Recording a Mix

[jono]

What kind of hardware and software will I need to record a mix on my computer?

Hardware: Is there some kind of RCA to USB or Firewire cables available? Is this the best option?

Software: What's a good Mac program for recording/mastering mixes?





Disclaimer: This post has absolutely nothing to do with Apex Idol and my collection of showtunes.

[Phrenetic]

well first off, get audacity. works great and its free!
or if you have the money get Ableton to record and master.

you can get usb soundcards with rca. i used to use rca to headphone converters into the line in on the back of my computer.

remember!!!!!

-check levels
-stereo record
-use line in and not mic


good luck with apex idol :p

[oddmud]

Here's a question I have, after recording a mix, I pull it in to (i use cool edit) my audio editor. I'm finding that the levels during the tune are really low compared to the levels when two tunes are playing at the same time. Now I understand why this happens and all, but I'm trying to get a way to limit how much I have to compress and limit to get them sounding close enough. I'm thinking about doing a full on studio mix of Influenza and Epidemic tunes, and I want it to sound like a proper studio CD.

Anyone got tips?

[Phrenetic]

normalize and fool around. make it sound warmer. have fun

[dj_soo]

I wouldn't record in Ableton - for mac I suggest Peak or Audacity.

If you don't plan on doing much editing - use audacity - it's free and works really well.

If you want to do more editing (either for studio mixes or sample editing) Peak has more features. Peak Pro is prohibitively expensive though but Peak LE is actually pretty affordable. I'll leave it to you to find "alternate" versions if you wish.

As far as getting some hardware - if you only plan on recording via RCAs into you comp I suggest something like the Griffin Powerwave thingy (it's just a USB RCA input hardware). Either that or pick up an M-Audio Firewire Audiophile (or USB) - the M-Audio card will run you more but it's a dedicated soundcard with its own drivers rather than just an RCA input like the device (granted the Coreaudio drivers are awesome and you don't really need much else).

If you want to eventually get into production and are willing to drop a bit more coin, I'd investigate some higher-end USB/Firewire cards... no real advice on this as I'm not dialed into the soundcard gear scene - mux would be the best person to ask.

Audacity: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
Peak: http://www.bias-inc.com/
Griffin Powerwave: http://www.welovemacs.com/3254pwrw.html
M-Audio gear: http://www.m-audio.com

[dj_soo]

Originally Posted by influenza

Here's a question I have, after recording a mix, I pull it in to (i use cool edit) my audio editor. I'm finding that the levels during the tune are really low compared to the levels when two tunes are playing at the same time. Now I understand why this happens and all, but I'm trying to get a way to limit how much I have to compress and limit to get them sounding close enough. I'm thinking about doing a full on studio mix of Influenza and Epidemic tunes, and I want it to sound like a proper studio CD.

Anyone got tips?

could it be your mixer? Some mixers like A&H Xone series have funky X-fader curves... (ignore this if you don't mix with the x-fader).

[jono]

Thanks dudes!

[mux]

biggest tip: get a soundcard that supports it, and record in 24bit, or better yet, 32bit. You can rent a really good outboard USB2 or FireWire soundcard from the digital music department of Long&McQuade for like $15 for the weekend.

The reason is simple when you think of how digital audio works - the 44.1khz (or 48khz or 96khz) is how many times per second the audio you're recording gets sampled.

Basically, the bit depth (16bit, 24bit) is how many bits of data are in a single sample. In a 48khz recording, the audio is sampled 48,000 times per second, and the sample represents the volume of the audio at that 48,000th of a second. The more bits you have available, the more volume range you can have. The more volume range, the less you have to worry about your volume being too low on the recording, because you can always boost the volume of the final mix without losing any of the nuance of the music or raising the noise floor too much.

If you have the choice between 96khz/16bit and 48khz/24bit, the 48khz/24bit is the CLEAR WINNER. The jump from 16-24 bit is *way* more noticeable than the jump from 48khz to 96khz.

Bit depth = headroom. 24bit recordings FTW!

Influenza: this applies to you, 'cause the more headroom you have, the more you can compress the mix without having it sound squashed.

[project.one]

Mux Ftw!

[ppcock]

I record with wavelab, you can edit and master with it. Great little program, small too.

[scue]

Originally Posted by influenza

Here's a question I have, after recording a mix, I pull it in to (i use cool edit) my audio editor. I'm finding that the levels during the tune are really low compared to the levels when two tunes are playing at the same time. Now I understand why this happens and all, but I'm trying to get a way to limit how much I have to compress and limit to get them sounding close enough. I'm thinking about doing a full on studio mix of Influenza and Epidemic tunes, and I want it to sound like a proper studio CD.

