Do you really need expensive stuff?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harvey Gerst
  • Start date Start date
Harvey Gerst said:
And I can smoke all the way to California (where I've heard that they take away your cigarettes at the border).
Click to expand...
You should be so lucky:
California Border Protection Stations Activities
Border Station Inspections

Agricultural inspections on all private and commercial vehicles are conducted at sixteen border inspection stations located on major highways throughout the State (six at the Oregon border, five at the Nevada border, and five at the Arizona/Mexico border).

More than 33.5 million vehicles were monitored at the California border agricultural inspection stations in the 2000 calendar year, including 24.5 million automobiles, 6.5 million commercial trucks, more than 706 thousand recreational vehicles, and more than 40 thousand commercial buses. These figures represent an eight percent increase from the previous year.

There were over 70 thousand lots of prohibited plant material intercepted at the border inspection stations. These lots were infested with plant pests and/or were not properly certified for entry into California. More than 5 thousand samples of suspected pests were submitted by border station staff to the Department's Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch for identification during the year.

Additionally, private passenger vehicles are now being monitored for substances banned by the State of California. This includes cigarettes: occupants of vehicles containing tobacco products are required to orally ingest said substances under the supervision of a border station agent before being allowed to proceed into the state.
Click to expand...

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/no tobacco.html
 
smoke cigars... no inhaling, less craving for 30 femalish cig's....cigars= better flavor.

slap on some patches, take some of the new pills....

try everything available. smoke doobies? isn't that legal in california?
 
Looking forward to reading Harvey's report.

I'm always glad to see his opinion on gear that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Thanks to him, I got an RNP and discovered that the SM57 into the RNP on my voice sounds great. My Pbass through a Sansamp and then into the RNP is the best sound I have found yet for bass. The MXL603S, which he also recommended works great on acoustic guitar for not much money.

bilco
 
LOL! I STILL use Cool Edit Pro... 1.1, no less!!!:rolleyes:

Harvey Gerst said:
I used Adobe Audition, because it's so similar to CoolEdit, which I'm VERY familiar with (I was one of their first customers). I rendered all the tracks in the Mackie, then simply loaded the Mackie Hard Drive into my workstation computer.
Click to expand...
 
harvey would it be at all possible to get this stuff with no drums? i need some playalong tracks, and this stuff sounds reeeeaaaally fun....
 
Harvey Gerst said:
Yup, the whole point of my thread is that you can make acceptable home recordings without spending a lot of dollars on fancy equipment.

What is "acceptable" will vary from person to person, but something good enough to get gigs or generate further interest in the music is my definition. In my examples, the band was well rehearsed, and my job was made that much easier. The most expensive mic used was the ATM25 on the kick, at $125. Every other mic was under $100; in some cases, way under that price.

No fancy pre's, compressors, reverbs, or gadgets. Just the musicians, playing their asses off, and me, trying to keep the equipment from getting in the way of that.

Would it have been better with more expensive equipment? Probably, but I can't say how much better. The stuff I used captured the excitement, and that's the most important part of an engineer's job.

The band is happy; they have a CD to sell at their next show, and there's been some indie label interest. If the label is interested in having a better recording (and is willing to pay for it), we can move to the big room and cut their songs with the fancy equipment.
Click to expand...

However, a "lot of dollars" is also relative. When you consider the cost of all the mics you used, the montiors, outboard gear, etc., you're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. I'm just guessing, but I imagine if you added the value of every piece of gear (down to cables, headphones, ....everything) you used on this session, I'd say it probably falls between $5,000 - $10,000 right?

I know that's nothing compared to hundreds of thousands, but it's still a lot of money to me! :)
 
famous beagle said:
However, a "lot of dollars" is also relative. When you consider the cost of all the mics you used, the monitors, outboard gear, etc., you're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. I'm just guessing, but I imagine if you added the value of every piece of gear (down to cables, headphones, ....everything) you used on this session, I'd say it probably falls between $5,000 - $10,000 right?

I know that's nothing compared to hundreds of thousands, but it's still a lot of money to me! :)
Click to expand...
I'd guess it was under $3,000. You've gotta remember I'm really cheap when it comes to gear.
 
part of it its not my mix style but everything sounds lifeless and its simply cause theres no room sound. Everything indeed sounds direct and thats on a pair of sennheizer hd600 headphones. it sounds overly processed no room sound and like every instrument was faked all soft synth direct guitar direct bass keyboard horns it sounds like a kareoke track to be quite honest. I'd just imagine it lil diffrent is all. More livley the way you mixed the tracks is great im speaking of the tracking its self. Does it sound like a beliveable preformance to you?

i think you need to work on spaceousness make me feel this was done in a room some kind of sonic space. That could just be me being picky but it doesnt sound like real instruments to me and good mics good pres in a not so dead room would make this huge even the singer sounds very "dry" to me listening to this track I'm just waiting to hear the hand claps and the livelyness of a church and I'm hearing a almost steril sound just my thoughts not being mean :) i give it a solid B+
 
i dont want to hijack the thread, but id like to come in and offer a defense for good gear. Do you need good gear you tell me. This was mixed in the b room I worked as head engineer. This is project studio not pro quality proably 300-500 dollar mic pres. Things like akg solid tube, rode ntk, art pro channel, rode nt2s a mackie 8 bus to pro tools mix 3 system. There is a big diffrence in this mix though there is some speakers moving and real instruments being miced. You can fake the sound but if you go direct at least try to make it feel like theres a sonic space there. Am I qualified enough for you to take my advice? Well listen for yourself pleasse feel free to tear my mix apart :)


http://www.myspace.com/onesickbend track 4 bring it on I tried to find something similar horns gospel etc
 
Last edited:
Did you really just tell Harvey to hit the woodshed?

