Can I do this myself, or do I require a professional studio and engineer?

Pillarofdusk

New member
I wasn't sure whether to post this in other sections. However, this isn't exactly a newbie question, but it sort of is, and doesn't fit in specific forum sections.

I'm ready to record my second album. Unlike my first album which was bloated and amateurish sounding, using virtual amps etc, this time I've done enough research around production and theory to understand the approach. I'm looking for as professional a sound as possible, similar to classic album releases on minor or major production labels.

The main takeaway I got from everything is that for an organic natural sound, you want to avoid multi-tracking, triggers, or other effects, and avoid clipping, using as little tracks as possible. Effects can be used later in Cubase if needed, but there should be nothing outside of the signal chain other than the amp or instrument itself. Then, there are the smaller details like the best quality cords, a hi fi system with tubes to listen back, and a reliable audio interface with little latency.

For distorted guitar, I purchased a high quality amp that uses tubes, small, but big enough to get the sweet spot of tube distortion: a 15W Orange Dark Terror and a Mesa 1 x 12 cabinet. From my research, it seems that room acoustics or environment don't matter with a distorted tube amp at such volumes, so I can record in a garage, a closet, or in the outdoors. Then, I will position a dynamic microphone (SM57) at the cone of the speaker, and experiment until I find the, 'sweet spot'. The only thing I am still wondering about is whether or not I shouldn't buy a bunch of various dynamic microphones and test them out since they might give a unique sound outside of the SM57?

Now, for both acoustic guitar and vocals, I purchased the best condenser mic I could: a Rode K2. From what I understand, for vocals, you want to deaden the sound as much as possible. So, I plan on enclosing my closet with acoustic blankets. For acoustic guitar, I will record with the K2, but go around my house and try to find the best sound.
As for bass, I have a Fender precision bass, and as far as I understand, I can just plug it into a DI box and direct into the audio interface, and there is no benefit to recording the bass through an amp. For drums, I am getting a session musician to record them in their own studio.

So, my question is... Is this the right approach? Is there any benefit for me to record in an expensive studio? If so, why? The only thing that I am stuck on DIY is engineering. I can record all of this with the best equipment, but from what I understand, the point of an engineer is to assist with automation and getting the right sounds for each part, something that can take decades to master. Is this true? Is it possible to engineer oneself? I have no problem mixing or adding effects in Cubase, but mastering or 'engineering' is outside of my knowledge base.
 
To be honest - you've picked up lots of stuff, but have formed slightly strange rules based on some misunderstandings.

Not sure how to really answer the questions - so I've taken the text, and commented on each point that's ringing alarm bells.


my first album which was bloated and amateurish sounding, using virtual amps etc,
Nothing at all wrong with using virtual amps - especially when the sound you want cannot be produced with what you have. Using virtual amps badly is the problem.



The main takeaway I got from everything is that for an organic natural sound, you want to avoid multi-tracking, triggers, or other effects, and avoid clipping, using as little tracks as possible. Effects can be used later in Cubase if needed, but there should be nothing outside of the signal chain other than the amp or instrument itself. Then, there are the smaller details like the best quality cords, a hi fi system with tubes to listen back, and a reliable audio interface with little latency.

Oh dear - multi-tracking is a standard approach and been done for 60 years or so? Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
Effects? If they work musically, and are appropriate - fire away. Again - using them badly sucks.
Signal chain? Use what you need for the job. Effects can be used of course - but you're right ....... if needed.
Best quality cords? Seriously? Get this idea out of your head straight away. A flimsy cable that can break, with plasticky breakable and poor electrical performance are pains because of the crackles and noises, but they sound exactly the same when they work. The problem is that sometimes they don't. Professional cable is not expensive, but the crazily hyped products belong to the hifi-fraternity and have no place in studios. Remember that many historic studios were wired with not a scrap of oxygen free cable, and no gold contacts!!
Latency - if it's low enough, it's good enough.

For distorted guitar, I purchased a high quality amp that uses tubes, small, but big enough to get the sweet spot of tube distortion: a 15W Orange Dark Terror and a Mesa 1 x 12 cabinet.
If you like the sound - great.
it seems that room acoustics or environment don't matter with a distorted tube amp at such volumes, so I can record in a garage, a closet, or in the outdoors.
Room acoustics always count - in fact, recording loud indoors reveals all kinds of resonances. Having the mic in close, minimises them - which is why you hear this advice that it doesn't matter. If most of your guitar work is large cabs with SM57s not the grill, then it may not matter at all. signal to noise, as in wanted to unwanted is key. Just beware about it becoming a rule.
SM57s are popular because they are predictable. Nothing says not to experiment - could be an improvement?
From what I understand, for vocals, you want to deaden the sound as much as possible.
If you want the vocal to be isolated from the room, then deaden away. If your voice sounds great in your bathroom - record in the bathroom - been done loads of times because the room CAN matter. A bad room, however?

as far as I understand, I can just plug it into a DI box and direct into the audio interface, and there is no benefit to recording the bass through an amp.
That's what I do - but I have friends who consider this a really bad move because you then don't get anything the amp and speakers contribute. I personally like the sound of my bass, so DI.

