A Q about recording with mic, geet, drum machine and vocals

[I.am]

 Hello people...I'm here after clicking the link on Pedros you tube
page. I have searched the site(some, but not all) and the net. There is alot of info out there, however I'm yet to get to the bottom of my specific query, so I figured I would go straight to an independent source(you guys). If my query has already been answered, I apologise, I'm just a bit confuzzled at the moment. My Q is this : I have an acoustic-electric geet, an electronic drum machine, a shure(pg-48) mic and an amp. What I am wanting to do is record vocals and instruments in the one go -ie whilst jamming, or *when inspiration strikes*- without too much messing around and then later add and subtract little touches here and there. From what I can gather the micro sounds like a really good little unit.  From listening to some of the collaboration tracks and how they evolve, even the ones with just the micro and nothing else, it is able to facillitate some really good sounding stuff(kudos to the artists making them, really well done). I'm presuming though(perhaps incorrectly?), that if you want to record more than one thing at a time, ie guitar and vocals with both plugged in to the multi-track, this isn't an option and you would simply just use the external mic to do so. It' probably a big ask to have a mic, geet, drum machine and amp all jacked into the multi and not have to mortgage ur house to get a hold of one, so really, my main aim is to simple plug my geet(and amp if possible) and mic in and wammo, away i go.

To clarify, myself and maybe a mate are jamming away with said equipment with the aim of making covers and new music. I would like to be able to record our jams(with vocals) and later isolate the parts and master them, for want of a better word. Would the external mic be enough to make a recording of all of these parts and would doing so allow me to isolate then play with the different sections after? Or, is it a case of doing each section seperately? Is the micro sufficient for these tasks or is the BR-600 more suited? Whilst I'm using an acoustic, I would still like the option of using effects, so its really down to the micro, the BR-600 or another comparitive brand. If your micro was lost or damaged, would you get the micro again or go for the 600(or another brand assuming you had the cash for either)? Ok, hope this makes sense. Thanks for reading.

[hewhoiscalledj]

Greetings I.am,

Yes the MicroBR is an awesome little recording tool although it is limited in terms of being able to record multiple instruments at the same time to individual tracks. For this purpose, the larger BR cousins are much better suited as they have multiple inputs and channels for each instrument.

Can you record a whole band all at once with the MBR? Of course. I'd recommend using a stereo mic plugged into the LINE input (automatically records stereo to 2 tracks.) This is how older recordings (pre Sgt. Pepper?) were done back in the day. It can sound awesome if recording a really good source in a really good room. Sometimes i actually feel you get a better, and more realistic recording this way. The advantage to using the newer, multi-track method (seperate tracks for each instrument) is that you can infinitely tweak each instrument. But again, results will vary.

good luck buddy. here's a very handy website that i like to recommend to any home studio/recording/hobbyist.

www.tweakheadz.com

[I.am]

Hey j...Firstly, thanks for your reply. We/I would be recording in my lounge-room. It has great acoustics(?). I gather that using a stereo mic(is that just a normal mic like the one specified(shure 48)?) allows one to isolate two input sources only? Or, if, after using said mic to record the various parts in real time, would you then be able to play around with the parts(drums, guitar etc) afterward? If that is the case, then I'm sold on the BR. I like the mp3 feature and the ability to slow down tracks(great for transrcibing), though I presume the 600, whilst not having the mp3 feature would also have the slow down capability. But then, on the other hand, for just a little bit more cashola....lol. Its easy to torture yourself over this aye.

Regardless, I am now off to search the link you provided which on first glance seems to have a heap of info and may well give me my answer. Thanks for your reply and the link, its mucho appreciated! Have a good weekend!

[hewhoiscalledj]

For absolute control over tweaking individual instruments, you would have to mic each instrument and assign it's own track. This can be done on the MicroBR but you will have to record each instrument seperately and layer on each additional track. First record the drums. Then record the guitars. Then the vocals. The MBR can only record 1 track (or a pair of tracks in stereo) at a time. So for recording the whole band in one take, you would need something like the 600 or 1200 recorders since they can record multiple tracks at once.

Nothing wrong with recording the whole band in one shot on just a stereo track though. You can get a great live recording this way and it works best with a stereo (L and R tracks.) But for what you have in mind, you will be best served with a unit that can record at the very least, 8 tracks simultaneously.

[64Guitars]

Nothing wrong with recording the whole band in one shot on just a stereo track though.

