A Jim Croce Tune

[Pinky]

Exactly- especially the bolded part. Is high end gear necessary? No. It all depends on how good is good enough. I listened to one of Pinky's tracks - phenomanal for what he's using. It still has that lo-fi blanket on it though. But in all honesty, if I use the wife test (can she hear a difference) I bet she would say they were equal. (Drives me crazy sometimes)

And that's really my only point. If it sounds good, then it sounds good. I'm not making any money on what I do (hence - HOME-recording.com, not 'studio-musicians.com'). There's always a best bang for your buck solution when it comes to electronics. The bleeding edge gear always costs ten times more but may actually be 10% better (if such a thing could be quantified). It's the same for home theater, computers, hiking gear, etc. Everything within reason. But there is a real element in all the above communities (of which I'm also a hobbyist) where people think spending more on a top end receiver, overclocking and the additonal costs to get 15% more from your computer, or the $800 waterproof down sleeping bag will ensure a level of quality or comfort when there is so much more to the equation, and often the gear is not the largest factor.

The lo-fi blanket is likely the fault of my ears - I don't like the extremes. Some people overdue the imaging and hurt my ears with every cymbal crash, others have so much bottom end it almost overpowers the rest of the music. I find my EQ'ing style is more midrange than some prefer, and it's definitely not today's studio fashion if you listen to modern recordings versus stuff from the 70s and 80s.

 

[Pinky]

I can definitely hear inherent gear noise

In the first track (Hallow Way) only the acoustics were using the PG81, the singer had an old Radio Shack condensor with a ton of hiss that I had to work a lot of magic to remove (and even them it's still pretty heavy in spots). He has since purchased a PG81 (he lives in California, I'm in New York, so we ftp stuff back and forth to get work done) and his vocals are a lot stronger with no hiss.

The second track should have no "gear noise". All electric guitars are line, and used the PG81 which has virtually no siblance for the acoustic and vocals. IMO it's an almost flawless recording (the actual performance needs work though lol).

 

[Sage97]

And that's really my only point. If it sounds good, then it sounds good. I'm not making any money on what I do (hence - HOME-recording.com, not 'studio-musicians.com'). There's always a best bang for your buck solution when it comes to electronics. The bleeding edge gear always costs ten times more but may actually be 10% better (if such a thing could be quantified). It's the same for home theater, computers, hiking gear, etc. Everything within reason. But there is a real element in all the above communities (of which I'm also a hobbyist) where people think spending more on a top end receiver, overclocking and the additonal costs to get 15% more from your computer, or the $800 waterproof down sleeping bag will ensure a level of quality or comfort when there is so much more to the equation, and often the gear is not the largest factor.

The lo-fi blanket is likely the fault of my ears - I don't like the extremes. Some people overdue the imaging and hurt my ears with every cymbal crash, others have so much bottom end it almost overpowers the rest of the music. I find my EQ'ing style is more midrange than some prefer, and it's definitely not today's studio fashion if you listen to modern recordings versus stuff from the 70s and 80s.

I generally agree with your statement. However, I also want to point out that the term "high end" means so many different meanings to different people.

Is Rick spending too much for his gear? Only he can answer that. He clearly enjoys using it to create music that is meaningful to him and others in the forum including myself are appreciating. Can he get the same results with more affordable gear? Maybe so but he prefers the gear he has....at least for now. He may decide to "upgrade" even more or the opposite. Some people prefer BMWs, others prefer Hyundais and still others prefer Ferraris.

Not arguing with you, just pointing out that some people don't mind spending more on a hobby. Ain't nothing wrong with that in my book.

S'ol good.

 

[mattkw80]

I'm thinking about shelling out well over $1000 for the LA-610.

Pinky, if you think this is a bad idea, specifically , buying this particular high-end pre-amp, please tell me why, and perhaps you'll save me some cash.

Are you saying ALL of the gear you use is budget gear?

You don't beleive in some heavy coin into any gear for the home studio?

btw.... IMHO, Hallow Way sounds really good.

