Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret

[Obi-Wan zenabI]

We have the necessary tools to compete in the pro arena today. The playing field is level in every technical respect. However, music composition, recording, engineering and production skills take time and experience. You can't buy them or achieve them on a forum kiosk like this. The question is moot.

Good grief. Judging by this post, you obviously can't.

 

[YanKleber]

I am arriving very delayed to this thread (6 years) but I think it is a non-stop one so... I really never had the expectation of get a hi-end commercial quality recording. Being a curious person along my whole life I have tried several things (carpentry, scale modeling, photography, instrument playing, biking, fishing, diving, recording, etc). In my earlier years I used to believe that if I spent a lot of money buying good equipment, attending to classes, reading publications and joining forums I would be able - in a relatively small amount of time - to achieve the necessary skills to match people that dedicated their entire life doing the same thing. Hopefully I don't have such silly assumption anymore.

About home recording, I had the luck to start playing with it 30 years ago using a 4-track cassette Tascam from my mom (she was an amateur keyboard player and a tech enthusiast) in a scenario where the only option for the garage bands was to step in a small studio and pay an obscene amount of money for an horrible demo-tape. Fast forwarding for today days now any crap you do using a free DAW installed on an ordinary laptop in the comfort of your bedroom will sound better than you could imagine in your wildest dreams at that time. And I am not talking about only about demo tapes here: I have listened to several commercial records issued on 80s, 90s and even 2000s that sound worse than my home stuff.

So I can say that I am more than happy with my poor results and that even being not comparable with the big record houses they are still much more than I supposed to be able to do a couple decades ago!

 

[martinweeks]

I previously had a mid to low level hardware home studio. Great equipment, me total lack of the knowledge needed for great mixing.

Now ten years later I'm in the box, and because I was fortunate enough to have a great mentor back then I'm rapidly improving. Still not that elusive radio ready that is touted all over the net, but their are nibbles of interest. Getting better. I would highly recommend several YouTube Channels if you want to take home brew to the next level. Warren Huart's Produce Like a Pro. Ian Shepherds Mastering Websites (he has several), MixbusTV with David. and if you're just really starting out Graham Cocrane's "therecordingrevolution.com" website. Oh yeah let's not forget Pansado's Place "In the Lair" But be advised. They all emphasize the same thing. If the song and or recording sucks from the get go, you will have problems. Get the recording right before anything else. "Fixing in the Mix" just doesn't cut it. You can get away without a lot of outboard gear, but certain things are just essential. Good reference monitors (not cheapi stupid imitation reference monitors) and they cost money. Good Condenser mics (also not all that expensive if you do your homework.) good interface for your computer (focusrite is my choice) Quality plugins but learn them. (MJUC compressor by Klaghelm cost only about $35.00 and is a dream. Limiter 6 is also free and very good but is a CPU hog. Reaper's collection of plugins are all real good but for me Reaper is a very difficult DAW to learn. I use Mixcraft 7 and find it works great for most things and the quality plugins I use more often than not will take the mixes up a notch or two.

Having played for years and years, I don't delude myself about being an American Idol Super Star. Like anything else it takes time, patience, lots of study, mentoring and hard work.

 

[Obi-Wan zenabI]

Cubase LE ITB at 41.1 never held me back. A few tricks in treatment in the studio, a few free plugin downloads, some learning about drum micing, and having talented musicians to work with helped me create some very serviceable recordings.

I now have Cubase 8. More options, but basically the same situation. I will win no loudness wars or earn any Grammy awards, but life is good and with a little craigslist luck and judicious gear choices, I believe I am getting a great deal of sonic quality for the dollars and time invested.

 

[skwee]

I think my philosophy is more in the: "hey, I own equipment that is of higher quality and wider technical richness than any recording studio prior to 1999--I should at least be able to make something sound that good".

