jasonbmerrill
the end of unreality
i say the only real difference is space. Anything else can be overcome with time.
T
Thurgood
New member
I agree with the "space" and "rental" aspect. Big studios (sp) have to cover their overhead (no pun intended) and offer a a turnkey operation with various amenities, including good coffee. Some are based around a particular engineer or producer. One aspect referred to earlier is the type of gear available. Some folks want a particular piece of gear eg. Studer 2 inch machine or fully digital, Pro tools, Radar etc.
It all depends on the budget, time alloted, location be it near or far and the vibe of the setting. to grind the old ax in a different way; you don't always get waht you want even if you payed for waht you think you were gonna get. Given the derth of quality equipment and the ready access to willing folks to record the "high end" studios are taking a beating. Nonetheless, the high end folks generally have spent a lot of time and money on the room and the desk and quality signal chain. Forgive spelling errors. I don't think the newest hot item or "rolling stones/Police etc. would really want to come to my place and record their newest release. Even though I make great coffee. Be well all.
It all depends on the budget, time alloted, location be it near or far and the vibe of the setting. to grind the old ax in a different way; you don't always get waht you want even if you payed for waht you think you were gonna get. Given the derth of quality equipment and the ready access to willing folks to record the "high end" studios are taking a beating. Nonetheless, the high end folks generally have spent a lot of time and money on the room and the desk and quality signal chain. Forgive spelling errors. I don't think the newest hot item or "rolling stones/Police etc. would really want to come to my place and record their newest release. Even though I make great coffee. Be well all.
dualflip
Audio Engineer
I agree, as someone said earlier, the thing that separates the most the two type of studios (home/pro) is the room. The money that pro studios spend on construction and acoustic treatment is much more than the money they have invested on gear (90% of the time). So you could have an incredible mixing desk, excelent mics, cables, outboard gear, etc... in your living room, but that doesnt make a pro studio, although needed to say, there are some pro studios based on home oriented locations and they are not home studios.
B
BrightestNight
New member
I agree, few home studios are even decent acoustically. Which is part of why many home studio owners feel the need to record midi drums.....
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
"Pretengineers"!!! I love that! It gets my vote as the best coined word of 2008.
mattr
Resident moody teenager
Short answer, you probably don't. You mix on an analogue desk, free from the distractions that a DAW provides. I'd love to be able to do all my stuff like this, but nowadays its far more costly to get started with than a basic digital setup like I have. I will admit, my digital mixes sound b*llocks, and I feel its partially because I get far too carried away with looking and tweaking instead of listening.
Nowadays its too easy just to add another plugin into the chain or be too heavy handed with a compressor plugin without listening carefully to what it gives or takes from the mix and concentrating on the feedback you get on screen (i.e. onscreen level meters - it sounds weird but I sometimes find myself adjusting levels and looking at the level meters on screen rather than listening), whereas with analogue stuff you have to think about your signal chain and don't have so many visual distractions. The one time I got to play with an ADAT system (yes I know, not proper analogue tape, but I'm thinking more of the mix method) for a few hours I thought "god this sounds good, I could actually pass this off as acceptably semi-professional-hobbyist quality!". I've also tried doing a mix on my PC where I use minimal/no effects and literally just 'mix', i.e. set the levels and be done with it, and it was probably one of the best sounding things I'd ever done.
And as always, a lot of it comes down to how well the parts are tracked - if it is done well then you shouldn't need to cut things up, slice things around and massacre them with EQ. Another bad influence of digital is that new people like myself take the lazy stance that 'you can always fix it later'.
Having said all that, some people do record onto tape just to get 'that sound' then bounce it to their computer to edit and mix on a DAW.