 

[Rick Shepherd]

Why ask him, he doesn't own an LA-610. Honestly, I hear greater detail and quality of sound in my recordings than I do in his. This is not to say his recordings aren't great, they do sound very nice!

 

[mattkw80]

Why ask him, he doesn't own an LA-610.

Good point.

 

[Pinky]

Previously posted - proof is in the pudding . If a recording sounds good, then it sounds good. How we get from A-->B is the journey, but the final product is our destination. if getting to that destination cost me less then it's bonus for me, and affords me journeys with that money savings into other areas of my life (as I said, I have more than one hobby to support and don't have the bank roll to afford top gear for them all). I'm going on a 10 day vacation on the other side of the country again this year despite having a tight budget - why? Because I'm not spending that vacation money on preamps I don't need (for example).

Then, to restate another overlooked (or ignored) point - this is a budget forum by design and intent. This is not a professional studio musician's forum. Once we start talking $1000+ gear (mixers, preamps, instruments, etc) we're getting into that high end category. My entire setup including instruments probably cost me less than $1,500.

I don't think this is preference (I drive a Hyundai BTW ) - I think it's wants. People want good gear, but really don't need it if they know what they're doing. I've heard and seen engineers/producers lean on the quality of their gear to compensate for a lack of ability in creating a fun and accurate sound. Exceptions abound of course, but we're talking home-recording here. A professional engineer in a studio can spin circles around me, but for low-to-no-budget recordings I'm not making a dime off of I would say that my 5+ years of recordings speak volumes for what can be accomplished and enjoyed without breaking the bank.

Not to stray off topic, the entire point I made originally was that the recording I heard posted here sounded highly flawed with respect to the type of gear used to record it. The poster of the song admits there are issues and they're going to address the problems (some of which aren't entirely within their means to control). I also took the time to point out that nothing they're doing requires the gear they're using to get the sound it seems they desire. Suspecting there may be a case of good gear, poor fundamentals it turns out the poster feels the same and has since stated they're "getting back to basics" (mic angles and position, proximity of transient sounds, room dynamics and acoustics, etc). It's never my intent to discourage, but sometimes to make an omlette you have the crack a few eggs. I won't sweet talk anyone into feeling their recording is great if it's not, and especially when I hear the level of talent they have being lessened by the disproportional quality of the recording. I'm currently mixing songs for a telented musician without the skill or resources to make good final mixes and masters for himself. He knows his limits and passes the rest on to someone else comfortable with today's software to get the most from his raw tracks. I like doing it (for free) and he loves the results. I just couldn't see such talent 'go to waste'. if this was easy every musician in the world would be capable of producing these types of recording and forums like this would not exist. So trial and lots of error. I'm grateful to those who did the same for me when I first started, who worked with me within the confines of the gear I had/have, and who showed me how to get the best sound from it based on fundamental principles and simply didn't tell me "to get better gear" (which, in my case, would have only put me in debt and not improved my sound since the issue was me, not the gear). I even stepped down a few pieces of gear. If you look at the linked gear page you'll see more gear used 4 years ago than today. I was able to prioritize what was helping and what was dead weight.

 

[mattkw80]

This is just a hobby for me as well, but it is my main hobby (more like an obsession). I like to vacation as well, and do the mutual fund thing, save money for a rainy day, etc. so I'm in the same boat as you - I can't be blowing my wallet on this all the time.

I always thought it would be cool if I could do the indie rock type thing - use budget gear, cheap radio shack mics, use the washing machine for an echo chamber and all those whacky home brewed things lo-fi musicians do. but as I got going, I realized that wasn't as cool of idea as it first sounded to me. I was always dissappointed with the sound.

So now I am looking for a respectable finished product when I record. You guys I'm sure have all read the "Home recordings dirty little secret" where it asks if you expected you could compete with the commercial studio's, from home. I believe you can. If not right now, very soon. The technology will be there, guarantee'd, as will the knowledge, and it's coming to us 100 x faster than ever before.

So when I sit down to record at my house, I want it fast, easy, and I want it to sound great. I believe my fastest way to achieve that is with 1 good quality channel.

