I am happy with how my studio and recordings sound mainly for two reasons: 1. I never expected Shure 57s, PreSonus interface, and HP laptop to sound like a big time studio; and, 2. I record mostly "indie rock" (whatever that even means anymore), which (in my opinion) does not lend itself well to a perfectly polished commercial sound. I'm happy with where I'm at recording/studio-wise, but I'm certainly wanting to learn more, grow, expand my sound. If anything, I'm least satisfied with that last fact: that I've developed a particular "sound" that I can't seem to get away from when I try. Not surprising that my recordings are the same musicians, same gear, similar settings. Not interested in buying more gear to change my sound though -- I need to learn to do more with the gear I already have I guess.
Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret
- Thread starter Bob's Mods
- Start date
I was a songwriter long before I was into recording, and it kinda never occured to me that where I lived there might be a studio to record these songs I'd been writing. Turns out, there was three! Anyway, so one day I decided 'im gonna make an album' - I was about 16 at the time, so I went to the local guitar place, bought a Tascam 4 track, some tape from the local grocery place and a mic from a pawn shop.
I went home and started making my album. 10 years, 5 computers, three large piles of money, five women and about a squillion hours of messing about and I've finished it.
Wish I'd just looked up where the nearest studio was
In all seriousness though, learning to record music completely changed my life. I've since recorded bands who've been on MTV, in the charts and got decent deals and livings out of it. I spent 5 years recording anyone and everyone with progressively better and better results and eventually thought 'maybe I oughta charge for some of this work im doing?'. I'll never forget the first person apart from myself that I recorded. She couldnt sing or play, and I couldnt record her doing it...and I'm only slightly better now.
Whether I've got close to pro-studio results with my gear? Probably not too close, but good enough where I love what I've managed to make and I've just released a little album of stuff that I set out to get down all that time ago and it sounds pretty much how it sounded in my head. And isnt that the point?
I went home and started making my album. 10 years, 5 computers, three large piles of money, five women and about a squillion hours of messing about and I've finished it.
Wish I'd just looked up where the nearest studio was
In all seriousness though, learning to record music completely changed my life. I've since recorded bands who've been on MTV, in the charts and got decent deals and livings out of it. I spent 5 years recording anyone and everyone with progressively better and better results and eventually thought 'maybe I oughta charge for some of this work im doing?'. I'll never forget the first person apart from myself that I recorded. She couldnt sing or play, and I couldnt record her doing it...and I'm only slightly better now.
Whether I've got close to pro-studio results with my gear? Probably not too close, but good enough where I love what I've managed to make and I've just released a little album of stuff that I set out to get down all that time ago and it sounds pretty much how it sounded in my head. And isnt that the point?
jahey
Learning
I've played in bands for 20 plus years and finally last year decided to get a decent recording in the band room............I am learning the DAW thru experimentation and mic placement........I am now obsessed with the whole concept......will we ever make it commercial quality? Nope, but we are happy!!!
fullbirdmusic
New member
I think the short answer is we have to invest in ourselves and learn the gear we have inside and out. Then we have to re-learn how to abuse and re-use the same gear. To me, the key is getting your gear to do what you hear in your head, not buying 100 pieces of gear separately for each step of the way.
Seriously, I think learning a lot about a small amount of gear (mostly I mean software nowadays) is really going to help in making things sound more commercial. At least that's what I've learned along the way in my short time!
Seriously, I think learning a lot about a small amount of gear (mostly I mean software nowadays) is really going to help in making things sound more commercial. At least that's what I've learned along the way in my short time!
Amen! "that bullshit marketing is eaten up faster than a box of Oreos at a pot party." Still laughing my ass off over that one.
Honestly, I got so tired of the learning curve and my expectations not being met that I now send my songs out to a large studio and only do the vocals at home. I lost a LOT of money selling gear I had only bought a couple years prior. The vocals I do at home sounds great...the studio mixes them in and masters the track and it all comes out very well. I guess I just don't have the time or the patience to really put out some quality recordings at home. If only I knew then what I know now...woulda saved myself a lot of time and money, lol.
danhedonia
New member
Some thoughts:
* Todd Rundgren citation is spot on. Let's not forget where he did a lot of tracking: in his home. Some other musicians who have had (cough) moderate success with home recording include Moby and Fatboy Slim. Norman's work involves tons of sampling, but Moby gets some fantastic ambient sounds from a small room.
* Tracking and mixing are different. Post-production is where you can leverage the most from a great listening environment, board, etc. I used to work with a group of people who were affiliated with a semi-legendary studio that turned out several classic albums (Grammies, platinum sales, etc.). Can't tell you how often the tracking was done elsewhere (from coat closet 8 track 'studios' to practice facilities) and mixed down -- with great results -- at 'the big room.'
