how to go about recording

dobro

dobro

Well-known member
Tell you what - I've been checking out this forum for a few months now, and although people have talked a lot about gear and how to use it, I can't remember anybody talking about how they actually go about recording.

You know, like what time of day, with or without alcohol ( :)), alone or with others, what state of mind, how many times do you do the same track, what do you listen for in playback, how many days do you work on the same track? Do you have a procedure, or just wing it?

This is really important. I wonder if everybody does it differently...
 
recording methodology is ususally dependent on the type of group and the type of material being recorded. the approach i use for small classical ensembles is very different than what i would use for a rock band. most popular music, with drumkit, bass, guitars, synths and vocals, is recorded from the bottom up, starting with the rhythm section (drums and bass), and then adding tracks for the other parts to that. everyone is usually quite drunk, which is why so much pop music sucks :-)

for much of my work, the performers rely on regular tempi changes, retardandos, etc. i start by recording a guide track of the entire piece, as performed by the entire ensemble (sometimes just one track - it can be rough musically as long as the tempos are just like the musicians want them). then the guide track is played back to each performer one at a time through headphones at low volume, and i record each part individually. then i mix the individual peformances for a final mix. there are trade offs to this approach for classical, where most pros prefer to try to get a flawless performance while playing together in a very nice hall environment. to fix errors, they must all re-record entire passages, then it is all patched together on computer. the benefit to this approach is that you can more easily retain a good "live" feel that way. with less professional perfomers, it can be almost impossible to ever get a great performance that way. i prefer a more studio-oriented approach that gives me the ability to easily do punch fixes for individual parts. i also tend to prefer a close-mic'ed sound for many instruments. classical performers dont drink until after the session, and then it is usually chardonnay. i love chardonnay...

anyway, these kinds of things are discussed in pretty good detail in some of john eargle's books. try to get hold of a copy of his "handbook of recording engineering". eargle is the director of recording at delos, and is a long-recognized master of recording technology. there are many other places to get advice on this subject, and if you have any trouble locating what you need, let me know and i'll send you some links to sites that discuss standard techniques for a variety of situations.
 
Dobro :

I've often wondered the same thing. Of course how one goes about recording depends on the type of recording being done. My work is completely PC based in Cakewalk. I work alone and play all instruments . . . sober !
While this post is long, maybe someone will get something out of it ... maybe even me, in the form of feedback. I think its a great topic to discuss ! Anyway . . Here's how I record my music . . .

Laying down a mix of recorded tracks, which eventually lead to the created song, generally follows two different paths for me, depending whether the song is an original creation or a copy of song that I am duplicating for fun. I will talk about the latter first.

For original work that I write myself, I generally start by finding a canned drum track style that fits the mood and tempo, then work from there. My drum track MIDI samples are multi-tracked , meaning, the different drum pieces are on separate MIDI tracks . . . kick drum . . . snare . . . high hat . . . cymbals . . . four separate tracks. Why this is important will be discussed later. I, then, lay down rough rhythm guitar and bass tracks . . . usually looped and pieced together. Next, I add a rough vocal track and sometimes, rough backing vocal tracks. Notice, that everything I've done so far is well, . . . ROUGH. It is after this that the real serious work begins !

Once I have a rough version of my piece and I am happy with the general feel of it, I figure that it might have a chance of surviving a detailed recording endeavor. With my setup, I'm limited to sixteen digital tracks, and up to now, I've used as many as 4 or 5 for the rough stuff. I'll save the rough copy and begin again. First, in my software, I color all the rough tracks the same so as not to confuse them with my new final tracks. Then, one track at a time, I begin recording the final tracks, from start to finish . . . . except percussion . . . I don't touch that yet. This time, however, I work hard on the final sounds and preciseness of each instrument. I create duplicate tracks and alter them, blend and pan them. I use compression for Vocals, acoustic guitars and bass. I add reverb to lead vocals and chorus, reverb, and even flanging to backing vocals. As I finish each new track, I mute the old rough track and keep on chugging. If I begin to run out of digital audio track space, I delete the rough tracks, even mix down and combine tracks together in some cases. I add lead guitar, using a looping method for practice, before attempting final takes. Then comes MIDI keyboard tracks. . . pad, piano, strings, horns, etc, if they are included. When I'm done with the digital audio and MIDI keyboard work, it's time to go back to the very beginning . . . percussion.

