Open Discussion - Consumer gear vs. Pro gear

miroslav

Cosmic Cowboy
I wanted to bring this discussion to a new thread, rather than where it was started, so as not to mess up the topic in the other thread.
Dive in...let's kick it around here...this was the original comment.

It's the same reason why, when I listen to Robert Johnson recordings, they can still send chills down my spine today, even though they were recorded nearly 85 years ago. When I listen to those songs, I'm not thinking at all about the recording quality, because I'm immediately sucked in to the performances.

Of course, I understand that they were using the best recording technology they had at the time. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't do that. I'm just saying that I think it's a bit ridiculous when people argue about whether or not you can make "pro" recordings on a budget interface, etc., because the "converters are sh*t" or whatever. Or when they talk about "lossy mp3" formats vs. lossless. LOL

I would gladly pay someone $50 if they could tell a 128 kbps mp3 from a WAV (or other lossless) file 10 times out of 10 in a blind test.

The most important thing has and always will be what's happening in front of the microphone --- not behind it ... especially when you're talking about recording "natural-sounding" performances like a singer-songwriter, a choir, etc. I know that sometimes studio manipulation is part of what defines the "sound" of a record --- i.e., the Beatles, Brian Eno, etc. --- and that's a different bag, obviously.

I guess my overall point is that I think it's funny how people rag on and/or dismiss "consumer-grade" or "prosumer-grade" analog recorders because of the recording quality.

Think about this test: Let's say you have a song in digital wav format and you record it to a (properly calibrated, up to spec) consumer-grade reel to reel or even a Tascam cassette portastudio (again, in great shape). And then you played that recording back on the tape recorder. Do you think in a blind test most people would immediately be able to tell the difference between the original file and the tape? Because if the recording quality is as crappy as most people make it sound, the difference should be utterly obvious, shouldn't it?

I would be willing to bet that many people --- the majority even --- would not get it right 100% of the time. And I'd also be willing to bet that many of the folks who would immediately say "Yes, of course I'd be able to tell!" have probably never even used a cassette 4-track or consumer-grade R2R and are just parroting what they've heard other people say.

I did this test myself when I first got my Sony TC-530 (from 1967). And I hadn't even overhauled the machine (recapped, checked bias, alignment, etc.). All I did was clean the tape path --- maybe demag the heads (I can't remember). In other words, this was just a test I did at the onset to test the machine's functionality to see if I could keep it or needed to return it.

And I couldn't tell the difference between the digital file and the tape ... literally. Now, maybe lots of others have much better hearing than I do, but I doubt it's that much better.

And so my point is, if that's the case, then the recorders are more than doing their job. And any "crappy" sound that comes from these machines in other scenarios is not the fault of the recorder but rather the recordist.
 
I would gladly pay someone $50 if they could tell a 128 kbps mp3 from a WAV (or other lossless) file 10 times out of 10 in a blind test.

Did you want to send me a check...or just PayPal me? :)

I know you want to believe that a lot of stuff doesn't matter, and you would be right in some cases...but to suggest that "IF" people can't tell 10-out-of-10 times whether something was done on consumer gear VS. pro gear...that it somehow disqualifies the value of pro gear (or suggests that it doesn't matter)...
...with all due respect, that's just self-serving denial.

If you just go on the technical specs, you can't deny the quality differences...but AFA hearing the differences, I know a lot of audio people can....even if they may be very small differences.
If you want to grab some guy with earbuds off the sidewalk, and ask if he can tell which audio clip was done on a consumer tape deck vs. pro deck...
...I'm sure he won't even know what to listen for...but in the studio environment, critical listening isn't about simply being entertained...."I like this song" or "I don't like this song"....rather it IS about the smallest details, which can combine into a cumulative effect.

Nothing wrong with using consumer gear...but it seems like your argument is that there's not real point going beyond it, because someone may not hear the difference 10-out-of-10 times, or whatever.
 
A couple of interesting observations:

Even at 67, with tinnitus that comes and goes with the sinus issues, and a loss of top end hearing, I can hear the difference between 128K MP3 and a CD spec wave file. This seems to be especially true on a good set of headphones. I DEFINITELY hear the difference between a cassette and CD, and I used to hear the differences between R2R at 7 1/2IPS and CD. I can't say that today, because I haven't used a R2R for anything in at least 10 years.