 

[Bobbsy]

Well, the trouble is, it's not just the equipment. Room shape and size, acoustic treatment--and your own abilities (technical and/or creative) come into it.

I was one of the "I wasn't expecting the quality of a pro studio" voters but I guess that answer was a bit simplistic. With sufficient money you can convert most spaces for pro-level recording--but I wasn't prepared to knock down walls and spend many tens of thousands on a pro level of isolation and acoustic treatment. Also, while I have a good selection of microphones and good monitor speakers, most decent pro studios would likely have more.

 

[Nola]

It's interesting to read this thread and see how many people thought they could compete with pro studios. I mean, in a sense they can because many bad recordings come from pro studios, and many good recordings come from amateurs at home. I think a good home recorder can outdo those bad studio records, but I don't think they can outdo a well-done studio album. Like, nobody is going to make Dark Side of the Moon in their bedroom studio.

I never considered the question, and my goal all along has been to fully realize some songs I wrote. Like...just record them in a way that matches what I hear in my head. Modern gear is so good that I can do that at home now.

 

[easlern]

Looking back, I've been surprised by how much better things have turned out than I expected. I was thinking I'd be doing recordings on par with daniel johnston's boombox but what I've been able to get out of my low/mid range gear is surprising. The tech isn't really a limitation, I don't think it ever really has been. Practice/experience just needed upgrading. Wish that came in a box. . .

 

[joey2000]

It's interesting to read this thread and see how many people thought they could compete with pro studios.

I think it's hilarious. As if it's all about technology and not skill. lol - I'm new to the game and even I know better. If I can make something that is simply respectable I'll be happy...anything beyond that is gravy.

 

[MrUserNameIV]

I think it's hilarious. As if it's all about technology and not skill. lol - I'm new to the game and even I know better. If I can make something that is simply respectable I'll be happy...anything beyond that is gravy.

I'll go one further. It takes more skill to make lesser equipment sound great, than it does to make top of the line gear sound great.

 

[MrUserNameIV]

It's interesting to read this thread and see how many people thought they could compete with pro studios. I mean, in a sense they can because many bad recordings come from pro studios, and many good recordings come from amateurs at home. I think a good home recorder can outdo those bad studio records, but I don't think they can outdo a well-done studio album. Like, nobody is going to make Dark Side of the Moon in their bedroom studio.

I never considered the question, and my goal all along has been to fully realize some songs I wrote. Like...just record them in a way that matches what I hear in my head. Modern gear is so good that I can do that at home now.

Project studios aren't always offering the same thing as commercial open to the public 'pro' studios. As someone who runs a commercial project(ish) studio, I would personally hire a big studio only if I needed the sort of things they offer for a project (really good sounding room for drums, expensive mixing console, or rare/vintage outboard gear). It's not really necessary to use a big studio for everything these days. You'd be surprised at how many big artists end up recording out of home studios these days: There's more than you'd think. An hourly 'open to the public' type studio has a different set of selling points in the digital age. That's why there are less of them around now (not as much market demand).

Why couldn't someone make a Dark Side of the Moon in a home studio? I fail to see any reason why they couldn't, so long as they were as good of songwriters/artists as Pink Floyd. They may have to hire out for a good room when recording drums if they don't have access to one, but most everything could be recorded almost anywhere, really.

 

[jimmys69]

Project studios aren't always offering the same thing as commercial open to the public 'pro' studios. As someone who runs a commercial project(ish) studio, I would personally hire a big studio only if I needed the sort of things they offer for a project (really good sounding room for drums, expensive mixing console, or rare/vintage outboard gear). It's not really necessary to use a big studio for everything these days. You'd be surprised at how many big artists end up recording out of home studios these days: There's more than you'd think. An hourly 'open to the public' type studio has a different set of selling points in the digital age. That's why there are less of them around now (not as much market demand).

