Topic: Recording My Own Band & Other Projects

[ChiroVette]

Hey everyone! I am new here and have a lot of questions, but rather than a wall-of-text post, I will start really simple.

For the past 14 or so years, I have mostly used Zoom units. I have used some of their older audio only recorders, when all I wanted was audio for rehearsals, and I have used several one of their audio + video units for live shows. For me, the Zoom units have always been a mixed bag. Pretty much horrible video and decent audio, particularly for the budget price-point. I still own the H4N, though I haven't used it in years. I started out with an old Q3HD, and currently use a Q8. I have an old Panasonic camcorder, and the video is perfectly acceptable. So What I usually do is record a show or a gig with both the Q8 and the camcorder, then when I import the files into Sony Vegas, I have to line the audio and video files up perfectly, and I discard the camcorder's audio and also discard the Q8's video.

Of late, I am trying to decide how to upgrade. I'm not at all worried about the video, since I just want it to be halfway "decent", but I am definitely open to audio upgrades.

I was referred to this forum by a very good friend, who is a really awesome taper. I initially asked his advice, and I think he is so far over my head as an audiophile, he has me spending thousands of dollars, if he has his way lol. As incredible as this guy is, I really feel like his advice may be geared to someone far more sophisticated than me. Maybe I am wrong, and hopefully you guys can help.

What I want is a step or two up in audio quality from the Q8. If he has his way, I would buy the Sound Stage MixPre6 and a pair of discontinued Nakamichi CM-300  and a pair of CP-4 Shotgun capsules. With all of the mounting, batteries, wiring, and other accoutrements. He is also talking about having me modify these mics for phantom power. He also admonishes me to "stay away from Zoom products all together", and cites that he knows a lot of people who went from Zoom to MixPre.

It really feels to me that maybe the advice he is giving me is meant for...um, someone who isn't me? Someone a lot more nuanced and sophisticated, like a competent professional taper, who tapes hundreds of shows a year? Or am I getting this wrong?

[roffels]

The Naks are some fun mics, and you can pull good tapes with 'em, but I wouldn't even consider those audiophile. And since they're battery operated, a mixpre 6 is way overkill for them.

I'm sure someone here has said it before, but the best gear for you is the gear you'll use. So if you have a good idea of what you want out of recording your band, go with your gut.

You've mentioned you want something a step or two above the Q8 - what does that mean to you? I think for a lot of tapers, the first step they take from integrated mics is to use external mics. For me, that was the Nakamichi cm-300s, but those fell out of favor with me fairly quickly as I pursued better sound.

Zoom gear can be good, but maybe your friend just meant in regards to using Zoom-brand mics?

[rocksuitcase]

OK
1] It is SOUND DEVICES brand for the Mix pre units.
1A] They come in a few channel arrangements, the mix pre 3, 6, and 10. It sounds like your friend is seeing you have a Q8 (I'm assuming 8 channels without looking) and so just matching you up with a similar amount of channels. A used MIx Pre 6 is not too expensive, however, it does have some quirks which make it have a learning curve for use in terms of its;' 32 bit float design

2] If you are looking for external mics in the range of the Naks, which are OK mics for AUD recording, esp with the standard internal batteries. They can be modded for p48, but you might as well get mics which are already phantom powerable. As most here would tell you, listen to a bunch of shows with certain mics you are interested in and you can tell what your ears prefer. As you can see from my sig line, I am an AKG guy. Those are def not budget, but also not in the upper echelon of pricing, especially since they are out of business. A lot of guys here use AT as an entry mic.

3] Tascam and marantz both make bitbuckets which are slightly easier to learn and can be had used for under $500. I have a Tascam DR-680 which is a great low price option for multi-channel. To be fair, their stock pre-amps are not as good quality as the SD pre amps.
3a] which may be another reason your friend rec'd the MIx-pre. At least with those, you can get "professional" quality mic pre-amps and not require external pre-amps to do your recording. It sounds like you do not wish to use external pre-amps (probably wise in your case) which, again, may have been the reasoning your friend used.