This fact can't be overemphasized enough. To get realistic musical results, you have to really put some time into your percussion tracks. As I said at the start, this is why I use MIDI samples on a multi-track format. At this point in the process, there is a mix of Audio tracks and MIDI tracks in your project. Before this song can be published in CD audio or MP3, all the MIDI tracks, including percussion, will be turned to audio tracks. How I do this depends on the particular song. For example, if the song has tambourine, in the end, I use a real tambourine, recorded with the large condenser mic, and replace the MIDI tambourine track with the audio track. The same holds true for Wood blocks . . . you can create some great sounding wood block sounds with ordinary household items and reverb effects. Use your imagination . . . try something strange like a spoon on a coffee cup . . . hey, use the reverse audio effect and play it backwards . . . the possibilities are endless ! I might add separate MIDI percussion tracks for extra cymbal fills and crashes, drum fills and rolls. The beauty of the separate tracks is that you can add MIDI reverb and echo as needed. Raise the individual track volume and pan. When you get all you percussion to perfection . . . well, almost . . . then you can solo all the tracks and mixdown to stereo tracks.

Now I'm at the last point in the process . . . the final mixdown. This is where most professional sound engineers will tell you to start fresh. If you're tired and your ears are worn out, wait a day or so before making that final mix. It's amazing how what you thought was in tune one day sounds out of tune the next. It's not your software, it's your ears ! They play tricks on you when fatigued.

In its last form, my project consisted of multiple MIDI and Digital Audio tracks . . . many were duplicates of one another in different forms. The first thing I do is get rid of the MIDI percussion tracks. At this point, I've got digital audio percussion in stereo tracks. I save under a new project name . . . say projectmix.wrk. Next, I begin refining the remaining MIDI tracks . . . keyboard, strings, horns. This process, like percussion, involves adding any MIDI effects and panning within the stereo field. When I'm pleased with the sounds, I mixdown to one or two digital stereo tracks and lose the MIDI tracks. Again, I save the project. What I am left with are between 1 and 16 digital audio tracks that I must bring to a final mix. If I've been at this a while, I may take a long break or even start fresh the next day. I listen to the mix . . . pan . . . add reverb here and there, add fades or rises in voices and instruments coming and going . . . get the piece to the point where I am completely satisfied with the sound on headphones as well as my stereo monitors. Then, I save the project again and do a final mixdown to two stereo tracks. I then normalize each stereo track and mute everything but them. I listen carefully and when I'm happy, I do a final save, then delete all but the two stereo tracks. I then save under another name, such as projectfinalmix.wrk. I can now export the final mix to Wave format to my hard drive. From there I can create an MP3 file or burn it to CD as digital audio. I use my CD-R to store each project file for the piece. I usually have four. The rough file, MIDI and AUDIO, project mix, and the final mix. I save them all to CD and rid my hard drive of all but the final mix wave file and MP3.

I did mention duplicating an existing song. Let's say that I wanted to do my own version of "Bad Company's Feel Like Makin' Love". I use the RONCO method. I record the song within my project as a digital audio track. It then serves as my ROUGH tracks. I play it and mute it accordingly during the duplication process until I get reasonably close to the same effect. Then, I get rid of the original and mix my version to my own personality. Yeah, it's plagiarism, but it can be a real blast . . . not to mention a way to impress your friends.

Don't forget the most important thing. Have Fun !!

Regards,
PAPicker
 
Yo Bro DoBro:

First thing I get is a nice cold Martini and take a sip, set it down where it can't drip into my keyboard, and turn on my spike protecting switches and let the juice flow in me and into my gear.

Step two: [I'm doing the tune] Cut the drum track and measure out the measures or hum the tune with the drums or even sing it; however, only the drums are recorded. I learned this from a wonderful keyboard man from Chicago and a good friend named Dick Reynolds - one hellova nice person and a great keyboard player.

Next, I like to lay in the keys/chords.

Next, I pipe in the bass line.

All that is left is selecting solo patches, vibes, flute, etc., and saving a track to add a few drum smashes at appropriate spots.

When I work with talent, a vocalist, I get the music into the recorder first, mostly from CD backings the singer brings. Now, it's easy; just do the voice tracks. With digital, I usually just use one track but have put the voice on four tracks for that big up-front sound.

In between takes, I visit my martini.

Now comes the hard part: mixing down the tracks and selecting the right reverbs and mixing and mixing and mixing until I like what I get. Does this all take time? You bet your kneecaps it does but I love it as do all of you people on this site.

