It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
I have just started on home recording using a new setup. This is my current gear:
Recording in:
Me on guitar (acoustic / electric) & my wife on vocals (dynamic mic) ----->
Voicelive Play GTX ----->
Windows computer via USB ----->
Audacity software
Playback out / monitoring:
Audacity --->
Behringer B207mp3
I also have some 'budget' headphones.
The Voicelive Play is acting as an audio interface. When recording guitar and vocals simultaneously, once levels etc are adjusted accordingly, all is good.
The immediate problem is separate recording of vocals and guitar, if I record a track and then want to record vocals after. I have tried using the Behringer B207mp3 as a monitor to hear the guitar track as a guide for the vocals. This isn't ideal as the microphone will be picking up the sound coming from it. I tried using headphones but the vocal levels in the headphones suggested a good mix which when listened to on playback wasn't the case - the vocals were quieter on the recording than they had been in the headphones. Also, in both cases, there seems to be some lag in recording the vocals after as when played back in Audacity the vocals are a fraction behind the guitar.
I am not looking to create a pro level recording setup, nor to have to spend hours mixing, eq-ing etc. But I would like to know that once I have this setup it can be used as a simple 'plug & play' system.
Any advice? Thanks.
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Thanks @Ben8010
So what is the difference between the Voicelive Play acting as an audio interface and getting an audio interface?
Also the faster the machine the lower achievable buffer size (within certain limits)
Thanks @Cabicular I can look at doing that - but I don't understand what you mean.
I'm not sure I know what this means - if I adjust to 128 the sound quality will be compromised?
Do you mean the PC by 'machine'?
A smaller cup fills up faster so takes more trips and therefor effort to move the water to fill up the bath
A bigger cup takes less trips but takes longer to fill up
So the smaller the buffer size the quicker the audio gets on to your machine (PC) . but if you make the buffer too small (i.e. < 128) then the machine can't keep up with transferring it to the hard disk
So IOf your buffer is set too high then you will hear a delay by the time it is processed and is played back to you
http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2092
Question ...
Can the vocal track in Audacity be 'dragged' to sync with the 1st recorded guitar track?
If so, is it by trial and error until it 'sounds right'?
Or would there be a systematic means of doing this?
Generally what you do is switch off snap (the bit that automatically places the track at the nearest bar when you are moving it around) and then Zoom it in and line up the waveforms using a combination of by eye and listeneing
A good habit to get into is stumping a percussive 1 2 3 4 on the guitar before you start and clapping 4 times along when you do the vocal. makes it a lot easier to line up later if you can't get rid of the latency issue
So obviously a good idea - why didn't I think of that? Thanks. Though, of course, not needing to do so is the ideal.
@Ben8010 Thanks.
The latency isn't in the monitoring, it is in the recorded, overlaid vocals that lag behind the initially recorded guitar track.