4] From your friends' quote: "stay away from Zoom products all together", A lot of folks do not realize the H series is much different from the F series. I do not use them, from my research I have noticed more serious tapers using the F series vs the H series recorders. I'm sure others who use them will offer up  their experiences.

All in all, he is not trying to get you to go super high end. Naks and Mix pre's are middle class for most tapers. Perfectly acceptable and in many cases, the mix pre seems to be ubiquitous among tapers.

[Rairun]

What type of music do you play? I can see the Zoom H4n being an issue if your band is very quiet, but unless what is bothering you is pre-amp self-noise (which almost surely isn't the case if you're playing loud, amplified music), I wouldn't bother replacing the H4n until you try it with external mics first. If you're unhappy, then you can start thinking about a recorder with better pre-amps.

Not sure what to recommend you in terms of mics because I basically just picked up a pair of Church Audio cardioid mics and started taping. The difference between CA mics and the Zoom internal mics is pretty big, and they're pretty cheap. I'm sure there are equivalent or better mics that people can recommend you without breaking the bank.

But most of all, if you want your recordings to sound better, you need to start learning where to place those mics. You can't expect to just put them down anywhere and end up with a good recording.

[fanofjam]

IMO your friend is doing you a bit of a disservice insisting on the mixpre6 when you already have adequate recording capabilities with your Zoom H4N.  A new MixPre6 is over $1000, which IMO would be better spent on higher quality mics than a defunct pair of Nak 300 that needs a P48 mod.  Yeah, the mixpre series has better internal preamps than the H4n, but again IMHO you'll get a better overall end sound with higher end mics...say a pair of used Neumann km184 (between $1,000 and $1200 a pair used on ebay), than the NAKs into a mixpre. 

Or better yet, spend $200 and get a used Zoom F3 and $300 on a pair of Line Audio CM3 or CM4. 

I personally think that the tiny Zoom F3 internal preamps sound better than the Mixpre6's (I own both a mixpre3 and F3).  And 32-bit float recording format is definitely going to be good for you, since it's basically 'set-it-and-forget it'.  You don't want to be worrying about the possibility of checking levels for peaking in the middle of a show if your FOH guy ends up jacking the sound levels alot half-way through your set (in case you're thinking about a used mixpre unit that doesn't have 32-bit float).

As far as mics, I'm a huge fan of the KM184 in the $1000 range, but I don't think there's better bang for buck than Line Audio CM4 (cardioid) or OM1 (omni).  For around $300 shipped for a pair these mics also sound better IMHO that the Nak300's.  The CM3/CM4 also hold their own against KM184.  Line Audio CM3 were the predecessor to the CM4 if you can find those.  There are CM3 or CM4 > F3 recordings all over Live Music Archive if you want to find something to sample.

Don't get me wrong, I think the NAK300 are great mics, but I wouldn't bother with shotguns (big and unwieldy and it's a PITA dealing with the powering situation), so I feel there are better options out there that sound better.

So, if it was my money, I'd buy Line Audio CM4 > Zoom F3 would cost between $500 and $600 and then use my existing Zoom H4n to record the soundboard.  Then matrix those two together and I guarantee that you'll have a fantastic sounding live recording of your band.

[raynman]

A lot to unpack here

Please tell us more about what you want to record. What kind of music does your band play?  Is it acoustic or softer layered music or are you rockin hard and banging out the beats?😂. What bout your other projects?

Do you intend to record directly from a soundboard/mixing console or will you be using microphones?  Is there a need for multitracking or capturing both the soundboard and microphones?

What is your budget?  Are you adverse to buying used?  Lots of great used gear can be found here in the yard sale.

I don’t use a zoom product but many here do - I am sure they can comment on its suitability once we have a better idea of your use / needs.  The mix pre line is nice but if what you already have is suitable you may be better off adding the money you would spend on a recorder to your microphone budget 😏

Skip the nak 300’s - great in their time but no longer in production. Lots of mics to be chosen from. Application is important here - if recording band rehearsal you have great control over where you place the mics - this is as important as the quality of the mic. Great tapes have been made of shows using lesser quality mics in the sweet spot - location, location, location. 😀. If recording live your ability to set up in sweet spot might be limited and in this case better quality mics, or better, a selection of capsules/mic patterns may be usefull.