Last edited:
H
heroics321
New member
It's funny. We are getting to a point with the new crop of recordists/amateur engineers, where they have trouble imagining how people work OUTSIDE of the computer. I'm not trying to talk down to anyone, I just think it's amazing that's how much has changed since I cut my teeth on a portastudio some 7 years ago.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
If the studio uses digital recording, yes mostly is a computer running protools HD or simiar, if not an analog tape recorder(s), or both. Its like a home studio, with more money, better sounding rooms, and nicer coffee
Hey, as a home recording hobbyist, I take offense to that statement - the few times I've been in "pro" studios, my coffee kicked the crap out of theirs!
antichef
pornk rock
Well, that, and torch/pitchfork toting wives and neighbors
T
thexflamesxburn
New member
anytime someone asks i always say that, that "most" do NOT record at 192. everyone thinks im full of shit. glad to see someone else feels the same way.
W
Weasel9992
New member
In terms of signal flow, the console I/O and all the outboard I/O are all routed via patchbay to either a tape machine(s) or a set (or multiple sets) of converters or a system like RADAR. It's then routed back to the console via the Mix-B inputs...there's typically a button on each channel that allows you to switch from tracking with that channel to mixing. That's pretty much it. Like I said, all the outboard would be available from the patchbays. All of that assumes that the studio is mixing with a console. If not, then things are a little different.
Frank
Frank
E
Elton Bear
Unregistered Abuser
"You must spread some reputation...." etc. etc.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I don't think I know anyone who actually records at 192kHz... I'm not sure if I've ever heard a converter that sounded decent at 192kHz for that matter. Well, maybe one or two...
dualflip
Audio Engineer
Yes you are right, most of the time as i said i record at 44.1/24bits (48 if im working with video), but sometimes i may go up to 88.2 or 96KHz., never up to 192KHz.
BillC15
New member
Not that I don't care for everyone's input, because it all helps a lot, but this is more precisely what I was looking for.
BillC15
New member
This is pretty interesting. You have a point with modern DAW technology, where people are more concerned with the levels of the countless plugins as opposed to actually listening. And for some projects, I'm sure mixing analog is probably the better option, plus more fun like you said, with real knobs and such.
But I suppose you'd better have your outboard effects handy. There are just so many albums today that would be quite challenging, if not impossible to mix with an analog console. Maybe I shouldn't say impossible, but it really must require great skill and though I hate to say it, but great equipment as well. I guess I have to get over the fact that computers don't dominate the audio world regardless of their their countless plugin effects; that analog consoles suit some applications better than computers. Uh oh... I hope I'm not starting an analog versus digital debate again. But I would enjoy hearing what you have to say about this matter.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Well, there's analog mixing and there's analog summing -- And (of course) there's analog tracking and dumping to digital (a personal favorite).
Yes - when tested, over and over, I prefer analog. That's not to say that digital isn't absolutely wonderful... But on the rare occasions that I'm tracking and mixing, I'm generally tracking to 2" and pulling right off the repro heads to digital. Trying to "add tape sound" later almost always fails.
Yes - when tested, over and over, I prefer analog. That's not to say that digital isn't absolutely wonderful... But on the rare occasions that I'm tracking and mixing, I'm generally tracking to 2" and pulling right off the repro heads to digital. Trying to "add tape sound" later almost always fails.
jmorris
New member
2" 24 track???? And "the sound" was meant to be sarcastic.I believe that whole idea that analog is warmer etc. than todays digital is silly.There have been a/b blind test at top studios, one of which I posted a link to somewhere here, and almost all prefered digital, Radar won out over protools, nuendo.
cavedog101
Well-known member
This is the way I understand most studios doing music projects work...I do. Most of these places were tape shops before the advent of digital and they have simply integrated their ProTools or whatever into the flow.
I always prefer the analog tracking, the digital mixing if its a particularly involved project with lots of useless tracks of noises, and analog summing to make the stereo stems to go to mastering.
Mastering is something that I feel requires a certain amount of analog high fidelity devices to make it sound special. I'm sure John agrees on this point.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
You certainly won't hear me disagreeing with that...