Hey, have fun Dobro,

Green Hornet
 
Nice of you all to take the time to detail your procedures, especially PAPicker. One Nobel prize coming right up.
 
I write a bunch of songs, usually under the influence.

-make a click track with fruity loops.
-put down a rough acoustic guitar track, hopefully in time.
-rough vocal
-bass, even more important to be in time
-rough lead guitars

Then, get my drummer to try and put down a few takes, if it doesn't work move onto the next song.

When a good drum track is down, I go back and redo whatever is necessary.
Sometimes some of the rough tracks are still ok though, and are kept.

If the timing is messed or has the wrong feel, I redo it from scratch and hope for the best next time around.

Drum tracks are recorded on saturdays and sundays with lots of alohol. Guitars are done during the week if I'm not too lazy, but usually sober.

That's my procedure. Seems to work, almost 10 songs in 13 months.. productive eh? :)
 
Last Saturday We recorded live to ADAT...all 8 tracks;
Track 1,2,stereo drum tracks, 3 and 4 with Kick and Snare close miked.(In sound proof room) 5 Bass direct through a compressor and envelope filter, 6 guitar direct (Korg effects unit)7 Guitar 2 through Fender Amp, in garage miked with SM57, 8 Vocalist in small booth (Hallway) Condensor mike through ART Tube MP.... It was a blast. We did 3 songs. Had to punch in a few small places on the bass track and guitars.

I love recording live with a well rehearsed band, and this way we have the option of replacing any tracks. I may submix the drums to make room for other instruments later.

Dom Franco
 
It's really pointless to do without MP3 examples; hence, the MP3 forum. When people ask how I got a certain sound that's similar to what they've been trying to get without any success, then I let 'em know.

If you want to know the "general procedure" stuff, look at books. A lot of times, I go to the books myself for "general procedure" and take what I've experienced and the equipment I have, and modify.

It's all a personal thing. I really don't think anyone cares if I work better under the influence of alcohol or not. That's not going to help someone else. That's why I don't mention anything like that.
 
Recording Engineer says:
>It's really pointless to do without MP3 examples<

What do MP3 examples have to do with how
you go about recording ? Hearing an MP3 doesn't tell the listener the steps involved. Some of us may not have the luxury of having an ISP that gives enough web space to store MP3. I live in "Green Acres", man . . . my phonelines are so crappy, it would take me an hour to up/download one MP3.

Recording Engineer says:
>If you want to know the "general procedure" stuff, look at books.<

I record on my PC,which I pointed out above.
The latest recording technique book I saw,
when researching the subject, was written in
1996 . . . and while it may have been great for a large studio atmosphere, for my use, it was just four years out of date. The best source for me is the net. That's why I'm here.

Recording Engineer says:
>It's all a personal thing. I really don't think anyone cares if I work better under the influence of alcohol or not. That's not going to help someone else.<

The only thing you said I agree with.

Regards,
PAPicker
 
My point about MP3s is we all have our own definitions of what a "good sounding guitar" is, what "warmth" is, what "open" is. If I were to tell I got a "good sounding guitar" by doing XXXXXXX, that doesn't mean anything to anyone.

When I'm talking about "general procedures", I'm talking about "Recording Techniques" (that is the forum; there are other forums here) which apply to all recordings... Hot levels, microphone placement, etc. All which you can find in most reasonably "out of date" books. If you don't have those accesses, you have the net. Then, after you've done your homework, come here with what you're just not getting. In fact, sometimes, people (from this BBS) personally e-mail for help; and I always do my best; which reminds me, I still need to get back to David). Sometimes, people e-mail me and I have to send them elsewhere because their set-up in mainly computer multitracking, and my "ear" is really not into that stuff; so my help for that is very limited.

From what I understand, dobro was getting at that what's being dicussed in this forum is not what he thinks should be discussed here. I simply disagreed; and said why.

By the way, I don't have the luxury of fast connections either; do some research of my history here.
 