Lots of folks here w tons of experience just waiting to help ya out

Peace

[jefflester]

IMO your friend is doing you a bit of a disservice insisting on the mixpre6 when you already have adequate recording capabilities with your Zoom H4N.  A new MixPre6 is over $1000, which IMO would be better spent on higher quality mics than a defunct pair of Nak 300 that needs a P48 mod.  Yeah, the mixpre series has better internal preamps than the H4n, but again IMHO you'll get a better overall end sound with higher end mics...say a pair of used Neumann km184 (between $1,000 and $1200 a pair used on ebay), than the NAKs into a mixpre. 

Or better yet, spend $200 and get a used Zoom F3 and $300 on a pair of Line Audio CM3 or CM4. 

I personally think that the tiny Zoom F3 internal preamps sound better than the Mixpre6's (I own both a mixpre3 and F3).  And 32-bit float recording format is definitely going to be good for you, since it's basically 'set-it-and-forget it'.  You don't want to be worrying about the possibility of checking levels for peaking in the middle of a show if your FOH guy ends up jacking the sound levels alot half-way through your set (in case you're thinking about a used mixpre unit that doesn't have 32-bit float).

As far as mics, I'm a huge fan of the KM184 in the $1000 range, but I don't think there's better bang for buck than Line Audio CM4 (cardioid) or OM1 (omni).  For around $300 shipped for a pair these mics also sound better IMHO that the Nak300's.  The CM3/CM4 also hold their own against KM184.  Line Audio CM3 were the predecessor to the CM4 if you can find those.  There are CM3 or CM4 > F3 recordings all over Live Music Archive if you want to find something to sample.

Don't get me wrong, I think the NAK300 are great mics, but I wouldn't bother with shotguns (big and unwieldy and it's a PITA dealing with the powering situation), so I feel there are better options out there that sound better.

So, if it was my money, I'd buy Line Audio CM4 > Zoom F3 would cost between $500 and $600 and then use my existing Zoom H4n to record the soundboard.  Then matrix those two together and I guarantee that you'll have a fantastic sounding live recording of your band.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

But I would also add - yeah what kind of music, how many players, loud/soft, how much is going through the PA vs individual players' amps. Rather than mixing a SBD feed and audience mics in post you could also do a multichannel recorder to get SBD feed + mics + individual instrument channels. Just a pair of mics on stage + a SBD feed can sound much better than a stand with mics 30 feet away. Also what kind of venues, typical bar gigs/backyard parties? Nak300+CP4 shotguns is a poor suggestion for anything less than a many thousand seat venue where the mics are hundreds of feet away.

But if the band isn't too big, you could do multitrack as well. SBD/PA feed would give vocals/drums (?), etc and you can enhance with direct line out or micing of amps. As an example, my current band is an acoustic Grateful Dead band and I record with a Zoom F8. I could pretty easily do just 3/4 channels (pair of mics + mono/stereo SBD feed) but actually tap off direct feeds from amps. This song uses 5 channels: mono PA feed (vocals only), single mic (Line Audio CM4) over drums (which are minimal as can be seen), a direct out of guitar amp, direct out of bass amp, and direct out of keyboard mixer/amp. All 3 cameras are GoPros, a pair of GoPro Hero4 on keys and guitar and GoPro Hero11 on drums. The GoPro Hero4 can be had for $50-70 on eBay. I power them all externally with a USB cable/battery. That would be a pretty inexpensive way to up your video quality if you want, and since you already use Vegas (what I use as as well) you can already do multicam editing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7cccBx9AJs

[jefflester]

OK
1] It is SOUND DEVICES brand for the Mix pre units.
1A] They come in a few channel arrangements, the mix pre 3, 6, and 10. It sounds like your friend is seeing you have a Q8 (I'm assuming 8 channels without looking) and so just matching you up with a similar amount of channels. A

Q8 is a video recorder.
https://zoomcorp.com/en/jp/video-recorders/video-recorders/q8-handy-video-recorder/

It has external mic inputs, you could use those instead of getting a whole new recorder. For audio/video the placement of the unit might be compromise of one over the other, are you generally just doing a full stage shot center on from the SBD mix location?