We have an innate ability to tune things out. After I started recovering my ruined vinyl records, I listened to them via my Rega>AudioSource>Bryston>IMF system, and at the same time, ran the tape output to my Tascam>PC, where I did recordings at 88K/24bit. When I listened to the albums, I heard the cracks and pops, but pretty much ignored them. When I played the digital recordings I had just made, the first thing that came to mind was
"what would be the best clip/pop filter to use on this?" The digital recording sound exactly like the album, but because we have come to expect digital to be totally silent, such imperfections stand out like a sore thumb. I even cued up a copy of the Direct to Disc album Growing Up In a Hollywood Town again, and compared the two directly. All the impact from the drums was there, dynamic range was intact. I couldn't tell the difference. The digital copy reproduced the analog disc perfectly, warts and all. Yet there are people who swear that vinyl is inherently better and that digital can't measure up.

Not being around "pro gear" anymore, I really can't judge the differences. It would be hard to say if it was the Neve console, the 24 track 2" tape deck, the Neumann U87 mic, the great room, or the sheer skill of the engineer/producer/artist that made a particular recording great. Given the same engineer/artist, etc and the same room, but giving them a Warm Audio WA47Jr and a Scarlett running into Reaper, would they be able to create that same recording? Would it be 50% there, or 99.99% there? That's hard to say. I'm sure someone has done something like this somewhere. I'll discount the various mic pre's and compressors that obviously color the sound. That's the same as applying EQ, etc to a signal.

None of the sound properties are relevant when it comes to workflow. From an ergonomic perspective, recording equipment is where it is because of 80 years of refinement. Compare the original Sun and Motown studios with even modest commercial studios today. Those places made legendary recordings with relatively modest (and antiquated) gear by today's standards. I would love to have a nice big room, a 24 or 32 track console feeding pairs of B&W Diamonds and Genelecs for monitoring, but that's just not happening. Instead, I have to work with the tools I have, which are the Tascam / Reaper, Zoom R24 and Yamaha AW1600. The workflow isn't the same but it works.

Sometimes I wonder what things would have sounded like if Berry Gordy had used something as common as a Tascam DP32 or Zoom R24. Would the Supremes and Temptations had those wonderful hit records? I'm guessing they would have. They might have sounded a LOT better.
 
I'm outside right now applying polyurethane to my acoustic panel frames...:facepalm:...almost done...and while working, this thought came to mind, so I wanted to post it, but then I'll be gone for awhile, back to my work. :D

I agree that odds are that the average person would not pick 10-out-of-10 times correctly, the difference between 128 and WAV versions, and I'm assuming we are talking about those 10 tries being with 10 different sources/clips.

OK...so let's say they pick 7 right, 3 wrong...or make it 5 right...or even 3 right...or let's say that everyone always picks the same one source correctly, being able to hear an obvious difference between its 128 and WAV versions....but you've decided that 128 is "good enough".

Maybe that seems like it supports the idea that high quality and/or pro-level gear doesn't matter all THAT much...but then my question is this...
...what if that one file that is noticeably crappy at 128...what if it's one of your songs, one of your mixes...?
Would that still be acceptable to you...?

Point being...you can live in that "it might not matter" world, and get away with it on many occasions, but when it really needs to matter, and you can't get past your gear limitations...what then?

If people are happy with *whatever* rig or quality they are getting....that's cool...:cool:...enjoy yourself, but to imply that all those guys in Nashville, LA, NY and other major studio hubs are just wasting their time because it really doesn't matter, and won't be noticeable 10-out-of-10 times...well, I think that's a somewhat misguided notion, and often it serves to justify where you have set your own bar.
Oh...and I know this is "just a home rec" forum...but that shouldn't put any limitations on how far people could/would raise the bar, and that even 1-out-of-10 noticeable, less than decent quality audio files, DOES matter.
 
TalismanRich said:
Even at 67, with tinnitus that comes and goes with the sinus issues, and a loss of top end hearing, I can hear the difference between 128K MP3 and a CD spec wave file. This seems to be especially true on a good set of headphones. I DEFINITELY hear the difference between a cassette and CD, and I used to hear the differences between R2R at 7 1/2IPS and CD. I can't say that today, because I haven't used a R2R for anything in at least 10 years.