Recording Engineer :

First, I want to apologize, if it sounded as though I were attacking you . . . I wasn't. I'm sure you are experienced in your work and know much more about professional recording techniques than I. But, this discussion isn't about "good sounds", it is about recording techniques . . . including DAW recording. Even if I were to hear your "good sounding" guitar, it might sound like crap to me, no matter how you recorded it . . . and my "good sounding" guitar, in turn, might sound like crap to you. Heck, I wondered in and out of this website for a year before posting at all and am just getting to the point where I think I know enough to at least help Newbies avoid some of the mistakes I made. That being said, I would like to make a few points :

1 ) This site is Homerecording.com not BigBazillionDollarStudio.com. A large majority of people that visit this site are : A ) Newbies like me and : B ) on a budget. Most don't have it in their plans to compete with Abbey Road . . . although S8-N says he is close !
When I see someone say " I have $200 to spend on a microphone " , then, Senior Members respond with "buy a Neumann" or even, "save up and buy this for $350 ", it pisses me off. If that's the best you guys can do, then this site is not serving its purpose effectively. That's why I ended up researching some things on my own.

2 ) I'm a mechanical engineer, not a sound engineer, but it doesn't take a engineer to figure out that pluggin' a $2000 Neumann into a $300 Mackie is like eatin' dog food out of Waterford crystal. My point is, you have to set a music quality objective and buy equipment that meets that objective. If your quality objective is too high, then you are not going to be satisfied with dog food. Most home recording audiophiles are not seeking perfection. If we were, we wouldn't be using MP3 as a distribution format.

3 ) To me, reading a book on recording techniques is useless for a home recording rookie on a budget. The book would tell you to place twin $2,500 Mics in a vortex pattern for ambients and a $200 dynamic mic toward one cone of a $6,000 Marshall Stack's 4 x 12 . . . or something of this nature . . . I'm just making this up. Yeah, you can use three Shure's and a Fender Chorus, but it will sound like @%&# ! It was on this site I first learned about the POD. I no longer need $10,000 worth of amps and mics to get, what I consider, excellent electric guitar recordings.
It was through experimentation and long hours I learned how to get the most of MIDI. No book or even website I've ever seen could have taught me. To me that is what this site is all about.

As far as your history on this site, I've been around long enough to know what to expect of both you and Sonusman. He is much worse than you are when it comes to pushing the idea of caviar or nothing, but it doesn't mean I don't respect either of your talents as recording engineers . . .
which is why I requested both your help in the microphone forum.

Peace & Regards,
PAPicker
 
Most Of the time I can't get everyone together at the same time. So I have to lay down tracks one at at time. Here's one way I have found to do it:

1. Play song on guitar to a click track, and set tempo and arrangement. Record To Track 1
2. Add Drums, Then Bass, other keys or guitars. Then erase original scratch/click track.
3. Add vocals, and lead guitar/solo parts.

4. Mixdown! (This can all be done on a 4 track, 8 is better 16 is heaven!)

Sincerely;

Dom Franco
 
Hello all,

I like to record all hopped up on goof balls, just kidding, or am I, I can't remember.

Anyway, I make a rough pass with guitar and w
 
Pushed enter by mistake, no more goof balls! I record rough guitar and voice to give me something to program drum machine to, fills ect.

Once drum machine is ready, I record the drum machine and bass line together, bass panned center, direct in to mixer. I do this first, because to me this is the foundation of the song.

Then guitar and voice together, I like the interaction. On the acoustic I record binaurally, this is two mics about an inch apart, panned dead left and dead right, on the neck side of the sound hole, as close to my picking hand as possible. I lean over the guitar slightly to sing, this seems to give a pretty good level match between guitar and voice.

On the electic, I record direct into mixer, my old blackface bassman is just to noisy, maby it needs new tubes. I want a pod bad, please send now!

Then lastly I add lead. I think this is the fun part, kind of the icing on the cake.

Keep up the good work!
 
PAPicker:

I really didn't feel attacked. What I meant by saying that you should take a look at my history here, I meant that you'd find I'm not well internet equiped either. In fact, drstwal was gracious enough to spend 8 long hours uploading my band's album, BBS members took the time to download some of them, and sonusman was kind enough to spend 12 hours re-mixing and mestering one song from my ADAT tracks.

In regards to:


"this discussion isn't about "good sounds", it is about recording techniques . . . including DAW recording"


If it's not about "good sound", then what are the "recording techniques" for?

In regards to:


"Even if I were to hear your "good sounding" guitar, it might sound like crap to me, no matter how you recorded it. . . and my "good sounding" guitar, in turn, might sound like crap to you."


I agree. But it works the other way around too.

