Advice Needed! Choosing a studio for my band's CD

Y

youwantmybass

New member
first off- please move this if it does not belong in this section or even delete it if this is not the type of topic that belongs anywhere on this site....
Hey all,
I have a dilemna that I need advice. Hopefully, some of you have enough experience or knowledge to help me out. Here goes,
I am in a hard rock band with 3 other high school/college aged guys. We've been playing really seriously for about 8 months with 3 hour practices about 3 times a week. Currently we have about 7 songs done and are seriously looking into recording in order to promote shows, display our talent, and sell when we do have live shows. This CD is not a demo, but will be recorded professionally as we are quite serious about our music. Currently we're looking for studios to record in and we have come upon 2 choices.
Studio A is run by an owner of a small shop called Guitar Hangar -high end guitars and amps and what not. The studio is run in his basement, is set up for 'live' recording and he records to DAT through his console(I still need details on his equipment). He has recorded local singer-songwriters, Ian Hunter, and Dennis Dunaway of Alice Cooper fame. His rates are 75$ an hour. Selling guitars is his main job, producing seems to be more of a jobby.
Studio B is run by a teacher of one of the guitarists in his home/studio. The control room is set above the live room which has 18 foot vaulted ceilings. The owner is a producer and music teacher who is confident in his abilities to get the best performance out of a musician/vocalist, etc. He suggests recording the album in pieces because of our budget- He would record drums, I could record guitars at my house using Pro Tools, send the guitar tracks to his studio to add vocals and mix. His rates are 50$ an hour for drums and 65$ an hour for everything else, but these rates are for a limited time as he is in a slow time of the year(as most studios are). His studio features Pro tools, Soundcraft Ghost console, an Iso/vocal booth, vaulted ceiling live room, etc.
Our budget is 600$ and we will be fully prepared to record in 3 weeks 7 songs. We do not want to compromise by recording 4 songs, nor do we want to compromise tonal quality- we are not the average high school band.
So here the dilemna lies- Are the benefits of one more obvious to you all than another? Will there truly be a difference if we spend 7 hours in one studio doing live recording, dubs, vocals, and mixing in one rather than splitting that same money up between drums, vocals, and mixing and having a lot of time to spend on recording dual guitars at my house for free?
This situation is turning into near-arguments between myself and the singer/guitarist/friend. I don't want this to be something that hurts the band and I do not want to compromise sound quality.
It's easy to say I need to make the decision myself but any advice you can add beside that would be greatly appreciated.

Glenn
 
Better do it live with some overdubs.

I'd bet you'll run out of money the other way. Hell, 10 hours to do drums and vocals for 7 songs. Unless you drummer has studio experience and is completely rock solid playing to a click track, you'll be lucky to get acceptable drum tracks in 10 hrs.
 
So what you're saying is he's more likely to get better takes along with the band? Well, I seem to have answered my own question. Yes he is.
But we've also been having him play to a click track during practices for every song for the past month. So...
Any more advice?
Anybody been put a similar predicament(sp)?

Glenn
 
Last edited:
Click track smick shtrack. Click tracks aint needed. If yous can play tight as a band live then dont use a click track. Record drums and one guitar live (main guitar) maybe lay down a guide vocal to keep each player knowing where they are in the song. My band recorded 5 tracks of drums and two guitars in less than two hours. Say another 3 hours to get the bass and vox down for 5 tracks. Then you only have 2 tracks left to do. Say that takes 2 hours. Thats 7 hours. You could record it all live, but depends how much spill you will get to how professional it will sound.
 
Not to burst your bubble

$600.00 for 7 songs???? If you average the rate from the studios, you get $62.50 p/ hr. Your average budget per song is ~$85.71 (600/7). At the 62.5 p/hr rate, you will have to track & mix each song in about 1.3hrs. I say Good luck!

Maybe you should consider reducing the amount of songs you plan to record or save more money?
 
Save your money. What your talking about is just plane out going to take more. You will be sacrificing sound quality no matter what you do. If this is a real album and not a demo you dont want to do that if you can help it.

Think about it this way. You think a label is going to take you serious if you cheap out on you album. If you really are serious you might want to consider that. I dont care how good you are. If a label sees you can barely make a commitment of $600 to do a serious album they wont take you very serious.

If thats not what your looking for then maybe you dont need to worry about it. But thats what i got from what you were saying about serious. Define serious i guess.