People have made the claim that often people with hearing damage can pick out miniscule details better. From what we know about what we can hear, I don't think most people realize how well our ears and brains are wired to do that. I was reading a discussion where Bob Ohlsson was talking about a guitar player with blown out ears in his mastering room that could reliably pick out the sound of different dithers on 24 bit material, while he couldn't.

TalismanRich said:
We have an innate ability to tune things out.

Yup. The brain acts as a filter. While we have the ability to interpret a vast amount of detail, the focus at any given time is usually narrow. We can listen to a piece of music repeatedly and pick out different details each time, and be unaware of other details or artifacts. Once we find something or have it pointed out to us it can be hard to not hear.
 
Defining your goals is an important consideration. Pro quality gear exists at a very high standard so as to not get in the way. If you're hired to capture and produce someone's art I think there's an expectation to do that in the best possible way. If you're just using a home setup for songwriting or demos, the tools we have now are a lot better and less expensive than what we had 30 or 40 years ago. Having a finished product that translates as well as it can through all types of broadcast and playback systems isn't always a thing that your career hinges on.

Generally the way the recording chain works, the thing that comes next is less critical than the thing that came before. There's commercial releases out there that were done on cassette recorders. A great capture of a great performance of a great song in a great room is critical. I think it's fair to say that stunning fidelity isn't necessarily the thing that makes you tap your toes, but it's a bit of a stretch to say a portastudio is just as good as Ampex.

Professional recording is about having a team of production and technical support there to focus on the minute details so the artist only has to focus on performance. The level of quality you might get from having top shelf stuff at your disposal is far from the biggest limiting factor. You could still get great results with modest gear that costs a fraction of a full blown studio, but you'll work harder for it. At the end of the day there's still a difference between a Zoom and an API console into 6 grand worth of converters. For most of us the Zoom is a better fit to our needs.
 
Defining your goals is an important consideration. Pro quality gear exists at a very high standard so as to not get in the way. If you're hired to capture and produce someone's art I think there's an expectation to do that in the best possible way. If you're just using a home setup for songwriting or demos, the tools we have now are a lot better and less expensive than what we had 30 or 40 years ago. Having a finished product that translates as well as it can through all types of broadcast and playback systems isn't always a thing that your career hinges on.

Generally the way the recording chain works, the thing that comes next is less critical than the thing that came before. There's commercial releases out there that were done on cassette recorders. A great capture of a great performance of a great song in a great room is critical. I think it's fair to say that stunning fidelity isn't necessarily the thing that makes you tap your toes, but it's a bit of a stretch to say a portastudio is just as good as Ampex.

Professional recording is about having a team of production and technical support there to focus on the minute details so the artist only has to focus on performance. The level of quality you might get from having top shelf stuff at your disposal is far from the biggest limiting factor. You could still get great results with modest gear that costs a fraction of a full blown studio, but you'll work harder for it. At the end of the day there's still a difference between a Zoom and an API console into 6 grand worth of converters. For most of us the Zoom is a better fit to our needs.

While this is probably true it does not IMHO mean it's in some way pointless to aspire to better fidelity or usability or whatever just because one is recording at home. For years Ol mr andy scheps had a full recording studio at his home and he was neither the first nor the last.

I do agree that having modest equipment should not deter anyone from making music, but to champion mediocrity is just as pointless as saying you have to empty your bank account. We all know it's about the song and the performance, but we also know about lots of hits that the best takes were often scratch takes and kept no matter what the faults. But if the equipment was high quality, it just makes it that much more usable and easier to mix.
 
...it does not IMHO mean it's in some way pointless to aspire to better fidelity or usability or whatever just because one is recording at home.

Right.

I always hate it when on home rec forums someone runs out of argument about audio quality...and resorts to saying, "It's only home recording" or some such thing...as though home recording goals and expectations should only aim so high, and also that the gear only needs to meet some lower "home recording" level.
 
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's a waste of time or money to invest in pro gear because most people can't hear the difference all the time. I just meant that, in my opinion, people stress the "recording quality" a little too much on this site and in other home recording circles.

In my opinion, I don't think the recorder is usually as much to blame for someone's subpar results as many people would have you believe. In other words, I think many pieces of gear get an undeservedly bad rap.

For example, I would bet my house that --- assuming they had access to all the same pro outboard gear/mics/instruments/talent/etc. they normally use --- a real pro engineer/producer could record a live in-studio performance onto a consumer-grade pro reel machine (like my old Sony TC-530) and get phenomenal results.

