Fooling people?

[nate_dennis]

I've read a few posts (and book reviews too) that say things to the effect of "sure I (or we, or you) won't ever be able to fool a real engineer . . . " This mentality baffles me. In my previous recording endevours, and in the one I'm about to start, this has never been and is not a concern of mine. So I'll put it to you. Is your goal to "fool" a "real" engineer or the general population into thinking you recorded in a "real" studio?

For me, the idea of a "real studio" is absurd. The goal of recording is to get good sounding representations of the songs we hear in our heads or that your clients hear in their heads. It's not about fooling anyone. So what if someone knows that the drum line was produced by a drum machine? Does it sound good? Who cares if someone knows that you recorded it at home? Does it sound good? Does it provide an emotional impact? Mission Accomplished. So, let me have it!!!!

[KineticSound]

Nate,
It's an interesting question. To your point, my only goal was/is to produce professional-quality work in my own environment and not have to commute to a "real" studio. I'm upfront with clients that I work from my home studio and don't book time elsewhere unless they really want me to. In today's market, I think the home studio approach is becoming more and more common (whether that is good or bad is a whole different thread, though!)

[nate_dennis]

Right On!!

[WhiteStrat]

I picked number 3, but even that doesn't say it perfectly. If sounding like crap equals sounding like a home studio, and sounding great equals sounding like a professional studio, then I want it sound like a pro studio.

But my goal isn't to fool anyone. My goal is for my home studio to sound so professional, the point becomes moot.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

What is a "real studio"? I know quite a few performers and engineers who have the equivalent of a "real studio" in their house or garage. I'm talking 48- and 96-input analog boards with racks of HQ gear, full PT HD system, and a mike locker with all the good stuff in it, along with all the "proper" acoustic design and treatment and the knowledge an experience in their heads of any average lead engineer in your average Main Street studio.

So, if we say that is actually a "real studio" that just happens to be on private property (which it is), where do we draw the line between a "real studio" and a "home studio"?

Does owning a U47 or a desk with more than 24 inputs run by a kid with nothing more than daddy's credit line to account for it make a "real studio"? Or how about a guy (or gal) with no more than a portastudio but who has worked along side (or is one of) the Big Boys in Nashville and could engineer your ears off? How about someone who actually rents commercial space to hold little more than his MAudio/PTLE "mastering by Internet" computer?

Draw the line.

G.

[VomitHatSteve]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

What is a "real studio"? I know quite a few performers and engineers who have the equivalent of a "real studio" in their house or garage. I'm talking 48- and 96-input analog boards with racks of HQ gear, full PT HD system, and a mike locker with all the good stuff in it, along with all the "proper" acoustic design and treatment and the knowledge an experience in their heads of any average lead engineer in your average Main Street studio.

So, if we say that is actually a "real studio" that just happens to be on private property (which it is), where do we draw the line between a "real studio" and a "home studio"?

Does owning a U47 or a desk with more than 24 inputs run by a kid with nothing more than daddy's credit line to account for it make a "real studio"? Or how about a guy (or gal) with no more than a portastudio but who has worked along side (or is one of) the Big Boys in Nashville and could engineer your ears off? How about someone who actually rents commercial space to hold little more than his MAudio/PTLE "mastering by Internet" computer?

Draw the line.

G.

I think part of the point of the question is that the definition of "real studio" is pretty vague.

I voted yes. I want my home recordings to sound as good as they can, and I realize that I'll never sound as good as anything done by someone who really knows what he/she is doing and does this full-time.

However, when it comes to the end consumer, I want them to think my stuff was recorded by a "real studio" (or not if they're into DIY punk). This is because consumers tend to be stupid and make unfounded assumptions.

I've talked to people who refuse to give my music the time of day because it's home-recorded. If the only way to get their $10 is to make them think my music was done in a "real studio"...

[Cosmic]

If you play it for them, they like the music, and they don't pick up on any sound issues (which the vast majority of people don't) it makes no difference where it is recorded.
If the consumer can hear problems in the sound, then you have a problem, because then it is something truly noteworthy (horrible acoustics or bad playing)

An industry pro will be able to tell, but that's not who you are selling to.

C.

[nate_dennis]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

What is a "real studio"?

That's kind of my point. I guess I just read a few places where people were talking about "fooling professional engineers." And that's exactly my point. If it sounds good, who cares? My point wasn't to differentiate between "home" and "real."

[DrewPeterson7]

Here's how I look at it.

I'm slowly working on an album. Really, I'm just demoing right now, finishing the songwriting, but also getting some practice getting good sounds to disc.

I'm doing it for two reasons - one, because I really enjoy playing guitar and writing music, and want to show I can write and play a "legit" sounding instrumental guitar album, and two, because I also legitimately enjoy recording, and want to show that I can record something at least on par with some of the local studios I've been in.

