Most Important Studio Asset!

I see you've cleaned your site up somewhat, that's an improvement at least.

But I gotta be honest, first, when you try to hawk an article on room acoustics here that tells us nothing other than to provide three links to articles that actually DO tell us something and a loooooooong chart that could easily be replaced with a single line example of an example frequency without losing any information relevant to the article, you're going to get a few jabs. Especially since Ethan Winer, the owner of RealTraps, and the guy who wrote the real article that you link to is here.

Second, you're spamming this in the third person again. If you would just put the words "I wrote this article" or "I have added this to my website", it would be at leat more honest. It would also be more honest if this were actually a new article; but it was already there the last time you tried advertising the website here.

Third, the menu structure and page header information are still all wrong.

Fourth, I hope you're using that picture of that mastering suite with the permission of the mastering house you took the pic from. These guys are notorious for policing that because they have been ripped off so many times in that regard. Again, just check with some of the pro MEs that hang out here like Massive Master or Masteringhouse.

Fifth, with this incredibly badly worded sentence:

"Independent records labels are usually more profitable for the owner of the label than being allied with a major label because the artist gets to keep 100% of the profit."

You might want to look up the definition of "independent record label". It does not necessarily - and usually doesn't - mean a self-publishing artist, which I assume is what you're talking about here, even though you imply that the "owner" and the "artist" are two different people. Also, you might want to add on the words, "if any is ever actually realized" to the end of that, because the percentage of self-publishing independent artists who actually realize any profit whatsoever from CD or MP3 sales is extremely small.

Oh, and then there's this headline on page 1: "Why Independent Record Labels Are Making Huge Doe". I admit, it would be an interesting story if it were about how a number if indie labels were getting together to manufacture this monstrous killer 30-story tall white tailed deer. But that's not what it's all about now, is it?

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I see you've cleaned your site up somewhat, that's an improvement at least.

But I gotta be honest, first, when you try to hawk an article on room acoustics here that tells us nothing other than to provide three links to articles that actually DO tell us something and a loooooooong chart that could easily be replaced with a single line example of an example frequency without losing any information relevant to the article, you're going to get a few jabs. Especially since Ethan Winer, the owner of RealTraps, and the guy who wrote the real article that you link to is here.

Second, you're spamming this in the third person again. If you would just put the words "I wrote this article" or "I have added this to my website", it would be at leat more honest. It would also be more honest if this were actually a new article; but it was already there the last time you tried advertising the website here.

Third, the menu structure and page header information are still all wrong.

Fourth, I hope you're using that picture of that mastering suite with the permission of the mastering house you took the pic from. These guys are notorious for policing that because they have been ripped off so many times in that regard. Again, just check with some of the pro MEs that hang out here like Massive Master or Masteringhouse.

Fifth, with this incredibly badly worded sentence:

"Independent records labels are usually more profitable for the owner of the label than being allied with a major label because the artist gets to keep 100% of the profit."

You might want to look up the definition of "independent record label". It does not necessarily - and usually doesn't - mean a self-publishing artist, which I assume is what you're talking about here, even though you imply that the "owner" and the "artist" are two different people. Also, you might want to add on the words, "if any is ever actually realized" to the end of that, because the percentage of self-publishing independent artists who actually realize any profit whatsoever from CD or MP3 sales is extremely small.

Oh, and then there's this headline on page 1: "Why Independent Record Labels Are Making Huge Doe". I admit, it would be an interesting story if it were about how a number if indie labels were getting together to manufacture this monstrous killer 30-story tall white tailed deer. But that's not what it's all about now, is it?

G.
Click to expand...


I always thought the most important thing in my studio was my ears :rolleyes::cool::D
 
Lets Stop All This Talkin "GLEN"

Put your money where your mouth is. If I can remember correct, I heard some of your work and it did not sound that Hot. I will post somthing I've produced, recorded, mixed and mastered if you do as well. Then lets let the people judge!!! :mad:

P.S

Your criticism is Always a pleasure.
 
Killbrillearwax said:
Then lets let the people judge!!!
Click to expand...
Zip your pants back up, Gary Bussey. You could be the godsend offspring of George Martin and Dr. Dre with your audio productions for all I care. That has exactly zero to do with the quality of your website.

Which is, after all, what we're talking about here. You started this thread asking the people to judge your article and your site, and that's exactly what we're doing. The people ARE judging. Your content is close to nil, what content is there is largely lifted uncredited and unasked from other websites, or is simply a list of links to people who have already produced quality web content, and your presentation is riddled with rookie technical and format errors.

If you have a disagreement with any of the criticisms I listed in the first post or this one, let's hear them, friend. Show me wrong. But in the meantime, if you insist on putting up or shutting up, I'll put my website up against yours any day of the week. Mine won't be perfect - no one's is - but it at least contains a LOT of useful information and resources from multiple professionals, researched and edited for accuracy before published, and presented in a clean and organized manner.