I would bet my house that, if they did that and came and posted the song here in the clinic --- and didn't reveal anything about the gear used --- not one person would say something like "What'd you do? Record this on a crappy consumer-grade reel to reel? It sounds like sh*te!"

In fact, I bet just the opposite would happen. Sure, people would make comments about the mix, because they always do, and you can't please everyone. But I don't think anyone would suspect it was recorded with a lowly consumer-grade machine.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. But again, I would be willing to bet my house on it. :)

Anyway, like I said, I'm not dogging quality gear. I just like to stick up for the little guy and say --- especially to those who have no experience with them --- those machines can actually sound pretty darn good if you give them a chance (i.e., know what you're doing and feed them quality source!).
 
Agree with all that's said here - your recording gear doesn't *really* limit what the overall music and performance.

I'm sure one time or another we chased the next 'upgrade' when it comes to the gear in our studios and that's fine, it brings excitement and change and a sense of progress. The problem I had was when I acquired so much new gear that it actually got in the way of recording the music or simply took away from the recording. When you have to spend your time switching things in your studio to accommodate the new gear or having to change your workflow or putting compression on the guitar just because you got a new compressor that everyone says sounds great on acoustic guitars.

For me it's a constant juggle between changing things up gear wise and accepting what I have to get the songs and recordings finished. That's the difference between pro studios and home studios, the home studio is usually the same guy making the music as recording it so if that guy spends all their time and money on recording side of things then they will quickly run out of music to record, or lose focus on their songwriting/performance.

I like to think of the example of Sufjan Stevens' Illinois album, self recorded on a Roland VS880 at 16bit 32kHz with a SM57 and an AKG C1000s but the final product is such a great listening experience hearing that album from start to finish. You can tell a lot of time, focus and energy was put into the songwriting, arrangements and performances of those songs.
 
Gtoboy said:
While this is probably true it does not IMHO mean it's in some way pointless to aspire to better fidelity or usability or whatever just because one is recording at home.

Depends on the goal. If you're making something you intend to release as a finished product, I agree. If inspiration strikes and you just want to get an idea down, I usually like to just plug in and hit record as quickly as possible while it's fresh. Futzing with minutiae could be counter to that goal. A rough demo doesn't need to be an elaborate production in many cases.
 
... people stress the "recording quality" a little too much on this site and in other home recording circles.

In my opinion, I don't think the recorder is usually as much to blame for someone's subpar results as many people would have you believe. In other words, I think many pieces of gear get an undeservedly bad rap.

... a real pro engineer/producer could record a live in-studio performance onto a consumer-grade pro reel machine (like my old Sony TC-530) and get phenomenal results.

Well...if you're hearing them stress recording quality a lot on home rec sites...then maybe it matters enough. ;)

AFA a pro getting *better* results than you or me using the same equipment, I'm sure that's more to do with their WIDE experience than all of us put together...rather than that consumer equipment suddenly performing beyond its specs, just because a pro is using it. A 4-track cassette portastudio is going to have the exact same sound quality in your hands as in a pro's...all other things being equal...but that's just it, in a pro production, all other things are NOT going to be equal, because a pro knows more about recording production, so maybe they can make that lower grade gear appear to sound better than you or I will, just by how they place mics, or how much this-n-that they use, and it's not that the consumer gear is actually sounding better...but put some pro gear in their hands, and all bets are off...there's no comparison, which is why pros generally use pro gear, not consumer gear.

I also think it's incorrect to consider what gear quality you are going to go with...by how well someone is going to recognize the gear you used and then pass judgment.
I just think that if you're buying a piece of gear and you're thinking "Hmm, I know this isn't considered a high quality, pro item...but will anyone really notice or care?"...well then, you're already answering the questions in your head about the gear. :)

Also...if you want to talk about things people stress on home rec sites that are somewhat bothersome...one of them for me is how whatever gear they are using, it's somehow as good as it needs to be....and I don't mean "for them", where they acknowledge that it's not the greatest, but they don't care...but rather where they feel it's as good as it needs to be for the same pro results that pros can get with pro gear...and that it's only a matter of them overcoming their gear limitations by learning how to use it better...as though the underlying specs and build quality will simply yield to their improved skills.

