Conference napalm::guitar

    I don't understand.  You want to know how to hook these up?  Do
    you have a board?  Drum Mach. into board, board through effects,
    effects to recorder.  I get the feeling this is not what you're
    asking, but...
    
    	Craig  
    
    

    Please elaborate on your question. Are you looking to buy a multitrack
    recorder? If so, what are your priorities? What is your budget ?
    This usually dictates which units you should be looking at. 
    
                                                                    
    Mark J.

    Right now I am working on finishing off my cellar. Among other
    things I plan to have a small studio (approx 12'x20' of floorspace).
    My goal is to buy a multitrack recorder within the next 12 months.
    I have already begun looking at various units, and so far I am
    leaning towards Tascam. They have the largest selection of different
    models to choose from, and appear to be built the best, and the
    most professionally geared equipment in my pricerange (under $1000.oo).
    I have a Peavey 701R stereo mixing board, so I don't need a
    multitracker with a built-in mixer. Tascam makes a model (I forget
    the model number) which is a a  4 space rack mount package. I believe
    it lists for about $799. 
    
    I personally, am not interested in a portable machine. I would rather
    have the 19" rack mountable configuration. The portables are usually
    all plastic, and are not 4 track/4 track machines. By this I mean
    that you can only record onto tracks 1 and 2. Then you have to "bounce"
    the sound over to tracks 3 and 4 before continuing. In the bouncing
    process you lose some signal quality, and pick up noise and hiss.
    A true 4 tracker allows you to record directly onto all four tracks.
    I am not too worried about whether a unit has Dolby B,C or DBX.
    I will probably add a DBX noise reduction system eventually.
    
    If you are limited to less than $500, you should be looking at 
    Fostex X15, Clarion, Ross, and Vesta Fire. Some of the high end
    Fostex stuff is nice, but the small units they make don't turn me
    on.
    
    Have fun looking.
    
    Mark
                                     
    
    

    
    Last weekend I purchased a Tascam Porta One. I know, I planned
    on buying a rack mount unit, but for the money, the Porta One
    fits the bill. Now that I have purchased it, I am glad I went
    with the portable format in stead of rack mount. Now I need a 
    carrying case for this baby. I also need a punch in/out pedal, 
    but these were out of stock when I bought it.
    
    The unit has many features, but only 2 disadvantages that I can see. 
    One is that you can't record onto all 4 tracks simultaneously. At least
    you don't have to bounce tracks to get them to tracks 3 & 4. You
    record directly only all 4 tracks. The other disadvantage is the lack
    of an effects loop, but effects can be added either in the front
    end or during mix down. They show you a trick in the manual where you 
    can squeeze 10 tracks of music onto a tape, without having to re-record
    any track more than once. I will probably never need to squeeze 10
    tracks but it's nice to know it can be done if I want to. This machine
    runs at standard cassette speed 1 7/8"/sec. It includes DBX noise 
    reduction. 
    
    If you need a machine that allows for simultaneous recording onto
    all four tracks, with 2 effects loops, 6 channel mixer, and midi sync
    capabilities, check out the Tascam Porta Two.
                                                 
    I would appreciate any comments about the unit I purchased, and
    especially any tips on getting the most out of this unit. I have
    a lot of other equipment and will need to experiment to find the
    best way to use everything together. Reading through the various
    notes files, it sounds like a compressor is a necessity. What is
    a good compressor to buy ? Is anyone familiar with the ALesis
    MicroComp. I am considering eventually buying 3 Alesis Micro series
    effects and rackmount them into one rack space using the kit they
    sell. I also could use a MicroVerb so I could do separate reverb
    settings for different tracks. I am hoping that Alesis eventually
    comes out with a MicroDelay which would offer ~20 delay effects
    from the MidiverbII.
    
    Mark Jacques

    
    Re: compressors
    
    Depends on what you need it for.  For guitars and bass I just use
    a Boss stomp box, it works pretty well , lets you adjust how much
    of the attack gets squashed and is *very* quiet, much better than
    any other stomp box compressor I've heard yet.
    
    It's not too useful for miked stuff because of the level mismatch.
    
    Best part of it is, you may already *own* one of these.  Which is
    why most of my outboard effects (chorus, noise gate, compressor,
    delay) are stomp boxes.
    
    

    re:.5
    
    I'll second the vote for Boss stomp box compressor on guitar/bass.
    
    Brian, what do you use on vocals?

    
    Re: .6
    
    Uh, nothing, actually...
    
    I seldom sing and when I do I don't bother to compress.
    
    Mainly because I sound more like Lou Reed than Pavarotti....
    
    

    The Alesis micro series seems to be real nice stuff, it's inexpensive
    good sounding, small (3 devices to a single rack space) and stereo!)
    
    Currently I', cnsidering buying the enhancer, the limiter (if it
    will do a good job compressing a guitar) and a microverb II.
    
    I have heard the microverb and it's very nice unit.         
    
    dave

    re: .8  'the limiter (if it will do a good job compressing a guitar)'
    
    Dave,
    
    I'm also interested in the limiter, but don't have a lot of time
    to go try stuff out during the day.  Can you let us know how well
    it did, when you've tested it?

    Greg

    I didn't try the limiter yet...sorry if I gave that impression,
    I'm planning on going out to search for one soon, problem is the
    local dealer can't keep it in stock...
    
    dbII
    

    re: .4
    
    I only have a little experience at this stuff (I've done about 4
    tunes via the 4-track route).
    
    I wouldn't just presume that you need anything.  My advice is to
    just startup a project that will give you some experience with this
    thing (i.e. record some tunes).
    
    Then go out and buy what you find you need.
    
    My feeling is that you'd probably benefit more from upgrading to
    a unit with effects loops (assuming you don't have any other mixers)
    than you would from a compressor.  I think you can get by without
    a compressor.
    
    Do you have good reverb?  Stereo delay (not much use without effects
    loop on a 4-track though)?  Good Mic?  Drum machine?  Keyboard
    (even if you don't play and even if you buy nothing fancier than
    a CZ-101)?
    
    I think you'd benefit more from any of these than a compressor.
    
    	db - who still does not have a compressor (ok, I do have one
             of those boss stomp boxes, but I only use it for guitar).

    A compressor will allow you to make the vocals sound more like real
    vocals...this is goodness, I just bought one after 4 years of home
    studio work. You can live without it. A reverb is a definate must!
    You just can't get a good sound without it.  Again the alesis microverb
    is a good one for very reasonable dollars (list $199 mail order
    has them at about $169 for stereo!) 
    
    dave

    
    Re: .1
    
    Dave, I was doing four-tracking for years without even a mixer.
    other than the mic/line mixing on the open reel machine itself,
    and if there was one box that really helped out, it was the compressor.
    
    I could never get a good bass sound until I started using it.  It
    also helped the (electric) guitar as well.
    
    In both cases I was recording "direct", that is not miking an amp,
    because I was often working in apartments, dorm rooms, etc. where
    the volume would have been objectionable.
    
    When miking an amp, there tends to be a "self-compression" effect,
    for lack of a better term, that helps out...i.e the dynamics are
    much more pronounced on the direct signal.
    
    Now, I would agree you don't *need* a compressor, but if you want
    to get a smooth sound on bass, it really helps.  Paricularly on
    a cassette which has limited headroom to start with (I'm running
    open reel at 7-1/2 ips, so I have eight times as much tape area
    to get the signal than a little cassette uses).
    
    I've found that distorted electric guitars and most keyboards don't
    have the same wide dynamic range (particularly non-velocity keys) and are
    usually real easy to record.  
                               