1)When I bought my first small diaphragm condenser mics, 2 AKG C1000 (old versions; when they were going for around $300US or more), I wish someone said to me "save another $100-200US" and "buy the Shure SM-81s" to me when I fisrt started out; I learned over the years that I like SM-81s quite a bit more than C1000s.

I'll let you all know what I want to sell my two "next-to brand-new" looking AKG C1000s and "next-to brand-new" looking AKG D112 for $300US; complete with all 3 original "next-to brand-new" looking cases, manuals, and clips.

By the way, I hope you do A LOT of your own research; regardless of what ANYONE says.

2)I couldn't agree more. But why are you telling ME this?

Also, we use CDs and still a lot of times, cassettes as distribution formats. We'd use CD-quality format or better on the net if it wasn't so damn big.

3)I completely disagree about them being useless (even for you). I don't know what your books say, but mine don't mention anything about money in them. I didn't know stereo miking techniques required a matched-pair of $2500 microphones. Like I said, I modify for what I have and what I'm doing. If you can't do that, you shouldn't even try recording yourself; and a lot of musician don't (and a lot do).

And I'm truely glad you're happy with you POD for every guitar sound you'll ever possibly want. For me, it's ANOTHER color to add to the melting pot.
 
OK. Here's my patented (only on mars) system for recording my brand of "stuff". I'll stick to the technique used for the vast majority of my tunes. Not everything I record is done this way- just most of it. First off, I'll explain that all of this is done exclusively in MIDI and only when I'm satisfied with the whole MIDI mix do I commit it to digital audio. This is the "mixdown" phase where the whole thing is condensed to a stereo pair in digital audio.
First I lay down a bass line, either live or with the mouse (Wacom pen), then follow with a piano line. Occasionally I may redo this step to get several takes worth of stuff to use while simply looping the bassline. I may change the actual instrument set later, but this is what I use to form the foundation of the piece. I then add an acoustic guitar patch track. Once this is done I decide if it needs percussion at all and add it using no more than two sounds at a time until the drum track is built up.
Lead lines are added last. Then I re-evaluate the instrument selection and search for pairs or trios of patches that can be blended to get the sound I want and substitute multiple tracks for the original track. Then a quick adjustment of the pan and volume settings for each track and I'm almost ready to mix down.
I then go through each track as it is pasted together in staff view in CW and correct any bloopers that slipped in. I also add some notes to fill out chords that weren't completely defined or sounded too thin. Other things accomplished at this step include adding some variation to repeated lines that sound too stale. One more tip. Always save the original MIDI file even after you've dumped it to digital audio.
And Weston: as to the 8 hours:
"Time flies when you're having fun."
 
Have you seen the documentary film "Cheap, Fast, and Out of Control"? This is probably a good overall description of my lavish approach. At the risk of being tongue-lashed and ridiculed, I'll divulge my secret life as a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-holey jeans home recordist.

After joggin' around on some trails and hills near my home, where most of my tunes work their way into my consciousness (this may be why many of them share a tempo and beat that coincides with my wheezing and gasping for breath and the stubby strides of my "short fat 'airy legs" hitting the ground), I labor over some lyrics whose triteness reveals the depth of my tormented personality.

Ah, the song is done! Now I just have to teach myself to play it through without screwing up more than six or eight times. That feat accomplished, I hear in my head, "Is the tape rolling, Bob? Bob?"

Then I usually start actually recording on my magnificent Yamaha keyboard. One reason I bit the bullet and spent $200 on it was the "6-track sequencer" that allows me to work up 4 to 6 tracks of boogie-woogie bass, crystal-clear keyboards, precocious percussion, oncogenic (on-ko-jen-ik, adj., tending to cause the formation of tumors) organs, and incredibly real-sounding wind and string instruments. Then I record the saved combination to one track of my little 4-track analog unit, often playing along in real time to get up to seven tracks on one tape path. Now that's some high-fidelity mono masterin', brother!

Then it is time to break out the mighty mics (those towering twins the SM57 and AKG C1000s) and start tracking acoustic guitar and vocals. Because my house is so small, I usually try to play hookey from work in the afternoon when noone is home so I don't get all cranky when folks rattle pots and pans or flush the toilet. I give my little back room the high-end acoustic treatment: hang some sleeping bags in the corners, unplug the phone... and attempt to capture my shreiky little voice and mushy old six-string.

When those have been redone enough times so that they only sound mostly crappy, I mike up the practice amp (also excellent for recording! so weak on the output that the neighbors dogs don't bother to join in) and lay down a final, blistering, soul-expanding electric guitar track.