Anyone got tips?

while your computer is starting up, play something through the input and see if the level gets boosted when windows loads. If that's the case then it's just the function of the software mixer for whatever soundcard/input you're using. Mine does the same (both nvidia card and alesis mixer)

post#1000

[dj_soo]

Originally Posted by ppcock

I record with wavelab, you can edit and master with it. Great little program, small too.

no mac version tho

[dj_soo]

question for mux: so if you're recording in 24-bit, in order for the music to be playable in CD format, you have to dither down to 16? is this still a noticable improvement over recording in straight 16-bit?

[mux]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

question for mux: so if you're recording in 24-bit, in order for the music to be playable in CD format, you have to dither down to 16? is this still a noticable improvement over recording in straight 16-bit?

yes, you do have to dither down to 16bit for CD.

Think of it in terms of digital photography - even if you're planning to just put your photos on the web, it still only makes sense to shoot the photos at higher res, so you have more data to work with. If you shoot in 640x480 but the photo is slightly blurry, your end result is blurry. If you shoot in 1600x1200 and the photo is slightly blurry, it might not be noticible when you shrink it down to 640x480. You also get way more ability to crop out and use just a portion of the photo, instead of being forced to use the whole thing as-is.

Are you a photoshop guy? It's kind of like the differences between 16-bit and 32-bit color. 16-bit blue looks just like 32-bit blue, but if you fade between, say, light blue and dark blue, the transition is waaaaaay smoother with 32 bits of data for every pixel. It's the same thing with audio - having a wider range of data available means clearer, more articulated sound.

Doing compression and normalization and limiting and such on a 24-bit recording will give you *way* better results than doing the same on a 16-bit recording. Just make the conversion from 24-bit to 16-bit the last step before you burn the CD. :)

[oddmud]

i'm not really sure you guys understand what i'm talking about. mux your ideas help some what. but how is that going to help bring up the volume of the rest of the track (the portion of it that's not in the mix) to the same volume of the two mixed tracks.

i've been using L2 on them to squash it and try and bring it louder without causing toooo much cutoff when the two tracks are mixed, but i'm sure there is a better way...

i think i'll make some pictures to visually show you what i am talking about

[mekim]

if your tracks are eq'ed properly during the mix i don't find you get as bad of a volume jump. ie. don't have both high's pinned above zero or whatever. i know you're probably doing this already but i found that definitely made a huge difference.

[Mr Ektion]

What kind of mixer do you have? I'm no gear expert, but i stopped using my crossfader on my pmc05 pro because when i use it i never get full volume when i have my thingy in the middle. It's not 100/100, but rather 85/85 and when you commit to either line it then goes to 100 % volume. It totally sounds fine when you are just listening but I can imagine that if I were to record with my vestax that it wouldn't sound right after close analysis. It'll usually sound like the volume level is dropping slightly when you're mixing. Which is mainly why I don't bother with the cross fader any more and just use my line volume and gain nobs now. But I didn't ever have this problem with my pioneer 707 or even my American DJ so as soo said, it could be your style of mixer. DAMN do I want a RCA to USB M-Audio sound card and a Pioneer DJM 5or600. =(

this may be soo basic though that it's completely out of range in regards to tech help.

[mux]

Originally Posted by influenza

i'm not really sure you guys understand what i'm talking about. mux your ideas help some what. but how is that going to help bring up the volume of the rest of the track (the portion of it that's not in the mix) to the same volume of the two mixed tracks.

Gotcha. Basically, you're going about it the right way - a gentle compressor applied to the whole mix will do what you're asking. Recording and working in a higher bitrate will just give you additional dynamic range to work with, and the compression should make the quiet parts louder and the louder parts quieter. You shouldn't need a limiter unless you're totally blowing your levels.

Agreed that it's probably your mixer at fault...

[P.A.R.T.Y]

A Pioneer DJM 800 is going to sound better than an American DJ mixer, no question. However, I've recorded through a Stanton mixer (sk2) with some decent results. Basically, it doesn't matter what you use, as long as you use it well. I mean, Grandmaster Flash made better music in the early 80's than a lot of people are making on high end 24/96 gear today.
Ideally, you want to record clean signal from an instrument (no hiss, low noise floor) I suggest a good sound card such as an Echo, Edirol, M audio, or Roland; it's essential to record the mix with a clean and decent sound card. As for recording, I recommend 32 or 24 bit recording. 16 bit is the old standard, but it's not as common anymore. In the end it all gets reduced to 16 bit and as everyone has said, you have more headroom to work with in 24 bit.
If you plan on mastering, 24 bits and higher are the norm in their studios.

In the end, I would rather hear a good song at 16 bit then a crap song at 24bit. It really depends on the quality of the source sounds (samples or synthesizers), the level it was recorded (high volume) and the talent behind the music.

" A lot of people track stuff at home and mix it someplace really great. It takes a while to know how to make things sound good, but it is certainly possible with experience" Nabil Ayers
^^^
This is what I do, I usually track and then hit a production studio with tons of gear and get them to apply the compression, pre-amp, some fx, and mixing.
The MRI is very unforgiving, so do your best and get the best equipment you can afford and make some trax.