And what's with the "Glen" in quotes? That's my name, and if you don't like it, that's your problem. If you bothered doing your research before opening your mouth, you'd know exactly what my full name, my history and my bio are...it's all right there on the website. Both my history working in the audio and video field, as well as my history of designing , programming and managing professional corporate websites since 1994 when the Internet became "public". Unlike yours where you claim to be a professional (in one of your articles, but strangely, in another you start out by saying you has to ask a professional for the answer) but don't even identify yourself or list any of your credentials.

The truth is, friend, I'd like to see another high-signal, low-noise website on home recording. There can never be too many, AFIC, and if you could turn betterhomerecording into one, I'd consider that great news and I'd support you the whole way. But what you have going for you thus far does not fit that definition. I'm sorry if that upsets you; but frankly, I don't know how else to say it.

G.
 
My Judgement

Killbrillearwax said:
Put your money where your mouth is. If I can remember correct, I heard some of your work and it did not sound that Hot. I will post somthing I've produced, recorded, mixed and mastered if you do as well. Then lets let the people judge!!! :mad:

P.S

Your criticism is Always a pleasure.
Click to expand...

This person has decided you're a douchebag.
 
Mad Never,

I really do appreciate the feedback, honestly. But it’s the way some people go about it. There is no way you can say we are not pointing people in the right direction. Everything in life is subject to some sort of opinion.
I do enjoy having a free proof read and editor, Glen. Thank you and keep up the good work!;)
 
Killbrillearwax said:
This Article States that Acoustic Design is the most valuable part of your Studio. Check it out, and please tell me your felling about it.:rolleyes:

Thank You
Click to expand...

I've looked at the page, and although it is reasonably well laid out, there are too many problems with the language. You are in serious need of a proofreader, as well as someone who can write.

This is what I've picked up on.

First para: Remove space between opening quotes and 'Acoustics', and the space after. 'Acoustics' should not be capitalised. Closing quotes should go after the stop.

Second para: 'Bass Traps' does not need capitalisation. What is a 'night and day difference'? This is a description that carries no information. Why not simply say 'Proper room treatment, using bass traps and absorption panels, will make a big difference to your home recordings'?

Third para: 'It is a fairly common problem' is an awkward expression. 'Over look' is one word: 'overlook'. 'Could it be due . . .' is speculative sentence, is unfounded and unnecessary. How about: 'Many home studios overlook room acoustics and seek answers to audio problems in new equipment' to replace the whole paragraph?

Fourth para: The quoted bit can probably stay (though I'd pick a different example; one more likely to be encountered, such as a valve preamp or similar). The second sentence is long and clumsy. 'Impact' doesn't need captilisation. I would prefer a sentence like: 'Yes, a good high end clock will improve your recording quality, but you need to compare the cost benefits of this with other ways of getting better quality.'

Fifth para: I understand what you are getting at here, but, again, it is clumsy. For example, the first sentence is incomplete. Perhaps there should not be a stop after 35db. But even without this stop it is messy. This is where you really need some sharpness, and show specific comparisons between the marginal gains of a better word clock and the major gains of good acoustic treatment. Without this you just diminish the importance of your point. The sentence starting 'You also have to look at . . .' is irrelevant. If you are seeking to present a professional image, then don't use words such as 'shit'.

Sixth: 'Issues' is a poor word to use here. Again the paragraph is clumsy. "Acoustical accuracy is by far your most important tool' makes a good opening sentence. 'Of course, right after your ears' is a platitude and not necessary here.

Seventh: 'Integrity' is a buzzword. 'Recording and control' can be just 'recording'. 'Pit falls' should be 'pitfalls'. 'Broad base' should be just 'broad'. 'in-depth' is a buzzword. You can drop all of 'in-depth solutions and'. This whole paragraph worries me because it is the heart of your argument, yet you don't want to go into 'too much detail'.

Eighth: Another cumbersome paragraph. It needs reworking totally. Maybe something along the lines of 'Many of the acoustic problems in home recordings are due to the dimensions of generally smaller recording areas and the relationship that these dimensions have to the wavelengths of, in particular, lower frequencies.' 'The result' is not 'a muddy room'. The result is a 'muddy' recording, caused by the nature of the room.

The chart is not helpful and simply adds unnecessary length to the page.

Ninth: I'm getting tired now. 'Use, not 'us'. Don't capitalise 'BASS'. Drop 'shit'. 'To' should be 'too'. I'd also drop 'monster in the closet'. The last sentence is clumsy, and also wrong. It's not about what is 'ideal to most engineers', it is about what makes a close to ideal recording environment.

