Improving sound quality

Don't get sucked in to the GAS trap, bluesguy. A whole industry has sprung up to cater to Gear Acquisition Syndrome, feeding on the widespread belief that sonic nirvana is just another purchase away. It's a tragedy that most people end up spending a great deal of money before they catch on to the scam. I speak from experience.

I cannot know what your weaknesses are in terms of overall sound quality, but I would be willing to bet that it's NOT your audio interface. Upgrading to an Apogee or RME might give you more features (more inputs and outputs) and some bragging rights, but it won't make your music sound better. If money is tight, you need to target your purchases for the best bang:buck ratio, and you need to begin your quest elsewhere.

A microphone purchase might be a good place to start. Acoustic guitars benefit greatly from a quality mic, preferably a small-diaphragm condenser such as the Shure SM81, a longtime industry standard that goes for about $350. Or the Audio-Technica AT-4041 for a little less. Others will no doubt offer other suggestions.

Vocals, of course, are the most critical but specific microphone suggestions are worthless because no mic is ideal for every voice. However, if you're primarily doing male rock/pop vocals, the good old Shure SM-57 is probably a good place to start if you don't have one already. It's a hundred bucks and very, very versatile.

Of course, a good large-diaphragm condenser is a must because it can do so much, from vocals to acoustic instruments to guitar cabinets. But a high-quality versatile LDC is going to run you about a thousand dollars. It's not a purchase to be made lightly!

But before spending anything, do some serious investigation into where your sound quality shortcomings really originate. You may find that it's not equipment at all. (I say "may" just to cushion the blow - in truth it's highly probable that gear is not what's holding you back.)

Listen to one of your acoustic guitar tracks in solo. If it doesn't sound good to your ear, what exactly is wrong with it? If it sounds thin or boxy, the most likely culprit is your room acoustics; second-most likely is your miking technique; third-most likely is the guitar itself; fourth-most likely is the microphone you're using. Way down the list are preamps and ADC.

Listen to a vocal track in solo. Does it suffer from uneven frequency response (e.g. woofiness), plosives (e.g. loud P's) or distortion? Or maybe it's just thin-sounding. These things are usually not the fault of the microphone, but rather room acoustics and microphone technique. Surrounding the area where vocals are recorded with absorptive material will do far more than a mic upgrade, and cost less.

+1000 to what Bitflipper said. The most important place to start is room acoustics/treatment. You can have the greatest equipment - but if your room is not treated, you will get poor results.

An additional question in regards to Cactus Music's suggestion of outboard Compression Hardware. Would most of these processors sound better than the compression/EQ etc. that Sonar's software offers? And if so, any suggestions on a good brand that works with Windows/Sonar? Brian.

What mixmkr is saying is very true. If you want to start doing the theory if you have your mike set-up at some point where the direct and the reverberant sound are equal then you will hear a lot of the room. But as you half the distance ie put the mic closer to the source the direct signal will increase roughly by 6 dB and the room will drop by a similar amount. Half it again and the direct signal is now 12 dB louder and the room is 12 dB quieter. Half it again eg get pretty close to the 12th fret and you are now 18 dB louder with the direct sound and 18 dB softer with the room. You will not hear the room under these conditions.

So careful mike positioning can virtually eliminate the room no matter how bad it may sound. I am sure your room is not that bad either.

Be careful getting involved with using outboard compressors as well. If you know how to set your incoming recording levels correctly you wont need them at all. You also run the risk of printing a track with poorly set compression that you cannot undo. Once recorded there are many software compressors that will do the job just as well as any hardware compressor. 

I believe with the signal to noise ratio obtainable with digital recording nowadays, front side compression going in to be recorded, is needed much less than in days of past.  You can set recording levels redicously low in a digital recording, that you don't need the "safety" of a compressor (or more so limiter in this case), to prevent "overs" when recording.

Also, in the days of tape recording, it was more needed that one needed to record as "hot" as possible to overcome the inherent sound of tape hiss, and therefore easy to accidentily overload a recording into unwanted clipping or distortion.  Additionally, unlike software plugins, you may have had a limited number of hardware pieces to use at one time, and therefore used them (and also made final decisions), during the tracking.  Potentially that same hardware compressor was then needed again on that track to smooth even more or to be used somewhere else, getting the most number of uses out of one single piece of gear.  Plugins quantities are typically just limited in number by your computer's power.

As mentioned, you are now making FINAL decisions ...which actually is just fine... about your recordings.  However like reverbs, etc... if you don't like the recorded compression you just did, it is very hard, if not impossible to correct or remove it.

All that said, Catus has found a route that works for him, and that's one of the solutions.  You're just being cautioned that recording dynamic effects typically is permanent and can just as easily be added later.

Then there is the topic of making ALL decisions at the end, and overlooking the importance of doing it right, right from the start.

Using an outboard compressor is a great convenience when you are simultaneously both singer and engineer. It sucks when you manage a good performance, only to discover afterward that the signal's been clipped. 

However, over the years I've gradually abandoned compression during tracking altogether by simply lowering recording levels. That required un-learning years of conditioning, of believing signals always have to be as hot as possible. I don't even own a hardware compressor anymore. I much prefer to capture the full dynamics and then decide later how much taming it needs.

Regarding acoustical treatments, I understand where mixmkr is coming from. Room acoustics are not much of a factor when your microphone is 1/2" off the grill of your guitar amp. My recommendation was based more on concerns about vocals and acoustical instruments, both of which beg for some air between source and microphone. Unless you can afford to design a room specifically to sound great, as opposed to making do in a garage or bedroom, then your best bet is to try to remove the room as much as possible.

The best argument for starting with acoustics is that it's relatively cheap. $200 in absorption will do as much for your monitoring accuracy as $2000 in speaker upgrades, and absorptive baffles will do more to improve your vocal recordings than buying a $5k microphone. 

Any insulating materials that impede heat transfer will also absorb sound. Ordinary pink fluffy home insulation is at the top of the list, and it's cheap. It's also bulky, though, so compressed fiberglass can be more practical, even if slightly less efficient. For a vocal booth, three inches' thickness of rigid fiberglass or rockwool is all you need to effectively absorb the most problematic vocal frequencies, as long as you maintain at least a few inches' distance away from walls and windows.

bluesguy, if your 57 sounds muddy close-miking a guitar speaker, try moving it around relative to the edge of the speaker cone, as well as altering the angle of the mic. It's surprising how different it can sound at different angles and locations. Also, if your cabinet has more than one speaker, experiment with each one of them. You'd think that in a cabinet with 4 matched 12's that each one would sound the same, but they often don't. And one more thought: if it's a small cabinet, try raising it off the floor. Anvil cases are especially great for this.

Bluesguy, I've got some pretty good results recording vocals with a fairly simple setup

1 - position your vocalist in the corner of the room facing out
2 - hand a couple of duvets on both walls behind the singer
3 - in front of the singer I use a Reflexion Filter

I'm sure nobody uses it uncovered. Stone wool is better than glass wool, though. I've seen stone wool uncovered in many places, but I don't know if it's been handled with some kind of primer or something.

Use an open-weave fabric to cover compressed fiberglass. Burlap is cheap and comes in several colors. Speaker grill cloth also works well but it's expensive. 

Don't worry about the acoustical effects of coverings. The lower frequencies that are most problematic are unaffected by coverings. Some people even buy the type that comes with a paper backing, and leave the paper on. This actually helps by reflecting high frequencies, somewhat compensating for the fact that an absorber's efficiency goes up exponentially with frequency and therefore helps keep the room from becoming too dead.