I don't know if I'm going to succeed at either, but I also don't particularly care - I'm having fun.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by VomitHatSteve

I think part of the point of the question is that the definition of "real studio" is pretty vague.

A point that I was trying to "hone"..obviously . But as I re-read the poll, I think you're getting more to the point of the OP (maybe?) when you say...

Originally Posted by VomitHatSteve

However, when it comes to the end consumer, I want them to think my stuff was recorded by a "real studio" (or not if they're into DIY punk). This is because consumers tend to be stupid and make unfounded assumptions.

I've talked to people who refuse to give my music the time of day because it's home-recorded. If the only way to get their $10 is to make them think my music was done in a "real studio"...

I gotta say that, when talking about the end consumer, I've never met anybody that really gave a rat's ass where the music was recorded, other than as curiosity or conversation piece value. Either they liked the music or they didn't.

Let's forget all of us no-name schmuck home recorders for a second and look at it from a different perspective. Look at the ultimate example of "home recording" as done by a commercial brand name: Springsteen's "Nebraska" album. The story is legendary (both the false and factual versions ), but I've never known anyone who decided whether they liked it or not based upon how or where it was recorded. They either like the style and sound or they don't; that would not drastically change if that same sound came out of a big studio.

And, for another defocusing point: Not only do I not know what a "real studio" is, I have no idea what a "real studio" sounds like. I just love when people come on this board asking how to get "a commercial sound" or a "60s sound" or something like that. There is no such thing as a single identifiable "commercial sound" or "60s sound".

What they are really asking for, and I think what the real answer to this poll is:

How to track and mix so that the result does not draw attention to a poor job at either one of those stages.

That's what it's REALLY all about, and that's what 98% of the questions on this board are - knowingly or not - really asking. They don't want to necessarily sound "commercial" or sound like a "real studio", because there has been plenty of product to come out of both of those that sounds awful, and there have been even more to come out that have entirely different kinds of sounds.

When they say "I want to sound like a big studio", they really mean "I want to know how to do it well".

G.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

".....
Does owning a U47 or a desk with more than 24 inputs run by a kid with nothing more than daddy's credit line to account for it make a "real studio"?

...."

G.

It sure does if I bring in my own engineer and producer. There are plenty of well equipped studios that rent the facility by the day. Almost all big productions are done this way. Glynn Johns and the like just rent the whole facility and get to work. Pretty common.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

It sure does if I bring in my own engineer and producer. There are plenty of well equipped studios that rent the facility by the day. Almost all big productions are done this way. Glynn Johns and the like just rent the whole facility and get to work. Pretty common.

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is where do you draw the line by that example?

Exactly what amount of gear is the line? If Glynn Johns produced a platinum-selling recording using little more than a portable Revox deck and a couple of RE20s, would that be a "real studio"?

Or, if it's not a "real studio" until the engineer and producer are brought in, exactly what amount of knowledge or experience in the human element demarks the line? How far smaller of a resume than Glynn Johns can one have and still make or break a "real studio" description?

G.

[MCI2424]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is where do you draw the line by that example?

Exactly what amount of gear is the line? If Glynn Johns produced a platinum-selling recording using little more than a portable Revox deck and a couple of RE20s, would that be a "real studio"?

Or, if it's not a "real studio" until the engineer and producer are brought in, exactly what amount of knowledge or experience in the human element demarks the line? How far smaller of a resume than Glynn Johns can one have and still make or break a "real studio" description?

G.

I guess the definition of a "real studio" as understood by the general layman is one that has enough equipment, recording rooms and have a good enough reputation on the commercial level to warrant them business. Beyond that, it is up to you and your engineer/producer to get the final product. There are plenty of places that are used over and over by reputation and word of mouth from respected individuals in the industry. That does not mean that a band can go in and get anything decent from their staff engineers. That is the #1 problem with studios. Just because the Hit Factory had tons of great recordings out the door, it was because of the engineers and staff chosen by the pro producers that made it happen. The studio is a small part of the recording process (and I am sure you know that well as your excellent posts reflect). Having a bad experience in any studio is usually the artist's fault in relying on other people unfamiliar with the vision to take charge.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by MCI2424

I guess the definition of a "real studio" as understood by the general layman is one that has enough equipment, recording rooms and have a good enough reputation on the commercial level to warrant them business. Beyond that, it is up to you and your engineer/producer to get the final product. There are plenty of places that are used over and over by reputation and word of mouth from respected individuals in the industry. That does not mean that a band can go in and get anything decent from their staff engineers. That is the #1 problem with studios. Just because the Hit Factory had tons of great recordings out the door, it was because of the engineers and staff chosen by the pro producers that made it happen. The studio is a small part of the recording process (and I am sure you know that well as your excellent posts reflect). Having a bad experience in any studio is usually the artist's fault in relying on other people unfamiliar with the vision to take charge.