I know home rec means different things to a lot of people...and probably these days, the majority of people with a home studio have some fairly modest setup, for most it's 90% a software studio, and it's good enough "for them".
That said...I also know that many pros have stepped into a home recording setup...many artists who have involved home studios...and also those serious hobbyists who have invested deeper into their home studios, not much different than how the guy down the street from you builds high-end race cars in his garage, mostly for his fun.

So I just don't like the direct or indirect dumbing-down of "home" recording, especially these days. 30-40 years ago, home recording was just dirt scratching, but these days, it's quite a serious, involved hobby or side gig, and it's happening in home spare bedrooms, garages, basements and even purpose built home studios.
Home recording is a LOT different now...than it was when this Home Recording website was started.
 
Last edited:
I'm a firm believer in the music setting the quality. I heard a tape from the 50s, Buddy Holly actually. I remember thinking how the double bass sounded like a modern double bass recording and the drums were like a modern kit. Listening to the many recordings on Spotify of the same song, none of them sounded like this original copy of a master. When it listen to some tracks of mine on Spotify from 20 years ago, they mix in with the latest ones pretty well, but that's because of the content. Quality seems for my music very similar now to what it was in the 90s, but somehow today's is mixed better, but quality? I don't find a huge difference.
 
In a way, home recording is a lot like home video. You don't need a 70mm Panaflex camera to shoot Aunt Mildred's 95th birthday party, or even a 4K Panasonic HC1000. For me to use a high performance film or professional 4K video camera would still get the same result as using a Handycam. I'm just not that good at it. At the same time, you probably wouldn't choose an I-phone or a $300 Handycam to shoot The Godfather. Even if you had the sets, with the lighting and the actors, you won't have the degree of control that you have with the pro equipment. But I bet Coppola would do a pretty fair job if that's what someone gave him and said "shoot me a movie".

I've seen quite a few really good videos shot with Iphones. They easily matched or exceeded the quality of videos broadcast on MTV 30 years ago (yeah, they actually used to play music videos on MTV back then!).

In general, the bar has been raised for the whole process. Consumer and prosumer grade equipment really is lightyears ahead of what we had 50 years ago, and for about 1/10 the price. Consider that the Tascam 80-8 and a Model 5 mixer was about $4-5000 when it came out. A 388 was about $3000. That's not even full-on pro gear, and it was 30 years ago. With today's systems, you could easily be under $1000 for comparable capability, and I would say better quality.

I don't debate that pro gear has better capabilities than consumer gear. It should also have better performance. For the money spent, it darn well better have it.
 
Okay, firstly I think we all agree that getting a recording is the primary thing to focus on. That's what we all start out to achieve. The gear is necessarily secondary and I believe we all agree on that also.

However, as a recordist of any kind, there are (as mentioned) different goals. Also, as a recordist, there is a learning process. And across both the goal and the learning is the arc we each choose as far as what we want to know and do.


I happen to like all sorts of gear, even junk has it's purpose IMO. As has also been pointed out, what one does with it is what matters. But during this journey many of get to know all of our equipment in depth and we begin to understand each pieces limitations. There is a quote that I like "I've done so much with so little for so long, that now I can do anything with nothing" . It's a great "can do" sentiment that I feel we should all adopt. But when you have pushed past your limitations and made greatness with less competent equipment , eventually there is a point where some of us ask "What more can I achieve? What am I not able to do yet, and do I feel another piece will allow me to reach this new goal? Or am I fine with what I am doing?


It's not IMO a "better" or "worse" recording division to me, but rather one in which, again, the goal and the desire for a specific result determine gear choice.
 
AFA a pro getting *better* results than you or me using the same equipment, I'm sure that's more to do with their WIDE experience than all of us put together...rather than that consumer equipment suddenly performing beyond its specs, just because a pro is using it. A 4-track cassette portastudio is going to have the exact same sound quality in your hands as in a pro's...all other things being equal...but that's just it, in a pro production, all other things are NOT going to be equal, because a pro knows more about recording production, so maybe they can make that lower grade gear appear to sound better than you or I will, just by how they place mics, or how much this-n-that they use, and it's not that the consumer gear is actually sounding better...but put some pro gear in their hands, and all bets are off...there's no comparison, which is why pros generally use pro gear, not consumer gear.

This is my point. There's no way to make a recorder sound better than it's possible to make it sound. So if a 4-track recorder or consumer reel machine is capable of sounding "great" in the hands of a pro engineer, then it's capable of sounding "great," period.