Also dont be afraid to go out of town. Talk to some other local musicians in your area and see where they go. Even people in unrelated genres just to give you some options. It doesnt sound like those studios are very cost efficient to me. Thats alot of money. Maybe if i heard some stuff theyve done or their equipment list i might be convinced. But i bet you can do better. Even if you have to out of state it can be worth it.

Danny
 
youwantmybass said:
Studio A is run by an owner of a small shop called Guitar Hangar -high end guitars and amps and what not. The studio is run in his basement, is set up for 'live' recording and he records to DAT through his console(I still need details on his equipment). He has recorded local singer-songwriters, Ian Hunter, and Dennis Dunaway of Alice Cooper fame. His rates are 75$ an hour. Selling guitars is his main job, producing seems to be more of a jobby.
Click to expand...

Do you mean ADAT?

Based on the info you're giving, this guy's setup doesn't sound very promising. I'd really look in to his multi-tracking and editing capabilities. Without more info, I'd be inclined to go with the other guy.

I agree with Simman, though. You're not going to be able to get everything done in that short of a time span without some serious compromises. I'd estimate the following:

* 2 hours for setup
* At least 30 minutes (minimum) per song for initial tracking.
* 1 hour per song for punch-ins (fixing mistakes).
* 1 hour per song for overdubs, if there are any.
* At least 1 to 1 1/2 hours per song for tracking vocals.
* At least 2 hours per song for mixing.
 
The song compromise was suggested by the Studio B fellow. He made it clear that live recording is great for bands like us but only when we have a lot of time/money. We have a limited budget, therefor limited studio time. He suggested picking the 4 strongest songs and recording them and seeing how our followers like them and then coming back to record the rest.

But I am alone in staying open minded to compromise.

Serious is defined for us as being more professional than most high school/college aged bands and releasing a CD that does not sound like the typical 'garage' band CD- thing, noisy, crap quality.

I can't seem to convince the guys that by going the route of taking our songs or going the overdub route we will come out with a better quality cd. My guitarist friend is the most outspoken- by recording live he claims, we will be able to capture something that never could be captured recording dubs and also he says it will be more cost effective. But time still seems to be a problem despite his confidence in our playing. I believe both studios have something to offer, but at the moment I want to try and convince my band mates that reducing the number of songs (though we have been planning to record for months) is a necessary solution.

They don't seem to understand that time is money in studios and that by reducing the songs and increasing the time we spend per songs we will be guaranteed to get better quality- also we might get financial backing from parents/friends etc. who will finally hear what we've been up to all this time at band practice(not smoking pot, i swear).

Glenn

ps- if there are any studios in CT/eastern NY that you can suggest please feel free.

Guitar Hangar studio features:
Mackie D8B Digital 8 bus board
24 Track ADAT Digital Recording
Professional Mastering
The Latest In Computer Editing
CDs produced: Dennis Dunaway and Ian Hunter are pretty big names.

Angel Thorne Music, Rob VolpentestaAngel Thorne Music
Control room in loft type room above live room: Pro Tools editing/mixing, AKAI HD recording, 32 tracks, 64 input Soundcraft console
Isolation Booth: 50 square feet Acoustically treated Visibility to other rooms
Live Room: 320 square feet 18 foot vaulted ceiling Natural Light
Tama Swingster, Baby grand, nice guitar and mic collection.
 
Spend your $600 on a Mackie 1604 mixer and a Tascam 238 recorder - or a fancy soundcard if your computer can handle it - and the cables to hook them up together. You can rent mics for $5/day (or borrow them from friends) and make your own record on your own time and learn a little something about recording in the meantime.

Then, maybe you can turn around and charge other local bands $600 to record their albums.
 
I agree with your guitarist's friend. I'd go with Studio A and get done as much as you can in the limited time you have. Doing the live takes will give a more accurate recording of what you guys actually sound like. There is no point to making yourselves sound too much better than you are for promotions because it will only lead to disappointment when you play live for the houses that hire you. Also, when you're done recording if you need to choose your 4 strongest songs for the demo cd then do just that.
 
To all- we are not considering this a 'demo,' as it is an actual album. Demo recordings we feel give off the conotation of crap quality with the sole purpose of getting gigs. We will be using this cd for getting gigs, promotion, and selling it at shows(main reason for good quality). We would like this to be a CD our peers can listen to and will have a hard time discerning the sound quality from commercially made CDs(please dont comment on this-it is not the point of the thread).
ryanlikestorock- I'd love to do that myself, but the money is not my own it is 600$ split between 4.