I agree that it's the ear more than the gear, but let's look at the first sentence in bold. There are three major conditions basically postulated there;

1) that it has "enough equipment" and other physicalities.
What is "enough equipment"? Again, I dare anybody to actually define a line.

2) that it has a reputation "on the commercial level".
If someone has the well-designed and well-equipped studio, and is run by somebody who has the chops to use it properly and well, but has not yet gained a "reputation on the commercial level", is it then not a real studio?

Also, there is a second line to be defined here: what is "commercial level"? How big of a printing or a sales figure or amount of airplay does a recording need to accumulate before it's considered "commercial level", and how many of those must a studio have their hands in making before they rate as a "real studio"?

And what does "commercial" really mean in these days of independent production and release, not to mention the inexorable replacement on the "commercial level" of the Big Box rent-a-studio with the "professional quality" personal studio run by the people who used to rent out?

3) that it generates regular business.
Would this include the PTLE guy who (unfortunately) manages to actually make a steady income with a wannabe "Mastering by Internet" business?

I think that the term "real studio" is pure bullshit. There are only recordings. And those recordings either sound good or they don't, regardless of who makes them or where they come from.

G.

[nate_dennis]

Ok, maybe I should have worded it differently. I think we are all on the same page about where good recordings come from. But the question at hand has more to do with our goals. Is it about producing something YOU are proud of or something that a professional engineer will "believe" was recorded using a "professional engineer." Sorry for my bad choice of wording.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by nate_dennis

Ok, maybe I should have worded it differently. I think we are all on the same page about where good recordings come from. But the question at hand has more to do with our goals. Is it about producing something YOU are proud of or something that a professional engineer will "believe" was recorded using a "professional engineer." Sorry for my bad choice of wording.

Don't misunderstand me, Nate (or is it Dennis? ), I didn't mean to rip your wording or your poll; based upon earlier posts in this thread, I think we are actually in pretty close agreement.

But I do think that the "not being able to fool a professional" is kind of a red herring, very much because of the ambiguity in the phrase "real studio". What it takes is a good enough performance run through good enough equipment (it doesn't have to be the absolute best, though that doesn't hurt ) run by someone who has both a musical and an analytical ear, and who has the intimate enough knowledge of how to pilot their gear to get what their ear tells them they need. This is true at all three stages of the production - tracking, mixing and mastering.

I'll bet you I could - without breaking a sweat - pick 10 commercial recordings randomly from the past 40 years or so that were done in "real studios" by "real" engineers and "real producers" that you average big name pro engineer or producer couldn't tell if they were done in "real studios" on a "commercial level" or not.

Assuming I could find that many that they haven't already heard or know about, that is. Which is, BTW one of the "secret" tricks they have up their sleeves when you throw this kind of test at them.

G.

[d.bop]

Definition of the word "Studio" (according to Google)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tudio&aq=f&oq=

A couple definitions that I think fit the subject well:

workplace consisting of a room or building where movies or television shows or radio programs are produced and recorded

A studio is a artist's or worker's workroom, or an artist and his or her employees who work within that studio. This can be for the purpose of painting, pottery (ceramics), sculpture, photography, graphic design, cinematography, animation, radio or television broadcasting or the making of music

[suprstar]

My tracks won't fool anyone.. But I voted 'not at all...' cuz if they WERE good enough to make people wonder, I'd be proud.

[nate_dennis]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Don't misunderstand me, Nate (or is it Dennis? ), I didn't mean to rip your wording or your poll

I didn't take it that way at all. I'm just trying to "steer" the conversation.

- NATE

[mattr]

I'm proud of the fact that I produce things in the corner of my bedroom on fairly minimal amounts of budget/consumer gear, but its always nice when people are impressed/fooled (depending on how well they know me)

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by d.bop

Definition of the word "Studio" (according to Google):

. The results for a definition request for a "real studio" fall apart, though .

G.

[nate_dennis]

According to the New Dennis Dictionary; Second Edition; Volume One

"real studio" (reel stoodeeoh): A facility housing many rooms that have been designed for the recording of audio via either analog or digital means. Such rooms have been acoustically designed for either a dead response (for mixing/monitoring) or a lively response (used for tracking instruments also known as a "live room") to audio waves. This facility will likely also contain copious amounts of professional level signal processing, recording, and monitoring equipment. Usually these facilities will also have at least one individual with grossly enlarged egos and and an over-inflated sense of self-worth.

[nate_dennis]

sorry; computer problems. . . .posted three times.

[nate_dennis]

again . . . . .

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by nate_dennis

Usually these facilities will also have at least one individual with grossly enlarged egos and and an over-inflated sense of self-worth

Now THAT'S getting close to the true definition!

G.