    And for the price, a stomp box compressor is a good deal, particularly
    if you are also playing live and have use for it as an effect.
    
    

    Dave,
    
    	I have a midiverbII which affords me the Digi reverb, delay
    and more. I also have a Peavey 701R mixer which has spring reverb.
    The board is also stereo, so it should work great for mix-down,
    but I will probably do most of my multi-track recording direct onto
    the Porta One. For Now, I will probably be recording dry, and then 
    during mix-down will add digi delay to the lead guitar track, and a
    little reverb to everything. Since my four tracker has no effects loop,
    I feel that I will need additional effects so that I can add effects to
    4 tracks independantly. A microverb would be a nice addition, as
    well as a compressor, but this will probably wait for a while, as
    the ole pocket book is still hurtin'. I am sure that there will be
    times when I have to add effects on the front end, since I have only
    one multi effects unit. 
    
    	I do have plans of (eventually) getting a synth, and drum machine,
    but these things will have to wait. I am sort of worried about getting
    suck in to the synth trap. I see myself getting a synth, and then
    needing all kinds of hardware and software to support it's use.
    I am also concerned about getting sucked in to spending all my time
    programming the thing. I hate programming to begin with.
    
    	Since I have only had the Porta One for 1 week today, I am not 
    really thinking of upgrading at this time. My next multitracker
    will probably be a DAT type. I figure by the time I am ready for
    a new one, DAT technology will be ready with 8 track DAT multitrackers
    for under $1000, with an array of digital effects "built-in". Of
    course if the record industry has it's way, we will never see DAT
    to begin with.
    
    	Is it just my imagination, or are a lot of us musicians crazy?
    Here I haven't even had the Porta one for a full week, and I am
    talking about buying "MORE STUFF". I guess I will never be fully
    satisfied no matter what I have, but it's about time I start enjoying
    what I do have and try to appreciate it without thinking of what
    to buy next.
    
    Mark Jacques
    

    When I bought my Teac 144 (in 1981), which has a lot in common with
    your Porta-one, I ended up spending nearly $2000.00 in the first
    year that I owned it. You'll discover what you need & then you'll
    find that you really need it. The Tape deck was the cheap end of
    the deal. I can't complain, I could now justify all of the things
    that I really wanted (cause now, I also needed them). I bought a
    CZ-101 a few years ago (there's a book with 350 sounds - you enter
    the programs - $19.95) & found that real useful. I also goto a
    Roland TR-606 (old technology, but records real well - can probably
    found for >$100.00 used - I have some drum patterns that I use that
    I'll donate to anyone that wants them - these will work on the TR-505,
    TR-707 & a host of other drum machines). Don't look at the other
    objects as 'Evils', I'm a guitarist & I've noticed how the guitar
    has taken a back seat to keyboards as of late (I think that someone
    made the comment in this notes file that the guitar seems to be
    only used for the obligatory lead solo in most songs on MTV these
    days), but, that doesn't mean you can't get a better sound with
    a bit of help. Set the cash aside & look on the used market. You'll
    find some mighty good things, reasonably cheap & they are great
    places to start. I love my guitars & they tend to be the highlight
    of all of my studio work, but the support of other instruments really
    help.
    
    						Jens Moller
    

> 	Is it just my imagination, or are a lot of us musicians crazy?
>    Here I haven't even had the Porta one for a full week, and I am
>    talking about buying "MORE STUFF". I guess I will never be fully
>    satisfied no matter what I have, but it's about time I start enjoying
>    what I do have and try to appreciate it without thinking of what
>    to buy next.
    
    Ouch!!! You struck a familiar nerve.
    
    Yes, we are crazy.  I do the same thing.  I know for a fact that
    there are lots of other folks out there with the same tendency,
    I doubt all of them are ready to admit it publicly  ;-)
    
    This very thing was (honest) the real motivation behind what I wrote
    in my last note.
    
    I think it's a good idea to enforce "spending moratoriums" after
    you upgrade.  I got my 4-track and already I think "god, life would
    be so much better with 8 tracks".
    
    I never intended to say the compressors or anything wasn't useful.
    Only that it isn't a necessity of life.
    
    I really think what you should do now is DO STUFF with the equipment
    you have.  Only that will tell you what you would most benefit from
    by getting next.
    
    OK, so at first I said you don't need a compressor.  Then I admitted that
    I had one of those stomp boxes.  But I will NEVER admit that I've
    borrowed one several times for specific things.  You'll NEVER drag
    it outa me.

    		You see how ridiculous all this can get?  Thank
    		god it's at least fun.
    
    	db

    I'd like to recommend a book that was a great help to me. "Home Recording 
For Musicians" by Craig Anderton, Amsco Publications, a division of Music Sales 
Corp., New York. I paid 14.95 at the local retailer, but Music Sales' address
is 24 East 22nd St., New York, N.Y. 10010.

    Chapters cover;

    	1) Basics.

    	2) Creating the home studio environment (covers things like how to 
           build a studio in your closet with patch bays and stuff if you 
           have limited space).

    	3) The console.

    	4) Microphones.

    	5) Recording Techniques.

    	6) Mixing and assembling the master tape.

    	7) Maintenance.

    	8) Getting more music on to your tape.

    	9) Projects for home recording (build your own mixer and the like).

    		Appendix A - More info. Books and Mags for further reading,
                             Manufacturer names & addresses (I'll post this 
                             list if you people want it).

    		Appendix B - Relating the DB to voltage and power ratios.

    		Appendix C - Sending your demo to a record company.

    		Appendix D - 'Do it yourself" company (i.e. - kits) names
    			     and addresses (I'll post these too, if requested).

    		Appendix E - About the sound sheet (Oh yeah, it has one of 
                             those too! :-)  ).

    A very well written and informative book.

    					Steve

    P.S. - Forgive me if this was posted elsewhere, I'm kinda new here...

    re:.12
    
    Dave,
    
    What compressor are you currently using?  How well does it handle
    vocal "pops"?  Better than, say, a stomp box?  How much did your unit run
    you?Any noise or other problems you've run into?  What other units
    did you look at?
    
    				A vicarious consumer

    I'm using a Symetrix 525 dual/stereo compressor limiter. It's a
    nice one, list is about $499, I got it mail order considerably cheaper.
                                      
    
    dave

    Having had my Porta One for 1 1/2 week now, I have done some recording
    with it. It's amazing how some days, everything sounds great, and
    other days everything comes out sounding like crap. It takes time
    to get everything set up and ready to record. By that time, I sometimes
    run out of creative energy. This problem will be resolved once I
    get my little studio built in the basement. 
    
    A find a couple of shortcomings that I would like to improve upon
    right away. First of all, I definately need a metronome to keep
    time, so I don't drop the rhythm. Recording makes you realize the
    sloppy habits you develop just sitting around jammin. I would like
    a metronome I can switch on and off with a foot switch. I would
    appreciate any suggestions for a good cheap metroname. I would like
    one with both an audible click, as well as a flashing light, but
    the audible feature is my priority so I don't have to watch the
    thing. Obviously, I only need to use the metronome to lay down the
    first track.
    
    My next area that needs improvement is miking/pickup technique for
    my acoustic guitar. I am currently using a Barcus Berry Insider
    pickup. I will try using my ball mic, but am also considering either
    installing a Mini mic inside the soundhole, or getting a Rat Shack
    PZM. I would appreciate any comments on Rat Shack PZM's as well
    as Rat Shack mini mics and other inexpensive mini mics.
    
    Thanks again. This is turning out to be an interesting topic. What
    ever happended to the guy who originated this note ?
    