[goodcooker]

I'm a taper and also a musician so I may be able to bridge the gap here. No offense to your taper friend but DO NOT buy a pair of Nakamichi shotgun mics for recording your own live performances. They are several feet long making them impractical and don't sound all that great IMO. If you were taping a concert from the lawn at a big amphitheater, yes, but otherwise no.

Some things to consider are what are your end goals, how much effort you are willing and able to put in and your budget. It also depends on what type of music and how many performers/configuration they are in.

When I record bands I've been in as a performer I usually only record 4 channels - the soundboard mix and a pair of mics at the front of the stage pointed at the band. I've also done full blown multitrack recordings with a transformer isolated splitter but that doesn't sound like what you are after.

Fill us in on some further details and maybe we can point you in the right direction.

[Craig T]

So, if it was my money, I'd buy Line Audio CM4 > Zoom F3 would cost between $500 and $600 and then use my existing Zoom H4n to record the soundboard.  Then matrix those two together and I guarantee that you'll have a fantastic sounding live recording of your band.

I second this

[jefflester]

So What I usually do is record a show or a gig with both the Q8 and the camcorder, then when I import the files into Sony Vegas, I have to line the audio and video files up perfectly, and I discard the camcorder's audio and also discard the Q8's video.

Unless I'm reading the Q8 info incorrectly, it appears you already have a 4-track recorder.
https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/video-recorders/video-recorders/q8-handy-video-recorder/

Since you aren't using the video from the Q8 anyway, I think you could just set the Q8 centered at stage lip (only recording audio) and grab a FOH (Front of House, same signal going to main PA speakers) SBD mix and add that to the Q8. Certainly worth trying without any additional gear other than possibly a long XLR cable. Depending on what sort of PA system is use, the soundboard should be able to send you a signal via the snake (or you need a long XLR), an output from the soundboard that you would then input into one (or both) of the XLRs on the Q8. The idea here is that the X-Y mics on the Q8 are picking up sound from the stage and then the XLR from soundboard is adding stuff amplified through the PA. Sitting on the stage there, the Q8 mics aren't going to pick up vocals very well for instance, but those will be well amplified in the PA signal. The whole intention of the PA is to amplify vocals and instruments on the stage that aren't loud enough. So if the drums or a guitar amp are loud on stage there will be little or none of those in SBD mix, so the Q8 mics and SBD feed complement each other.

[ChiroVette]

Hey, sorry about taking so long to respond, but this forum has some really weird roadblocks to posting. The captcha image is really difficult to read, and I kept getting some of the questions wrong.

Anyway, I will try to answer the questions:

-I play some larger gigs, usually with a Grateful Dead cover band, though I do a lot of other stuff with other projects.

-I generally don't play in extremely loud bands.

-I am not sure how favorable my mixer would be for SB recordings. I have a Mackie DL1608, with an iPad mix surface.

-Thanks for the info on the Nachamichi mics, as you clarified that they are way too huge and long for my purposes.

-For now, at least, I was kind of hoping to do this with ambient recordings. Unless there is an easy way to set up my DL1608 for recording, which may work since the vocals and instruments do go through the board.

-I am not nuanced enough yet (maybe ever?) to start trying to work with both a SB and ambient recording and trying to sew them together.

-I have pretty much always stuck my Zoom units somewhere out of the way, but facing the stage area, and recorded that way. I am not a professional taper, and "optimal room placement" really isn't even on my radar.

-Both the Q8 I currently use and the old Zoom Q3HD I used years ago had decent sound and horrible video.

-I don't want to go high tech or high maintenance with this, at least not at this juncture. Unless it is really really easy to capture sound from the board, I am really just looking to upgrade my ambient recordings a bit. Not looking to get into the thousands at this point, but I don't think my $300.00 Zoom Q8 is quite aurally good enough.

-I have gotten decent results just recording with BOTH a standard camcorder (either a Canon or a Panasonic) and just discarding the video from the Q8 and discarding the audio from the camcorder, and lining the files up. Usually when I stick with just a few songs in a file, I avoid what someone called "drift".