Why couldn't someone make a Dark Side of the Moon in a home studio? I fail to see any reason why they couldn't, so long as they were as good of songwriters/artists as Pink Floyd. They may have to hire out for a good room when recording drums if they don't have access to one, but most everything could be recorded almost anywhere, really.

It really comes down to the talent in the end. Yes, there are things that most of us can't recreate in regards of room size and high end gear. But, and a serious 'but', that does not mean that it isn't possible to get really close.

But-again, that means that will be a challenge without having ideal conditions. It then becomes more particular to the experience of the person recording in a less than ideal environment and making it work.

Experience, persistence, and giving a shit about the music being recorded seems to make a big difference to me. But that is just my opinion.

 

[miroslav]

Why couldn't someone make a Dark Side of the Moon in a home studio?

"Cuz home rec guys can't be Waters, Glimour, Manson and Wright...not to forget Barrett.

A group of talented people will almost always come out ahead in a studio environment than a single person, because even if the solo musician has the talent, he still only has HIS ideas...whereas a great group of musicians really work off each other, even if they disagree and fight through the sessions, it can still be magical.

That's IMO the hardest part for all of us solo home rec guys. We feed off of ourselves, which can be rather repetitive without us even noticing it. It's hard to sound fresh and break out of molds from song to song.

AFA the home rec studio quality VS pros...it's the great rooms, and of course the top shelf gear and engineering teams.
Just hard to go up against all that when you're doing it solo, in your bedroom studio.

 

[CoolCat]

I think it's hilarious. As if it's all about technology and not skill. lol - I'm new to the game and even I know better. If I can make something that is simply respectable I'll be happy...anything beyond that is gravy.

i was in GC today and overheard the guitar tech talking on the phone, then he hung up and told his other buddy...about this idiot on the phone was freaking out about a capacitor that he wanted to be .299996 and the one the GC tech put in was only 2.99uF...and they laughed at this guys stupid dilemma and said the same thing you mention.

one of them laughed and said "fk dewd go play and stop blaming your capacitors for being a loser."

 

[MrUserNameIV]

"Cuz home rec guys can't be Waters, Glimour, Manson and Wright...not to forget Barrett.

Why not? Frank Zappa recorded out of his home studio. Dave Grohl insisted that the latest Foo Fighters album was recorded in his garage because he felt like he was getting TOO polished of a result in the top LA studios (with a huge recording budget).

A group of talented people will almost always come out ahead in a studio environment than a single person, because even if the solo musician has the talent, he still only has HIS ideas...whereas a great group of musicians really work off each other, even if they disagree and fight through the sessions, it can still be magical.

That's IMO the hardest part for all of us solo home rec guys. We feed off of ourselves, which can be rather repetitive without us even noticing it. It's hard to sound fresh and break out of molds from song to song.

Who says a home studio has to be one person working? In my case, I do work alone sometimes, but not always. It depends on the project, and what it needs. Maybe we have different definitions of home studio? To me, a home studio just means that you're an independent who works out of your home, and the studios aren't always open to the general public with a sign out front like big studios. Like, your studio isn't there just for anyone who wants to play with the best gear in town, but rather just a tool to facilitate creative projects, on a project by project basis.

AFA the home rec studio quality VS pros...it's the great rooms, and of course the top shelf gear and engineering teams.
Just hard to go up against all that when you're doing it solo, in your bedroom studio.

Well sure. I think the recording studio is more of a boutique item now. You don't have to go to a big studio to do the lion's share of work anymore, so IMO, you just go to one for what you can't do on your own. I see them as two different markets, serving different needs. Why would someone rent out a studio to sit there and do editing on Pro Tools. That's literally a waste of a budget. Know what I mean?

 

[MrUserNameIV]

It really comes down to the talent in the end. Yes, there are things that most of us can't recreate in regards of room size and high end gear. But, and a serious 'but', that does not mean that it isn't possible to get really close.

But-again, that means that will be a challenge without having ideal conditions. It then becomes more particular to the experience of the person recording in a less than ideal environment and making it work.