    PS. The Craig Andeton Book is on my shopping list as well !!!
    
    Mark Jacques
    
    
     
    

    	Re: The compressor controversy
    
    	A compressor is one of the most useful things a home studio
    owner can own. A compressor 'compresses' a sound wave so that there
    is a smaller difference between your lowest low and your highest
    peak (the VU measurement). This allows a generally higher recording
    level (the higher, the better). Compression has the additional effect 
    of increasing sustain.
    
    	Pardon the un-technical nomenclature, I'm hardly an expert.
    I could also be totally wrong...  :-)
    
    					Steve
      

    re: .20  On the metronome...
    
    I'm sure you'll get a deluge of the  "Don't get a metronome, get
    a drum machine..." replies on this, so what the heck, I'll be first.
    
    It doesn't have to be anything complex (or even nice...).  I have
    an old Boss Dr. Rhythm DR-55, which must have been the first drum
    simulator they made.  It's pretty primative, but has everything
    that you talked about.  It'll work with a footswitch and has a little
    light.  Admittedly the light only flashes once per program unit
    (typically 4 beats).  It's got three programmable voices, bass drum,
    tom, and 'rim shot' (their word, not mine) and a programmable accent.
    A pre-programmed Snare can be added at either 8th note or 16th note
    preset intervals.  It's all manual (not even a display). 
    
    It's not fancy and doesn't have the best sound, but it only cost
    me $40 (used).  They are still available, I saw two of them at a
    local (Colorado Springs) pawn shop last week.  The marked price
    was $65, but that's usually flexable.  For the same price, you can
    buy a reasonable metronome which has only one sound, no output 
    signal, and no footswitch option!
        
    One point on the use of virtually any rhythem device when recording
    (especially on casette) is to put it down first, even if you don't
    want it in the mix, put it on a scratch track.  If you don't, you'll
    have a VERY hard time getting it to fit the other tracks after you've
    done a few and the tape has stretched a little.  I learned this
    the hard way on one of my first recording attempts.  I put down
    a click track first and then did a rhythem track and some various
    background tracks (about 15 hours worth or recording).  At this
    point, I was ready to add the drum sound.  Even though I'd not changed
    the speed setting on the machine, it was off.  Because the unit
    was analog, I couldn't ever get the speed just right so couldn't
    put on any 'drums'.  I was really bummed, since I really liked
    what I had on the other tracks!  I'm not a drummer and don't know
    any around here...and was kind of in a hurry since I'd borrowed
    the 4-track from a friend who wanted it back, so I scratched the
    whole thing and started over.  Never got anything close to what
    I had that first time...
    
    Greg

    
    One thing I forgot to mention that I have had great luck with. 
    I tried recording electric guitar using my little Pignose amp
    and a ball mic (PVM38) and got excellant results. I bought the
    Pignose for $50 used and am finding it to be one of the best
    investments I have made in a long time. I have also tried using
    it as a preamp via the line out. For recording I prefer to mic
    it so I get that  warm overdriven speaker sound, but for use live
    with my twin reverb, the preamp output works great. It puts out
    very little hum, and makes my Twin sound a lot warmer. 
    
    One thing I can't understand. The Pignose has a simple transistorized
    amplifier that runs off of batteries. To my ears it has the warmth
    of tubes. How come the Pignose can get a good tube sound when a
    lot of modern sophisticated units can't get that warm tube sound?
    
    I do have to report one problem with the Pignose that I plan to
    work on improving is the little cabinet tends to rattle when cranked
    up all the way. I got around that by leaning it back against a pillow,
    but would like to find a way to make the cabinet more solid. The
    problem is that it has to be able to open up to replace the batteries,
    and the clasp is what I suspect is rattling.
                                           
    Mark Jacques
    

re .20  PZM mikes

The Radio Shack PZM's are AMAZING for ambient recording.  The sound
is very, very good -- smooth, clear and quiet.  Perfect for acoustic
guitar.  I've had one for about a year and paid somewhere aroung $35.

There are a couple problems, which shouldn't really matter for
acoustic guitar.  They are weak in the bass and can't cope with
high sound pressure levels.  Bass response can be helped by mounting
on a LARGE flat surface -- 1/2 wavelength of the lowest note you hope
to record.  The sensitivity to overload can be reduced by using a
higher-voltage battery.  There is a note in the AUDIO notesfile
(title 'Gems from Phil R via Usenet') discussing the mods.

Remember, though.  These are AMBIENT mikes.  They are not directional
and they aren't meant to be used TOO close to the sound source.

Enjoy,
Dave

    This thing about the Pignose tends to confirm my own experience
    and theories.
    
    When I was still living in an apartment I had to keep my Boogie
    in check lest the neighbors call the police.  One of the strengths
    of the Boogie is that it can give you a real good overdrive sound
    even at low volumes, but it just ain't the same unless it "sounds"
    loud.
    
    One time I made the experiment of mic'ing the Boogie at a relatively
    low volume and they cranking it up in some headphones.
    
    I hit a power chord on the guitar...
    
    WHOAA!!!!!
    
    I coulda sworn that most of southern NH had heard that chord.  It
    really sounded great through the headphones.  I made some tape
    experiments and found that it sounded better, even louder, than
    when I had mic'ed the amp at a normal or loud volume.
    
    Bizarre!
    
    The tune we did for Commusic III was a good example.  It had a lot
    of techniques that required a fairly high gain setting from the
    amp and some feedback, so I had to blast the amp to do it.  In my
    opinion, the guitar sound during the solo was real shitty.  I tried
    to clean it up a bit but I was working under considerable time pressure
    and so I just had to go with it.
    
    But when I record at lower volumes it just seems to get a better
    overall sound.  On the other hand, other folks I've known who sound
    good on tape insist that their secret is that they blast the amp
    when they're recording.
    
    	db

    	Since this topic leans toward beginners, I thought it might
    be nice for some of us who have used our studios for a bit to offer
    up some tips and techniques. Look I'm no expert, but If we share
    what we've learned, everyone will benifit. :-)
    
    	Rather than ramble, I'll present what I can a little at a time.
    Now that I have you fooled in to thinking I know a real lot...
    
    	Try doubling your tracks. By this I mean play exactly what you
    just played on track A again on track B. This is done quite a bit
    on pro albums. Sounds the balls with vocals and solos (any instrument).
    Try panning the two tracks to different sides of the mix if the
    tune doesn't have too many tracks. Too much crap doesn't make for
    good stereo on a four track. I always record mono.
    
    					Steve

    
    	I don't mean to spoil everyones parade, but I found the Anderton
    book, for the most part, useless.
    
    If you want to build your own mixer, fine; but this book was written
    before the Tascam portastudio even existed, let alone the porta
    ONEs, and things like my Fostex 80.  
    
    As far as techniques go, I end up going direct for EVERYTHING. 
    If there is a way to record a guitar amp at a good loud volume in
    an apartment, let me know, but I just go direct into the board.
    One trick I found was that since my mixer had MOSFET technology,
    I could get a FET-tube type sound by overdriving the mixer.  I then
    sent this out a buss to another input.
    
    Since I don't yet have a digital delay (Just a cheap Rat shack reverb,
    which makes an excellent guitar stomp box, but stinks on vocals),
    or a digital reverb (just the springs in my crate); I end up double
    tracking almost all vocals.  This works great (usually) and has
    the effect of depth, as well as a pseudo-chorus.
    