So If I gotta spend +$1000 for a mic, +$1500 for a Pre, and +$10,000 on everything else, it's worth it to me, and I'll get better, faster results.

People find the money for their hobbies. Golf, Race Cars, Boats, Hunting -- whatever your into, people find the money, and usually spend quite a bit. I know Amateur race car drivers who will drop $35,000 just to have there car smashed up within 2 minutes of actually getting to use it.

I don't need the motorcycle, I don't need the Golf clubs...... so I think I'll buy me a $1500 LA-610.

 

[Pinky]

...all those whacky home brewed things lo-fi musicians do. but as I got going, I realized that wasn't as cool of idea as it first sounded to me. I was always dissappointed with the sound.

...So when I sit down to record at my house, I want it fast, easy, and I want it to sound great. I believe my fastest way to achieve that is with 1 good quality channel.

So If I gotta spend +$1000 for a mic, +$1500 for a Pre, and +$10,000 on everything else, it's worth it to me, and I'll get better, faster results.

I think you feel that better equipment guarantees better sounding recordings in less time, which is exactly opposite of my contention. There's tons of proof of this - take the recording posted in this thread as an example. I'm sure it was done relatively "fast", but it doesn't sound much better than anything I can achieve for 1/5 to 1/10 the cost. And it doesn't cost me 5 hours time to generate a vocal and acoustic recording. Production time would be an hour's tops on this track if it was my production (minus recording time/multiple takes if needed). That includes updating the website and myspace page.

It sounds to me (and forgive the leap in logic here) that YOU may have issues with using equipment that doesn't give you the exact sound you want out of the box, or enough physical knobs on the device to create that sound prior to capture on the computer. Taking something mediocre like grains of sand and shining it into a pearl is a skill, and not one that requires rocket science. It's still a pearl in the end, and with today's software innovations it doesn't take years to make the pearl either. Sure it cheapens the pearl's market value, but I can't help that. That's the price of progress. That's the price people pay for buying more gear than they need.

It reminds me of that old cliche - a fool and his money will soon be parted. If, after all the evidence you should need is presented, you still move forward on a wasteful and costly path, then you fit this cliche. That's the "hype" I made reference too a long time ago - good gear equates good recording (or fast computers, or safe backpacking, etc). When I say "you" I mean gear-heads in general. YOU may still be reachable through argument or financially able to spend thousands without consequence, so only you know whether this applies. I came to this forum to learn how to do good recordings on a shoe-string budget, and have succeeded like many others. I may be the lone voice in this thread, but I'm not the only person making great recordings without needing to spend thousands on gear.

 

[mattkw80]

Well, if your right - I'll save alot of money.

That PG mic cost what, $130 ?

I'm listening to your songs again right now. There is no question - your recordings are far better than mine, and sound really big.

But see things from my perspective for a second -- I've got 90% of this BBS, and all the big name company's telling me (and telling everyone) that we need to go buy Pro level Preamps and Mics.

Are you saying all Preamps and Mics that cost over $200 are unnecessary?

 

[Pinky]

Are you saying all Preamps and Mics that cost over $200 are unnecessary?

Not in the case of studio equipment. I'll never be able to get the perfection a studio engineer can achieve with top dollar, but I get close enough that my recordings sound good to me and most casual music listeners. But the leap from home-recording level gear (which is mostly sub $1,000, as a guestimated arbitrary figure) to studio quality gear is so great that the cost/performance ratio makes no sense to a home recording artist. If $100 for a preamp makes a difference, then $500 must mean 5 times the difference (?). I guess the question asked (or should be asked when buying the 'right' gear) is how much is too much? Why not just get platinum rims for my car?

You can listen to whomever reinforces the message you want to hear. Many on this forum have money to blow. Spending doesn't guarantee anything, and having a ton of experience spending money doesn't guarantee their suggestions are gospel or recordings are any good either. Look at all the banner ads. It would be detrimental for anyone close to the forum to suggest otherwise (they lose referral clicks, and potential future customers for those advertisers). There's always exceptions to this rule. I don't claim to know everyone or their gear. When the songs make it to the MP3 clinic area (one of the few sections I frequent anymore) I give them all the same listen and assume nothing with regards to their gear or experience. If it sounds good, I say so. If it doesn't, I make suggestions to what is 'wrong' which will sometimes then get into finding out what gear they're using so maybe we can figure out how to use it better. Most of the time I ask about gear just to eliminate possible causes. RARELY is it a matter of them using the wrong gear, 99% of the time it's a human error and that gets corrected through proper gear technique and retracking the affected parts.