Tenth: 'Us' should be 'use'. 'Properly' doesn't need the quotes around it. That's enough . .. you should get the idea by now.
 
Cool, you got friends with some of our info! Too much time on your hands

1st off, Not A Packer Fan and Yes Gabriel is from WI but he's also not a fan.
 
Good stuff!

No 4 real. Your site is on point and full of useful informantion. I Must show respect when its do. But, not a Big fan of your color selections. It fells like Im lost in some old atari game:D . No honestly, Very good informationally.
 
Furthermore . . .


Were this to be my site, I would make the following points:

1 Some home recordists are unaware of the impact their recording space has on the quality of their recordings.

2 The reason that their space has such an impact is because; (a) studios are assembled opportunisitically (in lounges, bedrooms, garages, etc., wherever there is convenient space) and their dimensions are acoustically unfriendly, and the corollary (b), they are not usually purpose built with acoustic design included in their architecture.

3 If they are aware of the limitations of their space, some recordists choose to do little (if anything) about it, because; (a) they believe that they can overcome room problems with technology, or (b), the attraction of glittery shiney things overwhelms the need to invest in boring bits of fibreglass.

4 Someone seeking to invest funds to improve the quality of their recordings needs to consider the whole system, not just a part of it (i.e. the signal path, or the monitoring system). A wise investment is one that delivers the greatest quality yield for a given dollar.

5 The consequence of point 4 is that room treatment is not always the 'most important studio asset'. For example, someone who is running a $15 plastic karaoke mike into the 1/8 hole in their onboard soundcard is going to realise a greater initial yield in quality by investing in a mike and an interface. Circumstances and the stage of development of the recordist will be the determining factors here.
 
Killbrillearwax said:
No 4 real. Your site is on point and full of useful informantion. I Must show respect when its do. But, not a Big fan of your color selections. It fells like Im lost in some old atari game:D . No honestly, Very good informationally.
Click to expand...
Thank you; you get points for being kind after the relatively hard time I've given you. But it's not meant to be in a mean-spirited way, more of in a "tough love" kind of way.

I can understand your feeling about the color scheme, you're not alone there. But watch out, computer screens that actually look like computer screens instead of ultra-high-tech $500 light bulbs that do little more than try and re-create a piece of paper are making a comeback ;) :).

Gabe, you don't want me as your editor. You'd be paying me $45/hr to basically reject most of your material as not being ready to publish. It's not *just* all the typos and bad grammar and other writing and composition problems, though they are indeed fierce. Your theses and basic concepts are flawed and badly researched. "Secret compressor settings of the pros", "There's a ton of money to be made by buying a $10K home studio", "Artists get 100% of the profits from sales of their stuff on indie labels", while some have some kernels of truth inside of them, are all flawed concepts that need to come with so many caveats that the original theses are struck fairly impotent.

I'd also have to be spending a significant portion of my time tracking down permissions for, accrediting, or having to remove all those copyrighted images you're using (and asking why you're including a picture of a professional mastering suite in an article about the acoustics of home recording.)

I will give you a couple of strongly suggested pieces of advice, as a new game plan you should follow, though. In order of appearance:

1. Take a couple of creative writing and/or English composition classes at your local community college.

2. Identify your passion. Write about that. Let your readers know that is why you are there, and that is why they should be interested in reading your stuff.

3. Identify yourself. You don't need to have platinum records on your resume or have a household name; if you're sincere and honest and do indeed know what you're talking about, and provide info relevant to the reader, that's all you need. And whatever you do don't make anything up because you won't get away with it on the Internet (you'd be surprised what one can find out about you in literally 30 seconds of searching; one does not have to have 'too much time' if they know what they're doing.)

4. Research your work and oblige yourself to the truth. Anytime you are making an assertion or a point that is anything more than just opinion, do some basic research to make sure what you are saying actually is true. You'd be surprised the re-writes I've gone through on my website because something I thought had the facts and figures on their side turned out not to be quite so when I actually looked into it a little further. I was never all that far off-base, but one little detail here or there had forced me to change the tone of something significantly. Keep your obligations to delivering the truth and not just one impression of the truth, and your readers will come back for more.

5. Find yourself proofreaders/beta testers in private and not in a public forum such as this. Don't rush things. You are exposing your stuff to the public in prime time long before it's ready. It makes you and your site look very unprofessional. Work out the kinks and get everything fixed and polished and ready to go *before* you release it to the public or even ask for their opinion. First impressions are everything.

6. Pay attention to detail. Use checklists if you have to in order to cover all the details. People will notice - even if you don't - that an article on room acoustics probably should not have a page title of "Products". A small detail to be sure, and the kind of mistake we all make once in a while. But they add up real quickly if one is not careful, and a web page that is riddled with a whole bag full of such small detail errors winds up looking extremely sloppy and unprofessional.

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top