    Ash in smogland

    re:.27
    Interesting concept on overdrive wraparound. I'll try it.
    I have the same problem-getting a good "loud" sound in my aprtment.
    I bought a small Fender "Sidekick" amp with a headphone jack and
    use the overdrive circut in it going to my PortaOne input for dry
    or through my MidiVerb II for wet. Although this works fairly well,
    it's not quite the sound that I want. When I record at a friend's
    "house" in his 8 track studio I play through his Fender Twin and
    mike it for the sound that I want. This works for now but there
    will come a time when I need to do it at home in my aprtment.
    
    Mark

    I second the vote against Craig Andertons Recording book. I also
    have one & thought that it really doesn't help that much. Karl Moeller
    wrote up a very good set of articles on home recording with minimal
    equipment. It can be found in either COMMUSIC or MUSIC notes files
    (forgive me, but I don't recall which - I think MUSIC is where it's
    at).
    
    Unfortunately, it takes hundreds (if not thousands) of hours at
    your multi-track deck just to discover it's limitations, and figure
    out which cassettes are most consistant (I found lots of manufacturing
    problems with FUJI CrO tapes & use mostly SONY UX-90's now, however,
    have used other successfully - the SONY's are cheaper, by a few
    bucks, when you buy 10 at a time) & how to relate the VU meters
    to the actual things being recorded.
    
    I use a Teac 144 (bought it in 1982 - one of the 1st Porta-Studio's
    available).
    
    Mixdowns are the hardest part. I used to use my PA system (each
    cabinet has a 15 inch Cerwin Vega, Exponential Horns & Piezo's for
    tweeters) & everything sounded wonderful. However, when put onto
    a normal cassette & played thru the car sterio, it sounded 'not
    so good'. Headphones caused a similar effect (althou, I know what
    to listen for in the headphones these days).  I had to actually
    mix down into a cheap sterio system to hear what it would sound
    like on that sort of system. Once it sounds good there, I send
    it over to the PA speakers & tweek a little more. I have to bounce
    back & forth until I'm happy, however, this often involves re-doing
    a track or two.
    
    In the past, I've put music on the tape in this order (4 track system)
    
    Pass 1:
    Track	Instrument
    1	- 	Drum machine
    4	-	Acoustic guitar/Vocals - Just for syncronization, to
    		be recorded over in the very near future. 
           
    Pass 2:
    2	-	Add guitar part, while listening to 1 & 4.
    
    Pass 3:	
    3	-	Add Main Vocal Part, while listening to 1,2 and 4
    
    Pass 4:	
    4	- 	Mix tracks 2 & 3 onto track 4.
    
    Pass 5:
    2	-	Add Synth part, recording over original guitar part
    
    Pass 6:	
    3	-	Mix Track 2 with additional vocals, or other instrument
    		onto track 3
    
    Pass 7:
    2	-	Add Bass instrument (usually a Bass Guitar). I always
    		use a guitar pick when recording Bass Guitar, however,
    		I play with my Fingers live. It seems to record better.
    
    NOTE: I have lots of special effects boxes & use reverb the most
    frequently. It's so easy to go overboard & use everything that you
    have each time you do anything. I have a Compressor, but don't use
    it that much, However, I do use a limiter very frequently.
    
    All this takes between 3 and 6 hours per song. The disadvantages
    are:             
    
    	1) There are no saved 'in between parts', and if you screw up
    	   the guitar/vocal mix, you get to do it over again. This 
    	   does not become obvious until you have destroyed the originals.
        2) If you put down a guitar solo, you have none of the other
    	   instruments to play against & must have planned for it. Since
    	   most of these recordings are used to allow me to work out
    	   solo's later, this is not that important to me.
    
    Advantages:
    
    	1) Less noise since I'm not constantly moving between tape decks.
    	2) Less wasted tape
    	3) More songs per tape (I Never put more than 3 on a tape -
    	   it becomes unmanageable in a LIVE situation if you do)
    
    You see, I also haul around my Porta-Studio & silence track 4, while
    sending tracks 1,2 and 3 to the PA system (I actually have a speaker
    on my Mike stand, that faces me, where track 4 is directed, incase
    I get confused, I can re-sync myself with the tape). This allows
    me to play weddings & clubs where they want a single & yet doesn't
    limit me to acoustic guitar work for the whole evening. Being I
    get from between $75.00 to $150.00 as a Single act, this must not
    be such a bad idea. I've seen other musicians doing the same sort
    of thing. I also play in a Duo & use the tape deck similarly. It's
    great to get 4 part harmonies out of 2 people. The range of stuff
    that I have recorded encompases old show tunes (Cole Porter), Country
    Western, 50's/60's/70'/80's Rock & lots of slow dance tunes. The
    Porta-Studio has paid for itself many times over.
    
    I plan on getting more into sequencers & Synth's, however, I'm a
    guitarist & plan to let the guitar remain my fore-front instrument.
    
    Once you get going, Maybe we can trade tapes or arraingements.

    Re: .27

    >I don't mean to spoil everyones parade, but I found the Anderton
    >book, for the most part, useless.
    
    >If you want to build your own mixer, fine; but this book was written
    >before the Tascam portastudio even existed, let alone the porta
    >ONEs, and things like my Fostex 80.  
    
    	I'm puzzled. Are you saying the book is badly written, inaccurate,
    or that you already knew the material within? I for one didn't know basic 
    stuff like signal to noise ratios and stuff. Sure if you learned it 
    elsewhere the book is of know value to you. The author of this topic was
    just starting out. The basic physics of recording with tape is virtually 
    the same then as it is now. The mixer project takes up 36 of 182 pages 
    (one chapter).

    >As far as techniques go, I end up going direct for EVERYTHING. 
    >If there is a way to record a guitar amp at a good loud volume in
    >an apartment, let me know, but I just go direct into the board.
    >One trick I found was that since my mixer had MOSFET technology,
    >I could get a FET-tube type sound by overdriving the mixer.  I then
    >sent this out a buss to another input.
   
    	I also always record direct. Anderton does not advocate otherwise for
    people in our situation.

    Re: .29

    >>I second the vote against Craig Andertons Recording book. I also
    >>have one & thought that it really doesn't help that much. Karl Moeller
    >>wrote up a very good set of articles on home recording with minimal
    >>equipment. It can be found in either COMMUSIC or MUSIC notes files
    >>(forgive me, but I don't recall which - I think MUSIC is where it's
    >>at).
    
    	Again, are you saying the book would not help a beginner?

    >>Unfortunately, it takes hundreds (if not thousands) of hours at
    >>your multi-track deck just to discover it's limitations, and figure
    >>out which cassettes are most consistant (I found lots of manufacturing
    >>problems with FUJI CrO tapes & use mostly SONY UX-90's now, however,
    >>have used other successfully - the SONY's are cheaper, by a few
    >>bucks, when you buy 10 at a time) & how to relate the VU meters
    >>to the actual things being recorded.
    
    	Darn tootin'! Good thing I didn't waste time trying to figure out why I
    wasn't getting the same results as another guy with the same equipment! I 
    had Anderton to tell me that I *should* be experimenting, and with what. 
    The other guy ended up borrowing the book. :-)

    >>Mixdowns are the hardest part. I used to use my PA system (each
    >>cabinet has a 15 inch Cerwin Vega, Exponential Horns & Piezo's for
    >>tweeters) & everything sounded wonderful. However, when put onto
    >>a normal cassette & played thru the car sterio, it sounded 'not
    >>so good'. Headphones caused a similar effect (althou, I know what
    >>to listen for in the headphones these days).  I had to actually
    >>mix down into a cheap sterio system to hear what it would sound
    >>like on that sort of system. Once it sounds good there, I send
    >>it over to the PA speakers & tweek a little more. I have to bounce
    >>back & forth until I'm happy, however, this often involves re-doing
    >>a track or two.