And my friends went without out to Studio A thanks to my good 'ol mum forgetting to leave me their message to meet them there... :mad:
But they were quite impressed and are quite assured that the live recording will produce the most exciting results.
Here are where my thoughts are at the moment:
I wish to convince my friend/guitarist in the band that there is absolutlely no harm in doing 4 songs now, 4 songs later. He tends to be very set in his thoughts and doesn't want to change them. This would be ass-saving/helpful 1)if we do 4 songs we may find it takes quite a bit more time then we thought it would for the same amount of money 2)if in fact it takes the time we thought it would, then there is no harm- we have spent no more time and we have 4 finished songs.

At this moment, I don't think I really see a difference between the two Studios. I believe live recording would be a bit quicker as the band as a whole plays a hell of a lot better than the sum of the parts. This is true for my band.

The only problem I will have is convincing the band to get out of the mantra of "7 songs, 7 songs, all we need is 7 songs..."

I'm quite sure we'll lose money on making this record either way but I have plans to record an acoustic EP and live show on my own which will result in high profit situations to make up for the money loss...

I see the light at the end of the tunnel....
GLenn :rolleyes:

PS- I also may have a shot of recording with superior equipment by going with Studio A as he is a guitar collector...
 
youwantmybass said:
The song compromise was suggested by the Studio B fellow. He made it clear that live recording is great for bands like us but only when we have a lot of time/money. We have a limited budget, therefor limited studio time. He suggested picking the 4 strongest songs and recording them and seeing how our followers like them and then coming back to record the rest.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the advice I would give. I think Studio B guy sounds like a pretty reasonable person.


They don't seem to understand that time is money in studios and that by reducing the songs and increasing the time we spend per songs we will be guaranteed to get better quality-
Click to expand...


Which is kinda' too bad, because in the end, you might actually be reasonably happy with the results you get at Studio A ... but you'll never really know just how good it could have been had you taken your time and perfected things. The real trick to getting great recordings is being able to listen back to what you played, analyze what needs to be changed ... spend some time making corrections, then record again. It's very rare that someone just sets up, plays, sounds wonderful, and you're done. :D No matter how good you think you are. It's an extremely optimistic goal, even for far more experienced musicians, let alone a bunch of high schoolers - no offense.

Oh well, if your guitarist winds up playing with an out-of-tune string, or if he thinks he could have done his solo better ... or if his amp doesn't record well, he'll only have himself to blame.
 
Im more impressed with the equipment with studio B then studio A. But that doesnt always mean much. But my guess is with your style of music you would be much happier with the analog soundcraft console. I can bet you will get alot more punch out of that.

The thing you need to realize is that the 'big names' might not mean a thing anyway. The names you have said dont seem relevant to your type of music for one thing. It doesnt matter what they did for them, it only matters what they can do for you. How efficient are they going to be with your budget compared to the 'big names'. How are they going to be skill and technique wise with your style of music. Theres alot of factors that are involved, especially with your budget. What if studio a was working with a large budget with the 'big names' and could take countless amounts of time getting the sounds he wants. But how does he do under restricted time pressure. There really is a difference.

What you need to do is talk each studio into letting you do a quick demo. I do that for bands that are looking around. I let them come out and try a free session. Even though i do alot of big names in the area, i still believe that theres some bands that i might not work as efficiently as others. Thats why i bands that are unsure to do a demo and see how it goes. I would rather not be waisting my time either if its not going be efficient. Doesnt need to be an extreme demo of the studio, just enough to get you in each and see how you are working with the engineer. See who you are comfortable with, who does it in the most efficient time, and see who sounds better in that time.

Also, dont forget about mixing times. This is one thing i find most groups kinda skip over the mixing time. It takes alot more time then you think. And this is also wehre the engineer comes into play. Does the engineer have to do a bunch of expirementing to get the sounds hes looking for (which takes more time) or does he work very efficient to and knows exactly what hes looking for? What does it take for the engineer to get those sounds. The analog might take longer if the engineer doesnt know what hes doing.

As you can see, my biggest thing is efficiency and focus. I guarantee there will be an engineer you like working with more than the other. One will either be more comfortable because of looks even. One might speak and say the things you need to hear to get the best out of your work.

Theres alot of factors that play in this. Alot of stuff is under the surface.

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