For drums, I am getting a session musician to record them in their own studio.
How do you ensure the sound matches the song? They may have a dead drum space, or a live one? Will it match the rest of the tracks?


So, my question is... Is this the right approach? Is there any benefit for me to record in an expensive studio? If so, why? The only thing that I am stuck on DIY is engineering. I can record all of this with the best equipment, but from what I understand, the point of an engineer is to assist with automation and getting the right sounds for each part, something that can take decades to master. Is this true? Is it possible to engineer oneself? I have no problem mixing or adding effects in Cubase, but mastering or 'engineering' is outside of my knowledge base.
This is the troublesome bit. The 'engineer' in the traditional sense, knows the equipment and can craft the sound. In a busy studio the engineer may also be the producer. I suppose in your case you need to consider your skills.

1. Can you be effective in the purely technical elements of mixing?
2. Can you be effective at the artistic elements of mixing?

In my band, I was the live sound engineer and I swapped with the bass player when he became ill. Our music is complex and we do not have lead singer and BVs - the guitarist might sing the intro, I might sing the second half of every chorus, while the first half has a lead that flip-flops between keys and drums. All four people sing almost continually and the lead moves around in every song. This is an impossible task for a PA and engineer supplied gig like festivals. Our bass player knows nothing about engineering or mixing - BUT - he knows the songs and if he is given 4 faders he can do it perfectly with no technical knowledge at all.

You, as a one man band are in charge of everything, so it's your ears that matter.

Some of your ideas will work, others seem a bit prescriptive.
You said
something that can take decades to master. Is this true?
Absolutely - some things will come quickly, other bits take years. I'm now in my 60s, and I STILL struggle with drums. I'm OK, but they are never special. One day I'll get there.
 
Rob has given you a lot to start thinking of.

SM57 versus other $100-200 dynamic mics - you are very unlikely to hear any difference when listening to the recorded tracks. Positioning of the mic in relation to the speaker will have a much more noticeable effect.

Recording vocals in a closet (what's an 'acoustic blanket'?) is most likely going to result in a very boxy sound - high frequencies reverb will be gone. I tried various methods until I got a lot of bass traps in my (last) studio room. The best was using my largest room, facing out to the longest dimension, with a thick comforter on the wall behind me. This way the original sound was taking the longest path into the room, before bouncing back, and getting partially absorbed by the comforter behind me (and bounced back toward the mic).

Recording bass - I plug directly into my interface, no reason for a DI box as far as I can tell (what is the purpose of a balanced signal to the AI?)

Recording acoustic guitar - much trickier! A lot of experimenting needed. What you hear when playing in a room are the reflections off everything, which often confuses people recording an acoustic - or miking one for live use - as this is not what a mic hears. There's a whole thread here: Acoustic Guitar Recording 101

As to engineering/mixing/etc - the most important thing will end up being YOUR ears and how you monitor your recordings. If you can't accurately hear your recorded tracks, how can you judge what needs to be done with them? A room acoustically treated to reduce resonances and unwanted reverberation - and good headphones - and then learning your room (using reference tracks) - is what's needed.
 
As for bass, I have a Fender precision bass, and as far as I understand, I can just plug it into a DI box and direct into the audio interface, and there is no benefit to recording the bass through an amp
Like mjb points out, you don't actually need a DI box to record bass. You can just plug straight into your interface or recorder. But I really wanted to address
there is no benefit to recording the bass through an amp
because it's not true. Not from a golden rule point of view, anyway. It may well be true for you but that would only be the case if you've actually tried out some amped bass and decided that you don't like the sounds you've come up with.When I used to record on a Tascam 488 I wasn't a fan of recording bass DI because the sound was always so flabby and floomy, yet when I used my Carlsbro bass amp {the one thing I ever regret selling} or even small guitar amps, I could always get punchy and growly {when required} as well as soft and gentle bass. Over the last decade, I've been able to get sounds I love DI, via the amp or guitar amp, with a sans amp or even varying combinations of amp, line out and DI.
Granted, I'm one of those people that doesn't settle for one bass sound, I like the variety of sounds that can come from the bass guitar, same way I like the different snare and bass drum tones that exist. It's one thing to listen to and think about the different opinions you'll hear, another altogether to be swayed by the loudest or most forceful or eloquent voices and conclude that what comes from them constitute "the rules of recording."
There are a variety of ways to do all the things we do and the major arbiter of whether or not it sounds good is you. Of course there is an objective aspect to all this but you need to be able to, at some point, put it in its place among the subjective.
 