    	Not like I'm trying to beat a dead horse here, but Anderton advocates
    listening to the mixdown on as many different quality machines as possible.
    Do I sound dumb when I say that I never would of thought of that (right off 
    anyway)? :-) There is also a part in there about what to do when seemingly 
    facing an impossible change in the mix that I found very helpful. 

    	The Anderton book is for beginners. You guys sound quite knowledgeable, 
    you could probably teach me a thing or two. But let's give the just_starting
    _out types a break, huh? I don't use the book anymore either! I had never 
    even been in a studio when I got my unit, nor had I tried to record music 
    at any level. 

    						Steve

    I thnk the material is very dated and anderton's books (all of them)
    have left a great deal to be desired in my humble opinion....
    
    dave

    Well, I don't mean to be difficult, but.....
    When I bought the Anderton book, I was also just starting out &
    had never tried anything on my 4 track systeme (in fact I had just
    bought it). I'll admit that Craig Has some good ideas, however,
    theres a book by George Martin (You remember George, he did a little
    work with the Beatles) called MUSIC or MAKING MUSIC (one or the
    other) that has substantially more usable information than Craigs
    recording book. And then there are a few other books (one is a SAMs
    book on RECORDING STUDIOS, that explains what everything that is
    currently sold, at least thru 1974, does & how it's used in a real
    studio) that would be better choices. The big thing that I liked
    about Craigs book was that it came with a sound page that was used
    to reinforce some concepts. The rest of the book wasn't bad, it
    just wasn't exceptional, and in many cases, not all that useful.
    
    Just so I don't appear to look like too much of an idiot; I admit,
    I did buy one, I did read it, and I did try some of the things that
    he suggested. Afterwards, when I thought about it, I realised that
    I have not referenced this book once in the last 4 years, while
    I have re-read parts of other books on the same subject. I think
    that this is because the information found in Craig Andertons book
    is less effective than the 'MULTITRACK RECORDING BOOK' that came
    with the TEAC Porta-Studio, and they cover the same ground. In other
    words, the technology has improved, as have the low cost options,
    and Craigs book is rather dated. Otherwise, it's a good intro to
    recording technique.
    
    On the same note, Craigs other book, 'ELECTRONIC PROJECTS FOR
    MUSICIANS' is also a bit dated. Again, I have that one too, and
    have not even picked it up in 4 years.
    
    						Jens

    The notesfile topic previously mentioned is in COMMUSIC, topic #282.
    I've not done a lot of recording, as I don't have a tape deck yet (but
    have borrowed one on occasion.  I found Karl's topic to be very
    informative and interesting.  Definately worth checking out! 
    
    Greg

    
    I would like to revitalize this discussion, as it has lost interest
    in the past few weeks.
    
    I have volenteered to record Springjam with my Tascam Porta One,
    and would like some advice/ideas/tips that anyone would like to
    give. How good should I except the recordings to be ? I understand
    that a Porta One is OK for idea capturing, but not for studio
    quality recordings. Should I leave the job for someone with much 
    better equipment, or should I go for it ? So far no one else has
    volenteered, so my machine is better than nothing !!
    
    I am hoping to hook into the PA stereo sends. The video crew also
    needs to tap into the mixer, so we may not have enough mixer outputs
    to feed both the audio and video. I noticed that the guy who recorded
    Falljam used 2 microphones rather than hook into the mixer. Does
    anyone know why he didn't hook into the mixer ? I have a set of
    Peavey PVM38 mics. These are very similar to Shure SM58's, or ATM41's.
    (dynamic cardiodes). I know that most people doing live recordings of 
    the Grateful Dead are using condenser mics as apposed to dynamic mics.
    If I end up having to use mics, are my PVM38's adequate ?
       
    I know we talked about compressors, and I have been looking around
    at compressors. So far I have found that I will probably need to
    get either 2 single (mono) units, or one dual unit, for recording
    purposes. I would also like to be able to use a compressor for
    electric guitar to get that compressor/sustainer effect. I looked
    at the Alesis MicroLimiter, but Ed at Wurlitzers recommends the
    DBX half rack units in stead. Both units sell for about $120, but
    the ALesis is stereo, and the DBX is mono, therefore for stereo,
    or 2-track recording I would need 2 DBX units which would cost me
    double the money ($240). Being half rack units two DBX's would fit
    in one rack space. According to Ed, the Alesis unit is a bit noisier
    than the DBX, especially at high compression settings. Neither unit
    gives enough compression to act like a Boss Compressor/sustainer
    (or equivelant), for that he recommends buying a Boss stomp box.
    Worst case, we are talking $240 for 2 DBX's, and another $100 for
    a Boss stomp box. I am not willing to drop $350 into compressors,
    so I would appreciate any recommendations of resonably price dual
    units that would give enough compression to squeeze an electric guitar.
    I would like something that allows for stereo operation, or independant
    operation of each channel, and of course would prefer a rack mount
    package.
    
    thanks in advance for any advice,
    
    Mark Jacques
    
                                                       
    
    

    I can give some advice, but you might want to ask this in COMMUSIC.
    The people in that conference probably have more experience with
    the newer equipment than I do.
        
    > How good should I except the recordings to be ?
    
    There are really two factors that are going to affect the final
    quality: the limitations of the equipment, and the recording technique
    that you use. 

    > Should I leave the job for someone with much better equipment, or
    > should I go for it ? 

    Looks like there's really no choice at this point. I'm sure people
    will appreciate your effort, recognizing that you're working with
    some limitations.

    > I am hoping to hook into the PA stereo sends. The video crew also
    > needs to tap into the mixer, so we may not have enough mixer outputs
    > to feed both the audio and video. I noticed that the guy who recorded
    > Falljam used 2 microphones rather than hook into the mixer. Does
    > anyone know why he didn't hook into the mixer ?
    
    There's probably several reasons. For one thing, he may not have
    wanted to get involved with the sound people, who already have their
    hands full trying to get a good live mix. For another, if you're
    just taking the stereo mix off the monitor outputs you won't be
    able to get a good "live" sound. It's very common to record live
    performances using just two mikes, set the same distance from the
    stage and some distance apart. The further you separate them, the
    more stereo "effect" you will get. Too far and you may lose the
    middle. The distance from the stage you place them is dependent
    on the acoustic properties of the hall. The advantage of this is
    you hear a natural mix, which includes the room ambience, an important
    part of getting a live sound. If you could record all of the channels
    from the sound system separately, and the room sound as well, you
    would have the greatest control, but it won't be possible with your
    equipment.

    If you do decide to go off the mixer outputs, I'm sure they can
    be split to feed both you and the video.

    > I have a set of Peavey PVM38 mics. These are very similar to Shure
    > SM58's, or ATM41's. (dynamic cardiodes). I know that most people doing
    > live recordings of the Grateful Dead are using condenser mics as
    > apposed to dynamic mics. If I end up having to use mics, are my PVM38's
    > adequate ? 

    I'm not familiar with the Peavey mics, but the reason why condesnser
    mics are used is just that they are more sensitive and generally
    have flatter response over a wider range. I think this is going to
    be the least of your problems. If you can't get anything else, I'd
    go with the Peaveys.       

    > I know we talked about compressors, and I have been looking around
    > at compressors. 

    I can't really advise you on the compressors, because I'm not familiar
    with the new models. You'd probably do better asking that in COMMUSIC.
    As you probably know, your PortaStudio has very little dynamic range,
    and live recording of rock music is going to blow it away if you
    don't use compressors. The compressors will help keep the signals
    within a range that you can handle.
    