To turn the italicized part of the quote around, just because someone with poor recording skills and/or poor auxiliary equipment creates a bad-sounding recording on a cassette 4-track, it doesn't mean the recorder is all of the sudden bad-sounding.

Of course pro engineers use pro equipment. Everyone generally wants the best quality tools they can afford in most scenarios. But wouldn't you agree that there's a quality threshold with regard to any set of tools?

In other words, you might not be able to handle a lot of jobs with a $1 screwdriver you bought from the dollar store before it gives out. But, generally speaking, a $10 screwdriver you buy at a home improvement store will likely do the job just fine for a lifetime (assuming you don't abuse it). Now, is the guy next door gonna build a better table than you---all other things equal---because he has a $150 screwdriver? I think most people would say no.

The same could be said for audio gear. A lot of people can hear the difference in sound quality between a $30 Chinese condenser mic and a $3K Neumann (although many laymen may not be able to at first until they know what to listen for), but what about comparing a $3K mic with a $30K mic? Does the $30K mic sound "better" than the $3K one? Or does it just sound different? Would anyone argue that it's not possible to make a pro recording with a $3K Neumann?

What about a $500 mic for studio vocals like an Avantone CV-12? Taylor Swift has recorded with it on several of her albums, so it's clearly capable of producing "professional" results.

What about a $400 dynamic mic for studio vocals like the Shure SM7B (Michael Jackson) or EV RE-20 (Thom Yorke)?

What about a $100 dynamic for studio vocals like a Shure SM57/58 (John Lennon, Billy Idol, Rod Stewart, The Killers, RHCP)?

My whole point I've been laboring to make---poorly it seems---is that, in my humble opinion --- and for my ears --- these lowly prosumer/consumer machines are much closer to this quality threshold (if not above if some cases) than most people give them credit for.

Of course a 2" Studer has better specs than a Tascam 4-track, and of course it's capable of higher fidelity. No one is arguing that. And no one is arguing that you don't need a Studer machine because we have Tascam 4-tracks that already sound good enough.

I'm just saying that, IMO, these machines sound pretty dang good to me, whereas many other people make it sound as though if they only had a 4-track to record on, they wouldn't bother recording at all because it would sound like trash.

Many people know that Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska was recorded on a Tascam 144 with two SM57 mics. And lots of analog folks love to champion that album as "proof" of what cassette 4-tracks can do. That's kind of funny to me because I don't think that album sounds very good at all. I like the album, because I like the songs and performances, but as far as recording quality, it's filled with issues, IMO. But this makes total sense when you think about it, because, although they did the best they could in the mastering stage with pro equipment:
1) Bruce didn't really know what he was doing when he recorded it. He had just gotten the machine and had very little recording/engineering experience (of his own) when he recorded it.
2) He did not intend for it to be anything other than a demo when he recorded it.
3) He mixed it down onto a boombox (literally) that had once fallen into a river and been pulled out. The heads hadn't even been cleaned or anything. Again, it was only meant to be a demo, so he didn't care.

So when people look to Nebraska for an example of the quality capable on a 4-track cassette, they're looking in the wrong direction. The Tascam 144 machine is capable --- in the right hands --- of far better sound quality than Nebraska. Just as a 2" Studer or a Pro Tools rig with $30K converters is capable of absolute shite in the wrong hands. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy because people start off on those 4-track machines when they're inexperienced and bad at a lot of other things, and the machines never get the chance to show what they can do.

Here's an analogy: Roger Federer uses a $350 racket (I actually thought it would cost a lot more than that ... although his strings are crazy expensive), but he didn't start off on one. He probably started on a $10 special. As he got better, he upgraded his gear, just like most people do. Now, if you were to give him the $10 special again, would he all of the sudden start playing at the level he did when he originally used that racket? Of course not. I would argue that he would still probably even be able to compete on the pro circuit, though not at quite the same level.

And so my whole point is that I think these lowly machines can do a lot better than people give them credit for. That's all I'm trying to say.
 
One thing I do agree on...that "Nebraska" often used as an example of a "great" recording on a 4-track cassette, is funny...because you're right, it doesn't *sound* all that good at all. Critics focused on the song content, not the sound quality...which are two different things.