I was all set to post some detailed comments...but these three guys ^^^ covered pretty much all the important stuff for you to consider.

I'll just add that you should avoid making assumptions in advance what will be or should be the best approach.
Like you said...it takes years for a good engineer to develop those skills and that understanding.
For the rest...trial-n-error is a great teacher, and it doesn't need to be a negative thing. Never assume that a failed experiment in the studio is wasted time...rather embrace the learning experience.

If you simply don't want/need/have the option of devoting some time to develop that experience...then yeah, go to a pro studio and cut to the chase. :)
 
Thinking a bit more - the trouble with those of use who record from home, even for business - is we LIKE the process and the buzz. With a business head on, you'd just book a studio and direct the people too do it for you.

How many of us buy printing machines for posters, or take our cars to garages to have the oil changed when we could easily crawl under and do it ourselves? I don't think grazing my knuckles, getting oil under my fingernails and smelling of diesel is fun, so I pay other people cheerfully. Why are studios different? For some people playing the same two bars over and over again till you get it right isn't fun - if that's you, go to a studio and give somebody else the pain!
 
I'm ready to record my second album. Unlike my first album which was bloated and amateurish sounding, using virtual amps etc, this time I've done enough research around production and theory to understand the approach
I meant to ask earlier, did you do the recording and mixing on your first album ?

for an organic natural sound, you want to avoid multi-tracking, triggers, or other effects, and avoid clipping, using as little tracks as possible
What do you mean by an organic natural sound ? Even the most acoustic sounds are electronically garnered in the studio.....
 
One suggestion might be a kind of halfway house approach. Do you know any recording engineers that might be able to come along to your studio and give you some help with setting up? I'm thinking that the engineer could spend some time with you finding out how you want to do things and then show you the best way to achieve those aims. Once you get to the mixing stage you could call on the engineer to listen to your tracks give you some ideas on how to approach the mix. While this may be more difficult in the current situation, it is an approach that can work.
 
So, am I the only person who caught the following tidbit, buried as it was behind the curious detail about high-end cables?
" Then, there are the smaller details like the best quality cords, a hi fi system with tubes to listen back, and a reliable audio interface with little latency." What's with the tubes? That aside, there is a welter of bad ideas (recording vocals in a closet) and astounding misconceptions (avoid multi-tracking!) in here about recording and listening. Honestly, I think the whole post is a put-on. Fun to read though!
 
" For I am not worthy in this company" and yes, most of it has been covered by the top guys but, once again we have a 'how to do' thread from someone with it seems plenty of resources but no mention of monitor speakers*.

It has been said countless times "you cannot make valid decisions about recordings without ACCURATE monitors in a well treated room". THAT is where the bulk of the money must go. Yes, there is the argument that it can all be done on headphones. Maybe, I am not qualified to say but my gut says nay and many of the experts here and at SoS consider monitors vital.

*"A 'tube' hi fi was mentioned. There ARE some monitor grade hi fi speakers (but many more top monitors that make excellent hi fi speakers!) but most are not. One thing IS for sure, valve power amplifier is never going to be close to the accuracy of even a fairly basic modern solid state jobby.

Guitar Amp Recording

Dave.
 
I like your comments very much. I, too, am a "one-man artist" producing and recording whatever suits my fancy at the time. Multitracking is pretty much the heart of the stuff I record. I am not one to lay out big bucks for anything unless I feel reasonably sure it will add to the musical sound I am seeking and I believe I can use it well enough without sight to justify obtaining it. I do not have a tube amp - or any amp per se - in my studio; electric instruments connect directly to my Yamaha mixer (which I bought mainly for its durability), and I use a $200 condenser mike for vocals and acoustic instruments. I presently use a Tascam DP24 for my recorder because it has enough tracks available and provides the feel of a traditional recorder with knobs and sliders which I can operate without having to see the screen. Granted, the Tascam has some mastering functions which I doubt that I can use without sight; but I use a Scarlet Interface to get the sound from the Tascam back to my computer's hard drive for storage.
So what do I have when I am finished with a song? I have something which makes me happy because I got the sound I wanted - both from a musical and technical standpoint within the resources of equipment and skill I have. If I were going for a professional sound, I'm sure I'd look into having an engineer on the project; but that's probably more bucks than I'm willing to spend for music I create for enjoyment by my friends and me. At the end of the day, there is one point on which I do not lose sight (pun intended): MY OBJECTIVE IS TO HAVE FUN AT MAKING MUSIC!
 
Back
Top