    The bottom line is that you can't expect to get really great results
    with what you have. The mics will limit the response somewhat, your
    deck won't be able to handle the dynamic range, and you won't be
    able to do any significant post-production, like re-mixing, so you'll
    have to live with what you get. But I, for one, would be grateful
    if you can take a shot at it. This is all for fun anyway, and you're
    bound to learn something in the process.

    - Ram

    I've done similar recordings with my PortaStudio & I have had quite
    good results. What I did was connect into the PA (like you plan on
    doing). Anything on the PA came out great. I used 6 microphones,
    and a cheap Radio Shack 4 channel (sterio) mixer. I didn't use a
    compressor for my live work (more than anything else because of
    the boosting of noise on the drums - also picks up lots of junk
    noise when you do this). I had microphones (anything from SM58's
    to trash $10.00 specials) in front of all of the amplifiers, and
    more than one on the drums (takes at least 3). The drums wer the
    hard part, more because of the cymbals than anything else (use
    directional ones on the drums, to keep the splash of the cymbals
    out of that channel). I also stuck on microphone about 30 feet away,
    from the band, over to one side - the goal here was to get some
    of the ambiance - I used a cheap microphone here, because this did
    not need phenominal frequency response. Here was my lay out
    (on the PortaStudio 144, I can only record on 2 of the 4 channels
    at a time)
    
    
    	PA ---(with vocals / keyboards / etc ------>   Left  - chan a
        Guitar --(microphone/or direct)------------>   Left  - chan b
        Bass Guitar --(microphone/or direct)------->   Left  - chan c
        Drums (3 microphones)--> RS mixer --------->   Right - chan d
	Ambiance Microphone ---> RS mixer
    
    Left/Right were the recording tracks on the tape
    chan a/b/c/d are the built in mixer inputs on the Teac
    
    If you have amplifiers with a pre-amp output on them (some have
    it, some don't), use that instead of the microphone. You'll lose
    some of the sound quality that the speaker imparts, but, it'll
    reduce the effort on the mix down.
    
    I used tracks 1 and 2 on the tape for the first bunch of things,
    then switched to tracks 3 and 4 later on.
    
    This may not be what you end up doing, but, at least it's a suggestion
    based on some past experiance.
    
    							Jens    
        Bass   ----->
    

    re: .-1
    
    Jens,
    
    I don't think you quite understood the context of the situation.
    This is a live "concert" recording, and there is not going to be
    any chance to place mics on the stage to mic individual amps or
    the drums. I believe the only choices are to take the stereo monitor
    mix directly off the PA, or set up some mics off-stage. As I said
    before, the problem with taking the output from the PA is that the
    people running the PA probably won't appreciate having somebody
    else around when they are trying to get their job done. I'm assuming
    that in order to get a good mix you would have to have access to
    the board during the performance, especially since all of the bands
    will have different setups.
    
    Again, since you ran each instrument into a separate channel the
    need for compression was not as great, because you only had to deal
    with the dynamic range of each instrument individually. When you
    record the combined guitars, bass, drums, vocals, etc., the dynamic
    range is much greater, and the need for compression is greater to
    keep the signal clean.
    
    Actually, another thing that has occurred to me is that this is
    really not a multi-channel recording, just a stereo recording. Rather
    than using the PortaSound it would be much better to get the best
    quality stereo reel-to-reel deck available. You'll get a much better
    master at 15 ips, or even 7.5, than you'll ever get on a PortaSound
    at 3.75, and if you could record at 15 ips you could probably get
    away without using compression.
    
    There is one other possibility, which would be to use the PortaSound
    and take both the monitor mix and two live mics. Then at least you
    would have some control over the final mix, however limited. For
    example, if most of the stuff comes through clean on the monitor
    mix, you could just use the mic channels to add room ambience.
    
    - Ram

	I have NEVER had success recording a line-out of the PA mixer.
This, I think, is because it is only PART of the system of a live mix.  In
a live situation, the room actually acts as a component of the sound system.

	My best recordings of gigs have been when I placed my $100 boom box
in front of the stage, turned on record, and then went up and played.  Without
exception, these recordings far surpassed both recordings patched out of the PA
_AND_ mixes of PA line outs and room mikes.

	Dan

    One thing that should be remembered when recording live is that you
    will not be able to hear what you are recording. This can make any
    effects set up (compression, limiting...) extremely difficult. I would
    think that this would rule out their use. It also makes it very
    difficult to do any mixing of signals to a recording channel. Is the PA
    going to be mixed to stereo? If not, then you could record one channel
    off the PA, and one live mike. This could be mixed down to a mono
    signal later. Either that or go for the 2 live mikes.
    
    I have done alot of live recording with my Tascam 246 with very good
    success. I usually use one PA (Vocals, Drums, a little bit of
    everything else) feed, one live Mike, one Bass, and the last channel is
    switched between one of either Guitar1, Guitar2, or Keyboard depending on
    whats being played. This has given me alot of flexibility during
    mix-down, with only a few cases where I was not able to catch the best
    part for highlighting. But I understand how this is not applicable in
    this case.
    
    pcv
    

    I think that I understood the goal. In order to get a good sound,
    you'll have to have microphones in the general locations that you
    want control over. Otherwise, you get more of the room sound, versus
    the actual sounds. It may be harder to do, but you may need to set
    up some microphones. You might consider attaching them to the ceiling
    (using some foam rubber & wire - ie coat hangers or such) over the
    desired musicians (this should prove fun with the drums). That way,
    you could leave your set up alone, between bands. As for the reel
    to reel, I do have one & I have recorded at 7 1/2 IPS. Both the
    Porta-Studio and the Reel to Reel had similar quality recordings.
    In cases like your getting into, the added noises and other assortted
    junk that you'll pick up will make the difference very minor.  
    
    I've never had luck with compressors/limiters in a live situation,
    basically because you can't seem to be sure what is what (too much
    other activity). I've rarely had a problem with the pre-amp outputs
    on PA systems. They seem to work just fine on my Porta-Studio -
    Shure, Bi-Amp and Carvin mixers have been used with great success.
    Also, You can't bother the sound person, you only need to tie into
    his mix. You don't need access to the mixer board.
    
    As far as Boom Box recordings go, I've had some real good ones pass
    my way, done with just setting the recorder in front of the band
    & pressing record. Magic!
    
    						Jens
    

    Just to fill you in on the limitations associated with these jams,
    let me explain. We are going to have 6 bands being moved on and
    off the stage in one night. This makes it impossible to do any
    micing of guitar amps. The recording equipment will probably be
    set up pretty far back from the stage near the mixing board.
    This makes it difficult to run mics from the stage to the recorder.
    I believe my best bet is to hook into the stereo (left & right)
    sends on the board, and plug them into channels one and two on
    my porta-one mixer, and set up 2 mikes and hook them into channels
    3 & 4. Then, during the sound check, I can give a listen with 
    headphones to see what is giving me the best results. I will
    probably use a combination of both the mixer and mic signals.
    One question. If I have a dual compressor/limiter, what should
    I send through it, the mics, or mixer outputs ? Which signal is
    more likely to saturate the tape/recorder inputs ?
                                       
    Mark Jacques
    

    My feeling is to put the comp/limiter on the mikes, as chances are
    the board will have one already in it's signal path.
    
    Edd

    re: .41
    
    Agreed, I think this is the best setup using the PortaStudio, which
    I mentioned earlier.
    
    re: .41, .42
    
    I agree with Edd, assuming the board has compression. If not, I'd
    compress the signals from the board. Their mics, being (possibly)
    better than yours, and being closer to the sources, are going to
    produce a wider range of signals.
    