Experience, persistence, and giving a shit about the music being recorded seems to make a big difference to me. But that is just my opinion.

Well, here's one area where I tend to disagree with my fellow audio people. They assume that a "big budget sound" is always exactly what's needed or wanted. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. Like in the Foo Fighters example, They really started to feel like their work was sounding too high budget LA Studio big money, and that it was actually acting against what they wanted their music to sound like, so they did their next album in Dave Grohl's garage. Some projects are ruined when you try to polish it up too much. Look at what happened with The Ramones. They did some incredibly raw, almost low-fi recordings for most of their career, but then they went to work with Phil Spector, and he polished the snot out of them with elaborate arrangements, making their least popular record in the history of the band. Also, it's not uncommon to see, even in big studios, guitar effects being used as outboard effects, or even using the old cassette tape recorder to squash transients in that super swell cassette tape way. Expensive gear is cool and all, but only gear heads like audio people give a crap what something was recorded with. Nobody but us listens to music that way.

 

[jimmys69]

Granted, Dave Grohl's garage is likely not the same as most home recorders garages, and likely had more $ in room treatment and quality gear than most of us will ever have the opportunity to use.

Like I was trying to say, it comes down to the experience of the guy recording and what they have to work with in less than ideal environment. Yeah, you can fake a great room to some extent, but damn sure I would rather have an ideal space to record in. I make do the best I can with what I have.

I myself would not say that it is a necessity to go to a big budget studio for a 'big budget sound'. But then again, I have heard total crap from studios that have better gear and rooms than I do.

That is where 'giving a shit' comes in to play...

 

[joey2000]

I'll go one further. It takes more skill to make lesser equipment sound great, than it does to make top of the line gear sound great.

Agreed......though I think the diff's in equipment are often exaggerated, much like the diff in many things in terms of cost/brand/etc.

i was in GC today and overheard the guitar tech talking on the phone, then he hung up and told his other buddy...about this idiot on the phone was freaking out about a capacitor that he wanted to be .299996 and the one the GC tech put in was only 2.99uF...and they laughed at this guys stupid dilemma and said the same thing you mention.

one of them laughed and said "fk dewd go play and stop blaming your capacitors for being a loser."

lol - yeah, as I say, a lot of people get into a particular hobby or interest or whatever and get tragically to wrapped up in pretentious idiocy with it (ironically thinking it makes them look smarter or "cool" about it) ie this thing is so much better than that one (esp if it costs more!) etc. See it a lot (for example) with wine enthusiasts too.

 

[miroslav]

Granted, Dave Grohl's garage is likely not the same as most home recorders garages, and likely had more $ in room treatment and quality gear than most of us will ever have the opportunity to use.

Right...they had Butch Vig sitting in front of a lot of very expensive gear, and tracking to a Studer tape deck, if I recall...not to mention...Dave bought the Neve console from Studio City and hooked it up at his place...plus they probably had it all mastered professionally at a high=end mastering facility.

So, yeah, I would love to have that "garage" studio.

that was just a lot of Foo Fighters propaganda about recording it in his garage to make it seem like they're not doing anything different than the typical home rec guys.
I think the real thrust of it all was that they stepped away from the formal record company/studio production process, and were able to approach it more like a home rec recording sessions...but the gear, the people the finished product was all as polished as any other commercial record.

 

[Greg_L]

Right...they had Butch Vig sitting in front of a lot of very expensive gear, and tracking to a Studer tape deck, if I recall...not to mention...Dave bought the Neve console from Studio City and hooked it up at his place...plus they probably had it all mastered professionally at a high=end mastering facility.

So, yeah, I would love to have that "garage" studio.

Right? Grohl spent more on tape than most people have invested in all of their gear. Garage recording. Lol. The only thing factual about that being a "garage recording" was the drums were actually tracked in a garage. The rest was every bit pro studio with pro equipment run by pros.