So if a 4-track recorder or consumer reel machine is capable of sounding "great" in the hands of a pro engineer, then it's capable of sounding "great," period.

You're kinda missing my point. I never said the consumer reel machine is capable of sounding "great" in the hands of a pro. I said it may "appear" that way to someone...like "IF" a pro uses a piece of low-end gear, that it appears to prove you don't need anything better...but there are many other aspects to a pro production that go well beyond that one piece of gear...all the other gear, the room, the monitoring chain...and yes, the skill too.
No pro has ever gone into someone's limited home studio and churned out a pro production on some basic consumer gear...that I am aware of.

Here's the thing...that entire concept, that is often used on home rec forums ("pro's can take someone's low-end gear and make it sound great") is a fallacy...it's a figment of the home recorder's imagination.
Why...?...because pros in general don't really use low-end gear to make recordings, on the whole...and people are betting on "IF"...but it's not anything that really happens.
People make that assumption that any gear will sound "pro" in the hands of a pro... because it helps them eliminate the gear from their own equations...and they think it's only a matter of time to develop some pro skills, and their gear will magically transform and start providing pro results.

TBH...it's not easy to develop pro skills if you never have access to pro gear...which is way most top engineers that started out with some basic home rec setup...kept raising the bar with their gear, along with their skills.
The two go hand-in-hand...so you're right, "there's a quality threshold with regard to any set of tools"...and you will not exceed that threshold, which is why you need to improve the tools to raise the threshold higher.

Top pros operate at the "state of the art"...and when the threshold is raised...they upgrade their tools to the new state of the art. It may seem like nothing more than a mindless gear chase to some...but it's not.
I think typical home rec people should follow that mindset as much as possible, as their budget permit with their home studio rigs...rather than make assumptions about what a pro could do "IF" they used that same home studio rig.

So that's all I am and was saying from back in the other thread...why drop $2k-$3k on a consumer grade deck...when a pro deck is not much more.
Raise the bar...and then raise it again if possible.
 
One thing I do agree on...that "Nebraska" often used as an example of a "great" recording on a 4-track cassette...because you're right, it doesn't *sound* all that good at all. Critics focused on the song content, not the sound quality...which are two different thing.



You're kinda missing my point. I never said the consumer reel machine is capable of sounding "great" in the hands of a pro. I said it may "appear" that way someone. Like "IF" a pro uses a piece of low-end gear, it proves you don't need anything more...but there are many other aspects to a pro production that go well beyond that one piece of gear...all the other gear, the room, the monitoring chain...and yes, the skill too.
No pro has ever gone into someone's limited home studio and churned out a pro production on some basic consumer gear, that I am aware of.

Here's the thing...that entire concept, that is often used on home rec forums ("pro's can take someone's low-end gear and make it sound great") is a fallacy...it's a figment of the home recorder's imagination.
Why...?...because pros in general don't really use low-end gear to make recordings, on the whole.

People make that assumption that any gear will sound "pro" in the hands of a pro... because it helps them eliminate the gear from their own equations...and they think it's only a matter of time to develop some pro skills, and their gear will magically transform and start providing pro results.

TBH...it's not easy to develop pro skills if you never have access to pro gear...which is way most top engineers that started out with some basic home rec setup...kept raising the bar with their gear, along with their skills.
The two go hand-in-hand...so you're right, "there's a quality threshold with regard to any set of tools"...and you will not exceed that threshold, which is why you need to improve the tools to raise the threshold higher.
Top pros operate at the "state of the art"...and when the threshold is raised...they upgrade their tools to the new state of the art. It may seem like nothing more than a mindless gear chase to some...but it's not.

It may be true that a pro engineer hasn't churned out a "pro" product in a budget studio. I don't know for sure. But that doesn't even matter to me. I myself have recorded things on a 4-track cassette that sound good enough to pass for a "pro" recording, IMHO. And I'm hardly a pro engineer! "Pro" is pretty subjective, to be honest.

However, I have seen exhibition matches in tennis where the players used old-fashioned rackets and/or beginner rackets for fun, and the level of play was still pretty outstanding. :)

I don't know if "state of the art" is what this is about. What exactly is "state of the art?" I imagine that most people nowadays think that we pretty much have the fidelity thing worked out with digital audio, yes? You hear people say, "Yeah, early digital kind of sucked, but now, you can't argue with the results."