    - Ram

    It seems to be a foregone conclusion that you will be able to use
    compression effectively. Has anyone here ever had success compressing a
    live signal? I know that I've never had any success using any effect
    when recording live. No matter what kind of headphones I used, I could
    not here the sound over the roar from the stage. Now, I ALWAYS record
    everything dry (high speed, dbx of course) and add effects (reverb,
    delay, and recently compression) during remixing. I used to try to use
    the effects during recording, but always ended up with useless tapes.
    
    It also seems to be a foregone conclusion that the sound engineers are
    going to mix to stereo. Is this indeed the case? I would think that it
    would significantly easier, what with 6 different bands, to keep
    everything mixed to mono. I can't honestly believe that it would make a
    huge difference in the sound quality either way. I would think that the
    bands would rather the engineers get a good instrument mix without
    trying to do it twice (once for each channel). The times that I've
    tried to mix a PA to stereo have only been met with limited success
    with more than twice the headache.
    
    pcv

    
    A little off the track, but...most stereo sound systems I've seen
    used live werre not set up in the typical 'stereo' fashion that
    one would think.  Everything is still in mono.  The stereo board
    allows you to have two seperate mixes, ie. one for instruments
    and one for vocals, the SUM of these two are then sent to a mono
    set-up (whether its biamped, triamped or whatever).  Very rarely
    have I seen a setup that was stereo in that what is coming out
    of one side of the stage is different from the other side.  You
    want EVERYONE in the room to hear ALL of your signal....not just
    half of it.
    
    Ralph
    
    

    re: .44
    
    I don't think it's a foregone conclusion to use compression, but
    I think there is a case to be made for it. I agree with you about
    recording "dry" and adding effects later - and so do a lot of other
    sound engineers. However, the assumption there is that you have
    high quality equipment that can handle the live signal pretty well.
    In this case we're talking about a tape deck that runs at 3.75 ips,
    and has limited headroom. Feeding it with an uncompressed signal
    is going to result in one of two things. Either you will have a
    low signal level overall, which will result in a lot of noise coming
    out in the mix, or you will have a reasonable signal level with
    a lot of distortion at the high end. I think the compression might
    help out, if it's set up properly. I definitely agree with you about
    reverb, etc., and the difficulty in monitoring during a live recording.
    But as far as the compression goes it is more a matter of watching
    the needles than listening to the sound.

    re: .45
    
    You're 3/4 right about the stereo mix. Half right in that the sound
    people probably won't want to mess with it, because it's a delicate
    thing to do right. As far as the other half goes, it depends on
    who you are mixing for. If you're mixing for a small room where
    a lot of people are going to be located close to one set of speakers
    or the other, and not hear both in balance, then yes, you'd be better
    off with a mono mix. However, if the room is larger, and most of
    the people will be far enough back from the speakers to hear both
    sets fairly evenly, and stereo mix will give depth and a better
    live feel. That's my opinion.
    
    - Ram

    I think there's a lot of talking through hats here... So why should
    I be different?  ;-)
    
>    It also seems to be a foregone conclusion that the sound engineers are
>    going to mix to stereo. Is this indeed the case?
    
    Indeed it almost certainly is a forgone conclusion that it will
    NOT be stereo.
    
    I wouldn't worry too much about getting a stereo image.  There's
    not much you can really do and there's better uses for those 4
    tracks.
    
    Ideally, the PA is producing the only sound that you want the audience
    to hear, and for the most part, what you want to get on tape.
    tape.
    
    Here's the exceptions:
    
    1) In practice, the PA mix is adjusted according to how much is
       coming off the stage.  If the guitar amp is too loud (as it often
       is), the PA guy adjusts by backing down the guitar in the PA
       mix.
    
       This means that the guitar won't come thru from the PA sends.
    
       This was amply demonstrated in the Summerjam tapes which were
       done entirely from a PA send.

    2) EQ
    
       The PA guy has to EQ the mix according to the acoustics of the
       house, the response of the PA speakers, and more esthetic
       considerations.  The way it works out, his EQ is typically very 
       different from what you'd like to hear when you play it back at home.
    
    3) Audience sound
    
       Live tapes without audience sounds just don't sound live.  Again
       the summerjam tapes demonstrated this.
    
    4) Room Ambience
    
       Live tapes without ambience also don't sound live.
    
    
    So, what I recommend for those 4 tracks is the following in priority
    order:
    
    	1) PA send - this seems a given
    
    	2) ONE wide dispersion mic placed near the foot of the stage.
           Preferably biased towards the guitar and drums, and preferably
           not in the "path" of the PA.  
    
    	3) One ambient mic at the foot of the stage pointing towards
    	   the audiences (again not in the "path" of the PA)
    
        4) If possible, a direct feed of the guitar mic(s) from the PA.
           They might be able to do this depending on how the use up
           the monitor and effects sends.  Probably not... sigh!
    
        5) A second mic placed near the foot of the stage aimed differently
    	   then the other one described in (2)
    
    You can try and create a stereo image from these 4 tracks during
    the mixdown, especially if you can do (2) and (5).
    
    In short, contrary to what other folks have said, I think you should
    use those four tracks to cover as many bases individually
    as you can instead of using them to achieve stereo. Stereo should
    be a distinct secondary priority.
    
    I have 4 tapes from the 3 jams we've had and the biggest problem
    has always been the mix.

    Oh yeah, regarding compression/limiting.  I'm not sure how you could use
    it effectively here.  If anything, I'd put it on the mics which
    might benefit from limiting, especially the amibent mic.  Would
    make mixing much easier to have a fairly constant ambient level.
    
    I wouldn't go out and spend any money on it just for this.  It's
    not clear how much good its gonna do and besides you can probably
    borrow some.

    	db

    Just a small addition, I like dbs ideas from .47.
    
    Why not cut back on the compression on the initial recording (maybe use
    a limiter to keep from saturating your tape) and then add compression,
    if it needs it, to the individual tracks during the mixdown.  This is
    generally the process (in a very limited scope) that they would use
    when recording a big-name band for a live record. Gives you more
    flexability, as you can add effects after the fact.  On the off
    hand...whoever you tape may not like the way you mixed them...
     
    Greg (Please don't bash me...I'm just trying to help)

    Did I read this right? there won't be any miking of the amps?
                 
    LA East is in trouble if this is true.  
    
    dave

>  Did I read this right? there won't be any miking of the amps?
    
    I'm not sure what gave you this impression but I'm sure they
    will be mic'ing each amps individually.
    
    	db

    
    I would like to clarify something that I think may be a
    misconception. The Tascam Porta One only allows recording
    onto 2 tracks at a time, therefore for live recording, it
    is basically a stereo tape deck. Further, it runs at 1 7/8"
    /sec, not 3.75"/second. The mixer section has 4 inputs (1/4",
    unbalanced).
    
    As far as using Dave's idea in .47, I am open to trying it.
    I have only got 2 good mics and about 60' of cables for each
    mic. If we are gonna use 5 mics, I would have to bring my mixer
    to get the signal from the 5th mic into the Porta One. The Porta
    One mixer only has four inputs. Maybe it would be a good idea
    to set up the recording equipment somewhere a good distance away
    from the sound crew so that we wouldn't be in their way. I would
    have to borrow a couple more mics. I have access to another Peavey.
    Dave, maybe your right. Maybe I should skip the compressor, bring
    my mixer, hook all the mics (and maybe one PA send) into the mixer.
    I could set the mixer so as not to overdrive the Porta One. The
    mixer is stereo/mono so we could create a stereo field on the mixer
    if we want to. This mixer (Peavey 701R) has a nice clean sound with
    virtually no noise, so I wouldn't hesitate to use it for this purpose.
    