My thoughts exactly. I don't understand why so many people seem willing to spend lots of money on machines like the BR-1600 just so they can record their band jamming with each band member on a separate track. Sure, jams often contain moments of inspiration and creativity and it's great to capture that. But, in my experience, they also contain a lot of uninspired crap and repetition. So, make a stereo recording of the jam with your Micro BR, BR-600, or whatever. Then, if you want to improve on it, make a proper multitrack recording from scratch with each player recording his part separately. That way, you can leave out the crap and turn your jam into a proper song. It's well worth the effort, and it will save you a bundle on recording hardware.

So for recording the whole band in one take, you would need something like the 600 or 1200 recorders since they can record multiple tracks at once.

Actually, the BR-600 can only record two tracks at a time - same as the Micro BR. Likewise for the BR-900CD and BR-1200CD. The only recorder currently offered by Boss which can record more than two tracks at a time is the BR-1600CD. It can record up to 8 tracks simultaneously and currently sells for about $1,200 US.

[hewhoiscalledj]

i thought for sure the 1600 had 8inputs; thanks for clearing that up.

i've actually been considering a digital interface/DAW control mixer like the Tascam FW1884. for the price of that Boss 1600, you get 8 decent inputs w/ preamps, Firewire connection, and the faders are all motorized for automation and use with Cubase or other supported software.

but for portablility, ease of use, and decent results... cant go wrong with the MicroBR. I'll have this little box for many years to come.

[I.am]

 Thanks for the input guys, appreciated! You are both making sense. So, its still between the BR and the 600. And, it seems its really a case of the BR has MP3 and the very handy slow-down feature, while the 600 doesn't have MP3, but it has more effects. Is that it in a nut-shell? What would YOU choose?The BRzer or the 6 hunna?

[64Guitars]

So, its still between the BR and the 600. And, it seems its really a case of the BR has MP3 and the very handy slow-down feature, while the 600 doesn't have MP3, but it has more effects. Is that it in a nut-shell? What would YOU choose?The BRzer or the 6 hunna?

Well, I hope I don't offend any Micro BR users here but, since you asked, I'd definitely get the BR-600. It has 64 tracks versus the Micro BR's 32 and, more importantly, it can playback eight tracks at a time versus the Micro BR's four. The BR-600's drum machine is much more programmable than the Micro BR's. You can create your own patterns using the BR-600's velocity-sensitive drum pads, and import drum samples and midi files. The Micro BR can only use the included preset patterns, has no drum pads, and can't import samples or midi files. And the BR-600 can use the free BR Rhythm Editor from Roland. The Micro BR cannot, although there is a shareware editor available (again, only for arranging the preset patterns). The BR-600's fader controls make mixing much easier than with the Micro BR's [-]/[+] buttons.

Hmm... I just realized I'm repeating myself here. So, rather than continue, I'll just refer you to some of my other recent postings on the subject.

http://microrecorders.org/community/general-discussion/br-600-instead/0/

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BossBr/message/2307

By the way, all of the BRs have the ability to slow down songs without changing the pitch (the feature is called Phrase Trainer). What's unique about the Micro BR in this regard is that its Phrase Trainer works with both WAV and MP3 files. The other BRs don't have MP3 support so their Phrase Trainers only work with WAV files. But it's easy enough to convert an MP3 to WAV format on your computer, so I don't consider that a big limitation.

The Winter NAMM Show starts in a few weeks (Jan 15-18). If I were you, I'd wait till after the show to see if Roland or any other manufacturers announce any new machines. It's always frustrating when you buy a new toy only to find out that there's a new machine that's twice as good for half the price.

[I.am]

 Thanks man! That encapsulates the info I'm looking for. I'm a total noob with recording and whilst there is so much info out there, I couldn't quite get a handle on it. I'm in Australia, though I figure the same would apply with the gear here as would over there in regard to the upcoming show you mentioned. So thanks for the heads up about the possibility of new releases!
 
 So, I'm gonna go for the 600 at this point unless something comes along to supercede it in the next month or so(I need to wait a month anyway). Btw, I checked out your sight too. Looks handy and I will check it out further. Thanks!

[64Guitars]

i've actually been considering a digital interface/DAW control mixer like the Tascam FW1884. for the price of that Boss 1600, you get 8 decent inputs w/ preamps, Firewire connection, and the faders are all motorized for automation and use with Cubase or other supported software.

Have you looked at the Zoom HD16CD? It can record 8 tracks simultaneously and only costs $700 US. Despite the low price, it has many advantages over the BR-1600. For example, it can be used as a control surface for a software DAW such as Cubase (even comes with Cubase LE 4). The faders aren't motorized but it has MIDI In and Out, so you might be able to connect a motorized controller like the Behringer B-Control Fader BCF2000 which is only $180 US.