One thing worth noting is the exception inherent in doing live drum kit recording. The mics, mic stands, cabling, mixer, necessary compressors, multichannel sound cards and such are costly when tallied. There's a certain inherent cost involved with recording a live kit. I'm dealing mostly with my personal experience which does not include doing live kit recording (I use canned or programmed drum tracks). There will be a price/performance ratio with this scenerio as well, but just getting the proper signal into the computer it's going to cost $1,000+ (and I would say much more than that to get one I would find acceptible due to the mics costing $70+ /ea).

 

[Rick Shepherd]

Pinky,

I think your recordings are good enough, meaning that they can also be better using better equipment. You can try arguing the point all day if you like, but you have only proven that your recording gear gives you results you and many others are satified with, including me

I am sure that my gear allows for better results than budget gear, but it does not ensure the results will be better. The bottom line is, you are happy with what you have to work with. Enjoy!

Also, you seem to have ignored the fact that high end preamps are going to give you better separation for tracking many different tracks. This is generally what I hear time and time again from the "pros". The thing is, more tracks with noisy gear are going to give your more noise and distortion as you stack them.

 

[NL5]

Then, to restate another overlooked (or ignored) point - this is a budget forum by design and intent. This is not a professional studio musician's forum. Once we start talking $1000+ gear (mixers, preamps, instruments, etc) we're getting into that high end category. My entire setup including instruments probably cost me less than $1,500.

I don't think that is true at all. I think YOU are the minority. I know very few musicians that have less than $1500 into their rig, let alone any recording gear. Furthermore, I think most musicians are like me, good enough is never good enough. They constantly strive for better.

Pinky,

I think your recordings are good enough, meaning that they can also be better using better equipment. You can try arguing the point all day if you like, but you have only proven that your recording gear gives you results you and many others are satified with, including me

I am sure that my gear allows for better results than budget gear, but it does not ensure the results will be better. The bottom line is, you are happy with what you have to work with. Enjoy!

Also, you seem to have ignored the fact that high end preamps are going to give you better separation for tracking many different tracks. This is generally what I hear time and time again from the "pros". The thing is, more tracks with noisy gear are going to give your more noise and distortion as you stack them.

Great post!

 

[Pinky]

I don't think that is true at all. I think YOU are the minority. I know very few musicians that have less than $1500 into their rig, let alone any recording gear. Furthermore, I think most musicians are like me, good enough is never good enough. They constantly strive for better.

"Better" in terms of what?

 

[Pinky]

...meaning that they can also be better using better equipment...

Also, you seem to have ignored the fact that high end preamps are going to give you better separation for tracking many different tracks. This is generally what I hear time and time again from the "pros". The thing is, more tracks with noisy gear are going to give your more noise and distortion as you stack them.

The amount of improvement I would gain from spending thousands of dollars is not enough to justify the expenditure. That's this ellusive cost/performance concept I keep mentioning. Especially when looking at upgrading existing equipment you need to constantly weigh this. There's always something better (with respect to specifications and build quality), but at what cost? When do those costs become excessive relative to the gains? That's an answer only someone's wallet can determine I suppose. A millionaire wouldn't blink at building a $100,000 home studio in a month's time. It would take me a lifetime of saving to build that same studio.

What I have been trying to explain is that the millionaire studio builder is the exception to the rule of the average homerecording.com artist. We're supposed to be here to learn and refine the fundamentals that allow us to get the best out of what we have, and most here (maybe not the most active or loudest members) do not have thousands in gear.