Ohhh, Baby! "Life, I tell you! Give my creation LIFFFE...!" as in Young Frankenstein. Now it's mixdown time, and those five inch speakers and tweety-bird tweeters in the monitors have a chance to earn their keep.

It's also time for my supportive family members to listen, smile appreciatively, make some helpful comments ("Too much harmony." "What's that hissing sound?" "Too many notes." " Yep, that is really what your voice sounds like." "That sounds just like the white noise on the TV turned up really loud.") before they retire to the next room to shake their heads sadly and snicker softly into the palms of their hands. Which, of course, sounds to my highly trained and sensitive ears like belly laughs and milk being snorted out nose-holes.

Is it time for that drink yet?

[This message has been edited by Raj (edited 02-29-2000).]
 
I do it different every single time- cause I learn that i did it wrong the last time- my set up is bizarre- I don't have a mixer, I have two four tracks and a PA head (I use the latter only if a absolutely have to) Recently I miced the drums and ran guitar and bass direct, ran three head phone outs, honestly I had never played with headphone in my life, it took some getting used to, but finally getting total seperation was like tits! I bussed the drums into one track and direct guitar to one and basss to another. I'm n the process now of redoing the guitar and bass tracks. I just got some Cakewalk Software so I dumped the drums along with a rough guide track on to the computer. So now I guess I'm going to finish the project in cakewalk, problem is, the computer and our rehersal space (and the rest of my band) are an hour and a half drive from each other- I havent figured this dilemma out yet- it'll come to me though- If I could just understand SYNC I'd be better. So for now it's going to have to be record bass and drums on the four track- transfer and do the rest on computer. Man this demo is going to take forever, but I've vowed to never bouce a track again!!!!!
 
I hook-up a microphone to my boom box, and hit the record button...Guitar with my right hand, keyboard with my left hand, bass with my left foot, drums with my right foot, harmonica with, you guessed it, my mouth, and an occasional cymbol with my butt. I don't know why all you guys have such a difficult time of it.
 
This is Oklahoma version of recording at home. First, get the WIFE to go shopping or visit mom or something. Be alone. I usually, being a drummer, will lay about 7 to 10 different drum patterns that are timed about 2 to 3 minutes apiece. Once I get the feel of a certain drum pattern, I map it out, you know like 4xIntro/8XVerse/8XChorus/4XKeyChange/8XVerse etc.etc, you get the picture. Anyway, once I get those laid and reviewed them afterwards on the Tascam just to make sure they sound good (4 mics on drums bussed to two tracks on the Tascam so two tracks are left over). Then the fun begins, like I said, I'm a drummer, so my guitaring is limited. Rewind the drum tracks, run them through the monitors, run the guitar through one of the open channels, patch it through to the monitors, get a balance on the mix between drums and the guitar and just see what I can come up with, then get a BudLight. I use a Digitech FX-7, yes for you guitar players out there it's not super high tech but it does the basic stuff and has comp, flang, chorus, delays, reverb,etc.etc. and it converts your guitar to a bass (paid $60 on ebay.com). Once the guitar is laid in, take the left over track and put in the bass guitar or keyboards on the last track. Once I'm convinced it's my masterpiece (believe me you will think that every song is!!!) run the line outs on the Tascam into a equalizer, then into a hifi VCR for downloading. From VCR download directly into the cassette deck and play with the eq settings again. Then play it in your car on the way to work, that's the only thing a car cassette deck is used for anymore.
Notice this is "low-fi" home rec. That's what this is all about. Yeah, I know I could go with a Roland 8 track digital or Tascam digital, buy some high dollar mics (using VTechs now, $30 a piece), dump god-loads of money on effects, processors, compressors, etc. etc. But that ain't going to happen. As long as YOU KNOW that there is other technology out there to make you sound even better, then your OK. If you even start to think about trying to compete with pro studios, your sunk. That is not the goal of homerecording folks. WE JUST DIG IT!! Most of us are musicians that can't get it out of our skin and some of us probably played in bands for years but didn't go anywhere because we didn't see a future in it and decided to have another career, got married, kids, mortgages, etc.etc. But we are all in the FRATERNITY OF MUSCIANS. Don't worship the "GEAR LUST" God. We are the artist. Do you think Leonardo Da Vinci (sp?) worried about what kind of paint brush he used?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top