-I just want decent sounding recordings, and I am not sure what the budget is for that. If I really have to spend thousands, I'll just stick with the Q8, which sounds at least decent, and a camcorder, which looks at least decent.

[Rairun]

So, if it was my money, I'd buy Line Audio CM4 > Zoom F3 would cost between $500 and $600 and then use my existing Zoom H4n to record the soundboard.  Then matrix those two together and I guarantee that you'll have a fantastic sounding live recording of your band.

I second this

You should just do this, but before buying the Zoom F3, I'd personally try the Line Audio CM4s with your Zoom H4n first. You don't need a new recorder to see the benefits from external mics

 

-I have pretty much always stuck my Zoom units somewhere out of the way, but facing the stage area, and recorded that way. I am not a professional taper, and "optimal room placement" really isn't even on my radar.

It should absolutely be on your radar. I'm not a 'professional taper' by any means, but imho it's pretty pointless to worry this much about gear if you aren't going to worry about placement. This doesn't mean you need to get REALLY into it. For most shows, I just stand left or right of the stage, near a PA stack, pointing one mic to the stack and one to the band, and I get good results. If you have fill monitors facing the audience in the front row (with vocals in the mix), that's a good place to place them too.

[Gutbucket]

-I have pretty much always stuck my Zoom units somewhere out of the way, but facing the stage area, and recorded that way. I am not a professional taper, and "optimal room placement" really isn't even on my radar.

It should absolutely be on your radar. I'm not a 'professional taper' by any means, but imho it's pretty pointless to worry this much about gear if you aren't going to worry about placement. This doesn't mean you need to get REALLY into it.

Positioning the microphones (or recorder with built-in mics) where it sounds best is the most important thing you can do to make better sounding recordings.  If you change nothing else about what you are currently doing, focus on determining where it actually sounds best and place the microphones/recorder there.  Pay as much attention to that as you do to positioning, orienting, zooming and focusing the video camera to best visual effect.  Just doing this alone is capable of making a huge difference!

[Gutbucket]

^ Once you do that, these other things make sense..

So, if it was my money, I'd buy Line Audio CM4 > Zoom F3 would cost between $500 and $600 and then use my existing Zoom H4n to record the soundboard.  Then matrix those two together and I guarantee that you'll have a fantastic sounding live recording of your band.

I second this

You should just do this, but before buying the Zoom F3, I'd personally try the Line Audio CM4s with your Zoom H4n first. You don't need a new recorder to see the benefits from external mics

^
This is good advice, and can make for a large, significant step up in quality from what you are currently doing.  Running this setup will not be complicated, but you will need to setup the two mics appropriately and in an appropriate location - which is most likely to be at the soundboard facing the stage.

When I record bands I've been in as a performer I usually only record 4 channels - the soundboard mix and a pair of mics at the front of the stage pointed at the band.

^
This too is good advice and can make for an even larger, more substantial step up from what you are currently doing, capable of producing very professional sounding recordings.  It will require a recorder capable of recording more than two channels, which the Zoom F6 can do (The F-series Zoom recorders are good, cost effective, well regarded, and are significantly better than most other lines of Zoom gear).  Functionally, running this kind of setup will require not much additional effort, while providing significant benefits including far greater consistency.  The most important thing it provides is significantly better clarity, particularly of vocals, making for better sounding recordings when the sound in the room is less than perfect. To take advantage of that the soundboard feed needs to be recorded to additional channels on the same recorder that is being used to record the microphones.

Afterward you'll mix the microphone channels and the soundboard channels together.  Doing that is no more difficult than what you are currently doing in recording the sound and video separately to different devices and combining them afterward.

Because you can then depend on clear vocals through the soundboard, you will be free to move the pair of microphones from the soundboard to the front of the stage.  That will sound better, more professional, more dynamic and involving, and will tend to be less influenced by the sound of the rooms in which your band is performing and by any distracted audience members talking back by the soundboard.  Better sound with more consistency.

Other than setting up a pair of mics on their own stand and running a few cables to the recorder, none of this need be significantly more complicated than what you are currently doing. But the success of each further step stands atop the foundation of the previous step. Getting the mics in the best location is the main thing, no matter what you do.