But what do you think we'll be saying 30 years from now? Will we look back at our current "state of the art" and think it's crap compared to what's around then?

You yourself are not using state of the art when you use your Otari 2" machine (I think it's an Otari?). You're using technology that's over 30 years old. But I assume that you believe it's capable of "pro" recordings, right? (I certainly do.)

With regard to your very last statement, I would say that's entirely subjective and depends on the user. Yes, if you want to produce a song like the new T-Pain hit, then yeah, you're going to need something closer to the state of the art. But if you want to record something like an Americana track or the Sex Pistols or any number of other things, you absolutely do not need state of the art equipment.
 
Never said I was using all state of the art...or that home rec people need to chase after it....just saying that audio gear isn't some magical thing that changes dramatically based on how skilled you get. It will reach that threshold, that you noted...and then no further....so if you want to go further, you need to raise the bar.
That has nothing to do with what makes someone happy/satisfied with their setup...or how good they think it is, to them. Folks can keep it as simple and basic as they like...just don't make assumptions that the gear can't handicap you as long as you improve your skills

Did you ever buy one of those $9.99 screwdriver packs because it was a great deal...and they worked very well for awhile, and then the heads got all worn down because it was cheap metal, poorly made...hence the $9.99
You won't find a commercial construction guy using a cheap set of tools that have a threshold that is BELOW what a pro needs.
Same thing applies to audio gear.

Oh...AFA my Otari...yes, it's old, the same as other large format decks of the era...which kinda ended not long after those decks were manufactured.
A high-end Studer from the same period might have more bells-n-whistles, but otherwise, at the time, all those decks were at or close to the state of the art for tape recorders.
Otari put out a couple of models after the MX80...but some people think the MX80 is more useful because it's a workhorse...not a lot of bells-n-whistles, just the basics, but runs strong, and often outlasts some of the later models.
There have been no new decks since those days...so tape recording state of the art has not improved...there's not much to switch to, other than different flavors.

That 388 you use was made at the same time roughly as my MX80...so even back then, side-by-side...one was a consumer grade, the other a pro grade.
I don't say that to sound snobby...and I have had consumer and pro-sumer grade decks, like my Fostex G16... but I still consider my switch to the Otari MX80 a really good upgrade to a pro-level deck....which it was. I wouldn't go back to a Fostex G16 if the Otari had a terminal breakdown...I would look for another MX80 or similar.

I've been upgrading a lot of other gear over the years...and TBH, now most of it can stand up to pro use...now I have the gear to help me push my skills further...or another way of looking at it...I have gear that won't stand in the way. :)
Prior to many upgrades...even I, with my less than pro skills, could tell that some of my gear had come to that equipment threshold, and I could hear and see that it wasn't going to let me go any further. I never thought if I just keep improving my skills, the gear won't matter.
 
Here's a thought experiment:

Let's say you're in a pro studio and you're going to record a band live to two-track stereo. You have all the top-end mics, instruments, and outboard gear you want, and you have pro engineers/producers to set it all up and get a great sound. You have top-notch musicians --- like Union Station or something --- and everyone knows what they're doing all around. You can use as many channels on the Neve (or SSL or whatever) mixer you want, any amount of outboard gear processing, etc. The only stipulation is that, at the of the line, you're recording to just two tracks.

And let's say you split the outputs of the mixer and send it to two different destinations:
1) A fully pro digital rig with the best converters possible
2) A nice late 60s consumer reel to reel machine, like a nice Sony or Akai (that's operating at full spec) running at 7.5 ips or 15 ips (some of them do).

And then you recorded the tune.

What do you honestly think the result would be? I imagine the digital version would have some more upper highs. They may be too high for me to even hear anymore at 48 ... but maybe not. There may be some difference in the low end.

I would imagine that most people with a trained ear (musicians or engineers, etc.) would be able to tell the two apart. I would think some laymen would be able to, but probably not all, especially if you didn't tell them specific things to listen for.

But, what if someone only listened to the reel to reel version. Remember, this song was performed by top-notch musicians and recorded by top-notch engineers with top-notch front-end equipment.

Do you think they'd say it didn't sound professional? I don't
Would they question what medium it was recorded on? I don't think most would
Would they think it sounded great? I think most would say yes
Do you think they'd be surprised to hear that it was recorded on a consumer-grade reel to reel? I think most would for sure

I'm curious to hear your answers.
 
Back
Top