Preamps can help to ensure you have a clean signal through high gain (perfection requires power conditioning as well, which can be very expensive depending on the noise on the grid in your area). I've yet to encounter an issue layering multiple instruments. I have some songs with 5+ guitars playing at once, and some of them are cloned for stereo panning effects. I have yet to hit a ceiling with my low-fi tracks causing any type of compounding noise issue. While I suppose that's possible with really poor tracking, I have never heard of this being a real problem for anyone familiar with getting the cleanest capture from the highest gain signal they can. The background noise on anything I'm working with is like -50db or less, at least from the little I've made notice of it. I don't even use limiters. I should add that the power where I live is very clean, little or no AC background noise.

 

[mattkw80]

Pinky,

Although your songs are recorded (and performed) better than I can do, and I think they do sound very good, there still seems to me there is something that seperates you from what I hear on the radio, or on a CD.

I know your not claiming to be competing with the pro-level, and that you are saying it's a home hobby only, so your going to use the more affordable gear - but I'm not sure you'll be able to go much farther now that you've arrived where you have.

You've obviously got the skill, but what happens now that your skill is surpassing your quaility of gear?

Also - dropping $1500 on an LA-610 is not a a hugh issue to me. I'm not a rich guy by far, but I do have some play money to work with - and to me, there is value in joining the "Expensive Preamp Club".

I think it's peace of mind. I hear all these excellent recordings from guys on this bbs, and many of them are using Avalon, Manley, Meek, etc. etc. and I'm not. So now - in the back of my mind, any time somthing goes wrong, or doesn't "gel" properly, I'll be thinking "Oh man... it's cause I didn't spend $1000+ on my pre".

Have I been brainwashed? Maybe. But if I got $1500 to burn, I'm going to go for it - like I said - peace of mind for me.

I do think it's great that you are able to get good sounds from budget gear. If you read "Behind the Glass" there are 1 or 2 big name producers who really like quirky little stomp boxes, and yard sale electronics - and will use them on big label artsits, despite the multi-million dollar budget they have to work with.

Another consideration I don't think has been mentioned is the content being recorded. Your playing raw in your face stuff.

What if I need to record some wedding music, or a 4 piece jazz band?

Would your stuff cut it in a different scenario ?

 

[Pinky]

...but I'm not sure you'll be able to go much farther now that you've arrived where you have.

You've obviously got the skill, but what happens now that your skill is surpassing your quaility of gear?...

Another consideration I don't think has been mentioned is the content being recorded. Your playing raw in your face stuff.

What if I need to record some wedding music, or a 4 piece jazz band?

Would your stuff cut it in a different scenario ?

That's assuming I want to get any further than where I'm at. The sound I've achieved is all I really want. There's no illusions of becoming world famous from my computer room/home studio. If any fame were to happen I'll have a full studio by the hour handed to me by the record company. The quality of the music will be what stands out. The recording process is only the delivery mechanism for the ideas. To arrive at fame or professional success from here is pure luck and pretty much has been for a long time in the music industry (and what isn't made on luck requires selling out, so I would be counting on luck ).

I can do soft but it bores me. My interest in recording started with folk style comedy and has grown since. If I can't say it loud and proud, it probably isn't worth being said IMO. I rarely listen to soft music anymore, maybe early Neil Young or some of the Beatles is as soft as I get. Miles Davis "Kinda Blue" is probably the softest piece of music in my MP3 rotation. This water sinks its own level.

 

[mattkw80]

So for 2008...... you've got nothing your are saving up for in your studio?

 

[Zarathustra]

Do you guys remember the 1930's?

Back the 30's and 40's, recordings all sound like they're from tin cans. They're grainy, and were stored on a relatively short lasting and easily warped medium, records. And people still listen to that.

If your instruments actually sound accurate to their real life sound, I think you should sit back and be satisfied with it. Better sound quality is massively inferior to better musicianship.

 

[Pinky]

So for 2008...... you've got nothing your are saving up for in your studio?

A cheap bass. Maybe a Ibanez. I'm sick of playing my basslines on a 6 string and dropping it an octave. I haven't bought anything new for the studio in a year or two. I did buy some strings last month and a small $100 line 6 amp for portable jamming, but that's not really studio related.