't hear what the effect is until you've modified the track.  I know it allows you to "sample" it, but it's still kind of cumbersome.

Anyway, the point is that the effect here, Bittersweet, was only on my computer once.  If I fire up Cubebase, it will be there, too.  (I'd' provide you a screen shot of that but for some reason the plugin only stays visible if Cubebase is the top window.)  Tomorrow, if I go buy Pro Tools, I can still use the same Bittersweet install I already have.  VST lets you do that.

So you can get a different re-verb than the one you're using.  There are, literally, hundreds of reverb effects to choose from.

Here's a place to start...

http://www.vst4you.com/reverb%20vst.html

Edited___

Oh hey, as far as using the verb on the vocal track, you can do the following to use the verb on the mixer.

You are going to close mic the amp and run the input through the mixer and add reverb there.  That's good.

When you are done with that, simply run the vocal through the same signal chain, and pipe it through the mixer using the same reverb settings.

Bass is often recorded like that for players that have a "signature" amp sound.  Since it is really hard to record bass live (it bleeds into everything) it is usually recorded DI.  After all the other tracks are laid down, the bass signal is ran back through the amp, and that signal is recorded.  Works great.