* Some of the 'pro' studios from the past, from a pure tech-spec standpoint, weren't all that. And some - were. It's hard to replicate a great room through a Neve whether you are home recording or on a 'commercial' budget but it doesn't gel. "Magic" is a term that lacks technical specificity, but until you are doing MASSIVE amounts of engineering and architectural design, there is a bit of luck as well as hard work and knowhow in setting up a good sounding room.
* Signal processing follows Morse's law for me. Gets twice as good for half as much ever few years, IMO. See: mixing vs. tracking. It is now very easy to get source tracking done in a home/amateur environment that yields sonic results as good as some top notch "famous commercial" studios of 20 years ago. Again - the difference comes in the final mixdown.
A lot of that is not just 'gear,' but that old friend 'skill.' A mixing engineer with great ears and ability can do amazing things. Most of those folks prefer using good gear and so have access to full studio set ups. BUT ... I've also seen platinum level producers do terrific work on home gear. And release it. And have people eat it up.
Whoever wrote about getting the most from what you have was right on. There is no substitute for knowledge and/or expertise, and it is the yin to the yang of gear's tech specs. They serve and enhance each other.
Give me a good engineer and a decent home studio and I can promise you a better recording than a doofus in a "pro environment."
* Todd Rundgren citation is spot on. Let's not forget where he did a lot of tracking: in his home. Some other musicians who have had (cough) moderate success with home recording include Moby and Fatboy Slim. Norman's work involves tons of sampling, but Moby gets some fantastic ambient sounds from a small room.
* Tracking and mixing are different. Post-production is where you can leverage the most from a great listening environment, board, etc. I used to work with a group of people who were affiliated with a semi-legendary studio that turned out several classic albums (Grammies, platinum sales, etc.). Can't tell you how often the tracking was done elsewhere (from coat closet 8 track 'studios' to practice facilities) and mixed down -- with great results -- at 'the big room.'
* Some of the 'pro' studios from the past, from a pure tech-spec standpoint, weren't all that. And some - were. It's hard to replicate a great room through a Neve whether you are home recording or on a 'commercial' budget but it doesn't gel. "Magic" is a term that lacks technical specificity, but until you are doing MASSIVE amounts of engineering and architectural design, there is a bit of luck as well as hard work and knowhow in setting up a good sounding room.
* Signal processing follows Morse's law for me. Gets twice as good for half as much ever few years, IMO. See: mixing vs. tracking. It is now very easy to get source tracking done in a home/amateur environment that yields sonic results as good as some top notch "famous commercial" studios of 20 years ago. Again - the difference comes in the final mixdown.
A lot of that is not just 'gear,' but that old friend 'skill.' A mixing engineer with great ears and ability can do amazing things. Most of those folks prefer using good gear and so have access to full studio set ups. BUT ... I've also seen platinum level producers do terrific work on home gear. And release it. And have people eat it up.
Whoever wrote about getting the most from what you have was right on. There is no substitute for knowledge and/or expertise, and it is the yin to the yang of gear's tech specs. They serve and enhance each other.
Give me a good engineer and a decent home studio and I can promise you a better recording than a doofus in a "pro environment."
I honestly think it's a total myth that you can't create commercially acceptable recordings in your own studio, you just have to really know what you are doing, and use high quality gear, a bad engineer blames his tools, and I admit when I first started off recording my own music, I would have been far better off going to a commercial studio, and frankly wish I did because the results would've been far better, but at THAT time, the low end cheap gear wasn't good enough to compete, now it's a very different story, it is ridiculously high quality, even medium priced gear that anyone can afford.
If you are good enough to recognize the Morse code roots in the 70's, 80's , productions. The dot, dot, dash style, and telegraph compression really made those productions. You know the gate is closed. You are free to play around in the environment with the sounds they provide.
Back to X A N A D U , Thanks Jeff.
I remember the commercial studio being a very tightly nailed together unit. It took them little to no time to get a great sound. You got the sound that they did, however. You could argue it and say it doesn't meet so and sos, but it was on your dime. They had some good tricks, and then it was all tape in analog.
Last edited:
BroKen_H
Re-member
I'm usually happy with my recordings.
Now,if I were to be serious (and that would take some serious money), I'd need a room with real acoustic dimensioning, treatment, and size. I would not still be in a 10x15x7.75 room with flat walls, ceiling and two complete computer desks occupying most of the space. Next, I'd use some better monitors and replace my cans (which are both old and having problems). I'd replace the computer as my AMD 8 core tends to bleed noise into the speakers (have had three of this processor and hooked them through my Rokit 8s, Bose setup and Pioneer home speakers and they all have the bleed). Don't hear the bleed through my Denons, though. Then I'd go beyond two sm57s and an MXL 2001. My DAW (Reason) would remain, as well as my instruments. But I would need to replace my piano (Yamahas don't use direct out and the headphone out has problems with recording).