    My motivation is to Put my Porta One to good use, experiment with it,
    and make up some decent quality tapes to share with everyone. I
    am considering also bringing one of my other tape decks (Nakamaichi)
    and make two masters simultaneously. If this works out, I could
    give a master to each of the bands to keep. 
    
    Who has got good microphones and stands (with plenty of balanced
    cable) that they want to bring along. Transformers wouldn't be 
    nessesary if I use my mixer, since it has balanced inputs.
    
    
    Mark Jacques
    

    I also agree with db's mic setup. I think that will give you the
    best coverage of the sound, under the circumstances.
    
    I was assuming the Tascam ran at 3.75 ips, because I used to have
    a Fostex porta-studio that ran at twice the normal cassette speed.
    
    I have several Ibanez mics that are decent dynamics, plus one boom
    stand and several short desk-top stands, that would be good if you
    want to set up a mic at the front edge of the stage, for example.
    Only two of my mics are low impedence - remember, you're going to
    have to have balanced lines to run distances of more than 25' or
    so.

    Let me know if you need to use my mics.
    
    - Ram    

    I think it MIGHT still be worthwhile to set up near the mixing desk.
    
    You don't necessarily need to run long lines.  The PA guys will
    be running a snake from the stage to the desk.  Assuming that there
    are free lines on the snake (there usually are) you can just plug
    the mics at the front of the stage into the snake and tap out from
    the other end.
    
    I know that you want to "break in" your new porta-one, but let me
    say that I think having a unit that records 4 tracks simultaneously
    might turn out to have a real advantage.  The basic thing is that
    it allows you to do the mix down in a quiet environment, rather
    than at the jam with the house sound (unavoidably) bleeding through 
    your headphones.
    
    There's lots of folks with units capable of recording on 4 tracks
    simultaneously.  I'm sure you'd have no problem borrowing one if
    you decide to go that way.
    
    Don't worry about getting in the PA guys way.  We're paying them.
    We should just make it clear what we're doing when we hire them.
    This is not an unusual request (especially compared to having to
    do half a dozen or so set changes in one day!!!)  ;-)
    
    At two of the jams, they were real good guys.  At one of them, they
    were jerks.  Good guys are no problem, and I don't mind giving jerks
    a hard time.  ;-)
    
    I hope we end up with Barking Spider again, or MYSOUND if not.
    These folks were totally cool.  In my experience, the attitude of
    the PA guys can have a big impact on how much you enjoy playing.

    	db

    
    	Since we are on the subject of recording at Springjam......
    
    	At the last organizers meeting, we decided to use the Uptown's
    	setup to record the video.  This will consist of one camera
    	directed at the stage.  I had inquired as to bringing in a pro
    	to tape on 3/4 inch broadcast quality tape, but about 45 of us would
    	have to chip in to make it worth while.
    
    	So my question is... how many noters are going to be interested
    	in getting a "Rockumentary" video tape?  I'm trying to plan on
    	how many blank tapes I'll need. This will be a opportunity
    	for you out of state noters to see the event.
    
    	Please send comments or whatever to MURPHY::NOVELLO
                                                     
        PS - I'd like to thank Mark for volunteering to do the audio.
    
    	

    Re .52  Ram, please bring your 2 low z mics and your boom stand.
    I will have 3 other boom stands and 2 desktop stands with me. 
    Also bring plenty of balanced cable, in case we don't have access
    to some snake channels. I am planning to show up around 12:00,
    maybe even earlier, assuming they will be open before noon.
    We will probably want to do some experimenting to get the mics
    set up to cover the entire stage, while still being out of the way.
    
    	I am assuming that you will be arriving early, since you are
    in one of the bands. I'll see you at Springjam.
    
    	Mark Jacques
    

    
    If you had to choose between adding a compressor or a reverb unit
    to your home recording set-up which would buy?
    
    guy

    Well, I guess I'd choose a reverb unit over a compressor.
    
    But the value of a compressor is often underestimated.

    
    re: .56 (me) and .57 (db)
    
    I'm kind of in a quandry about this.  On one hand I can see where
    reverb has its uses in changing the ambiences/soundscapes available
    to you......on the other hand, sloppy levels on things like vocals
    and bass will ruin whatever goodness you can get from the reverb 
    unit.....
    
    I'd like my music to be somewhat vocally orientated, but it's been
    nothing but frustration in that department.  I like to throw in
    everything from punchy pop vocals, to screams, to falsetto....that
    makes setting levels almost impossible.....and mixdowns are a night-
    mare.....
    
    guy

    Sounds like a compressor or limiter would be immensely helpful for you
    Guy.  
    
    Maybe you could get both?  I recently got a Boss LM-2 limiter stomp box
    (new) on sale for $35 and have used it with great success with my
    4-track.  It's much quieter then any of the compressors I've used and
    seems to work well at keeping me from saturating tape when recording
    bass and vocals.
    
    Or better yet, buy the compressor or limiter and BORROW a reverb for
    mixdown.  That would probably get you by...
    
    Greg

    I couldn't believe how much my Marshall compresses things after playing
    just classic a few months. It was such a pain to make the Forte sound
    louder than Piano.  

    
    re: .59 (Greg H.)
    
    Well, I took your advice.  I bought a reverb unit (Alesis) and I 
    also bought a used stomp box compressor (Yamaha).  Recording bass 
    should no longer be a problem from what I can tell so far.  Sustain 
    on the guitar is incredible.  I'm wondering what effect this will
    have on vocals....
    
    I still have to mess around with the reverb more - 1/2 an hour isn't
    long enought to check out 256 programs....
    
    
    On another topic:
    
    I live in an apartment and I'm always worried about making noise and
    disturbing neighbors (not to mention that the main office is right 
    above me).  This is a problem because I can't turn my amp up enough -
    so I end up cranking up the MIC/LINE slider (I mike the guitar amp).  
    So I have a problem with my signal to noise ratio.
    
    I had an idea, but I'm not sure if it will work. 
    
    Has anyone ever thought of building something like a sound-proof
    box which would house their amp and the microphone?  I thought maybe
    even two cardboard boxes (one over the other with airspace in between).
    
    Anyone ever tried this?  I don't need SCADS of volume to overcome my
    signal to noise problem.....
    
    guy

    I read an interview with Allen Holdsworth awhile back and he described
    doing something exactly like what you're talking about.  Built a sound
    box and put his amp in it with a mike so that he could CRANK it for
    tone and not make a lot of noise.  He said it worked really well.
    
    I don't know about using cardboard.  I guess it might be worth a try
    since it's cheap, but I don't know how much sound reduction you'd get
    with it, even with airspace in between two boxes.
    
    Greg

    
    re: .62 (Greg H.)
    
    Oh good....I'm NOT crazy....;-)
    
    I'll try some cardboard boxes first, and if that doesn't work I'll
    see about building something....
    
    guy

     todd rundgren used to always use something like that.
    I would think heavy cardboard with some shag carpeting 
    (and a little duct tape to hold it on your amp would
    work out very nicely.
    -Bill
    

    I used to stick mine in a closet and pack blankets around it and then
    close the door and it worked okay for me.  I read somewhere once that
    a cheap way of making an isolation booth is to hang heavy curtain 
    material from the ceiling, sort of like a shower stall.
    
    P.K.