Now,if I were to be serious (and that would take some serious money), I'd need a room with real acoustic dimensioning, treatment, and size. I would not still be in a 10x15x7.75 room with flat walls, ceiling and two complete computer desks occupying most of the space. Next, I'd use some better monitors and replace my cans (which are both old and having problems). I'd replace the computer as my AMD 8 core tends to bleed noise into the speakers (have had three of this processor and hooked them through my Rokit 8s, Bose setup and Pioneer home speakers and they all have the bleed). Don't hear the bleed through my Denons, though. Then I'd go beyond two sm57s and an MXL 2001. My DAW (Reason) would remain, as well as my instruments. But I would need to replace my piano (Yamahas don't use direct out and the headphone out has problems with recording).
BroKen_H
Re-member
Completely. I write, I midi, I record vocal and guitar tracks. I can't score, and used to use Cakewalk for that, but exporting the midi was a major pain. Then I mix, apply subtractive eq, apply effects, re-mix, pump the the master eq via the spectrum analyzer, apply mastering suite and voila...junk. 
Eh I ain't no pro, but the stuff that comes out are usually good enough for me to play live to.
Eh I ain't no pro, but the stuff that comes out are usually good enough for me to play live to.
BroKen_H
Re-member
I use a pair of ReDrum modules to house the entire drum set. Dual kick, Dual snare and 6 toms in one. Cymbals, high hats bell tree and dual tambourine setup in the other. My keyboard is permanently installed at the church, so I'm waiting on my house in Idaho to sell so I can get some new equipment (and possibly some nice plugins). I do trigger both sets manually, I don't use loops, but OctoRex looks interesting.
BroKen_H
Re-member
Have you gotten any of the refills or gadgets? I am looking seriously at Polar and I'd like to get the new hyper sample drums and piano. Those would work well for me, here in a 10x14 room with no place to record drums. The bass hypersample would be useless to me. I played professionally for 15 years and most people accuse me of midi'ing my bass lines, anyway.
You know, I've always wanted to make a system where small churches could have a P&W team in a box. Record intro and outro, chorus and verse and any bridge. Then just hit F1-F5 to add a chorus of bridge or whatever where ever you want it in the song. When the current part ends, the next piece automatically starts up without break or noise. That would work well for a lot of churches that have to use soundtracks, or just sing without a band because they have no musicians.
You know, I've always wanted to make a system where small churches could have a P&W team in a box. Record intro and outro, chorus and verse and any bridge. Then just hit F1-F5 to add a chorus of bridge or whatever where ever you want it in the song. When the current part ends, the next piece automatically starts up without break or noise. That would work well for a lot of churches that have to use soundtracks, or just sing without a band because they have no musicians.
I bought the Ryan Greene drums and I got the Abbey Roads keys for Christmas. Both refills are very nice.
The only RE I have is Kuassa Amplifikation Vermillion and I use it sparingly. I don't do much of any highly effected electric guitar tracks. Generally I just mic the Marshall.
I go straight thru the PH Balance interface for bass and all other real audio.
The only RE I have is Kuassa Amplifikation Vermillion and I use it sparingly. I don't do much of any highly effected electric guitar tracks. Generally I just mic the Marshall.
I go straight thru the PH Balance interface for bass and all other real audio.
I was lucky enough to spend time in a pro studio prior to getting myself set up initially, so i knew off the bat that what i would be doing was apples to oranges. I still had all of the frustrations that other newbies do though... my guitar sounds muddy, my mixes sound flat, I cant get a good drum sound, etc.
Actually the exact opposite! When I first started messing around with home recording stuff, I wasn't expecting much, but I've been blown away by the quality you can get from even a modest budget. I love the sound on my M-Audio Firewire Audiophile, matched up with a TFPro P3 preamp/compressor and a Rode NT1-A mic - the recordings I've got of my acoustic guitar have been simply amazing! The softsynths have also been incredibly good for the money.
Overall I was expecting a far worse sound than I've achieved, and recently that's also amazed me on live recordings - again with relatively modest equipment. DSP24 CPort, old Windows XP machine, Peavey mixer, generally low-mid range mics (Shure SM57's, SM58, cheap AKG drum mic set).
I would say the stuff you can produce at home DOES rival commercial recordings. It's not just about the sound quality, but also the mastering - or butchering. I've heard several commercial recordings where they seem to be brick-wall limited so much that it sounds noticeably distorted in a few places to me - fortunately those are rare. However, the quality of commercial recordings is varied - stuff on the ECM label is exceptional to my ears, and easily floors the crap churned out by the pop industry. Also, if you get a really good performance, the sound quality becomes less important - I don't really know many people that would put on classic albums from the 70's and complain about the sound quality when the performance is fantastic.