I mean, again don't get me wrong, your track sounds good, but I don't think it's Harvey's fault the band uses a synth for horns :rolleyes: He went for a pop sound which presumably is what the band wanted. You have a classic sound on your track. Either of you could remix your song to sound like the other.

I don't hear the difference in gear, I hear a difference in mix and tracking style. You can't exactly say that cheap gear is responsible for DI, because it ain't like a 57 is real expensive, you know? And I think your gear was of the same ilk as Harvey's. I guess I really have no idea what your point is with respect to gear.
 
doulos24 said:
i dont want to hijack the thread, but id like to come in and offer a defense for good gear do you need good gear you tell me This was mixed in the b room I worked as head engineer. This is project studio not pro quality proably 300-500 dollar mic pres things like akg solid tube rode ntk art pro channel rode nt2s a mackie 8 bus to pro tools mix 3 system there is a big diffrence in this mix there is some speakers moving and real instruments being miced you can fake the sound but if you go direct at least try to make it feel like theres a sonic space there. am I qualified enough for you to take my advice? Well listen for yourself pleasse feel free to tear my mix apart :)


http://www.myspace.com/onesickbend track 4 bring it on I tried to find something similar horns gospel etc
Click to expand...


Please use some puncuation every now and then! I can let a few grammatical errors go here and there, but reading this was like getting a tooth pulled!
 
mshilarious said:
I guess I really have no idea what your point is with respect to gear.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say the same thing. He says he'd like to defend pro quality gear, and then he says "listen to what I did with gear that's not pro-quality."

I don't get it. (And the 5-line run-ons didn't help get his point across.) :confused:
 
doulos24 said:
part of it its not my mix style but everything sounds lifeless and its simply cause there's no room sound. Everything indeed sounds direct and that's on a pair of sennheiser hd600 headphones. it sounds overly processed no room sound and like every instrument was faked all soft synth direct guitar direct bass keyboard horns it sounds like a kareoke track to be quite honest. I'd just imagine it lil diffrent is all. More livley the way you mixed the tracks is great im speaking of the tracking its self. Does it sound like a believable performance to you?

i think you need to work on speciousness make me feel this was done in a room some kind of sonic space. That could just be me being picky but it doesn't sound like real instruments to me and good mics good pres in a not so dead room would make this huge even the singer sounds very "dry" to me listening to this track I'm just waiting to hear the hand claps and the livelyness of a church and I'm hearing a almost sterile sound just my thoughts not being mean :) i give it a solid B+
Click to expand...
You hafta remember that the whole point of this thread is that you can make acceptable home recordings without spending a lot of dollars on fancy equipment.

What is "acceptable" will vary from person to person, but something good enough to get gigs or generate further interest in the music is my definition. In my examples, the band was well rehearsed, and my job was made that much easier. The most expensive mic used was the ATM25 on the kick, at $125. Every other mic was under $100; in some cases, way under that price.

No fancy pre's, compressors, reverbs, or gadgets. Just the musicians, playing their asses off, and me, trying to keep the equipment from getting in the way of that.

Would it have been better with more expensive equipment, or a larger room? Probably, but I can't say how much better. The stuff I used captured the excitement, and that's the most important part of an engineer's job.

The band is happy; they have a CD to sell at their next show, and there's been some indie label interest, and LOTS of Christian Radio Airplay. If a label is interested in having a better recording (and is willing to pay for it), we can move to the big room and cut their songs with the fancy equipment.
 
I was gonna say the same thing. He says he'd like to defend pro quality gear, and then he says "listen to what I did with gear that's not pro-quality."

I don't get it. (And the 5-line run-ons didn't help get his point across.)
Click to expand...

It was late my defense wasn't in pro gear, but good gear. There is good gear and there is great gear. I'm defending what I like to call the hump between home studio and project studio equipment. you start to see noticable improvements when you pass a certain threshold in gear. what is that well in my exsperence its when you reach about 300 to 500 a channel for mic pres.
There are always exceptions, but this is the basic rule. When single channel pres and mics cost about 300 each you take a jump from home studio to project studio. At 500 a channel your about the top of the hill in project studio quality. Then after that you have to spend 10 times as much to make up the 10 to 15% diffrence in great studio recordings and project studio recordings.
 
doulos24 said:
It was late my defense wasn't in pro gear, but good gear. There is good gear and there is great gear. I'm defending what I like to call the hump between home studio and project studio equipment. you start to see noticable improvements when you pass a certain threshold in gear. what is that well in my exsperence its when you reach about 300 to 500 a channel for mic pres.
There are always exceptions, but this is the basic rule. When single channel pres and mics cost about 300 each you take a jump from home studio to project studio. At 500 a channel your about the top of the hill in project studio quality. Then after that you have to spend 10 times as much to make up the 10 to 15% diffrence in great studio recordings and project studio recordings.
Click to expand...

Except that your ART Pro Channel isn't just a preamp, it's also an EQ and comp, so it's not really $300 per preamp channel.

So what's my point? Your track still sounds good, so even that humble level of gear is still capable of a good recording.
 
I have always thought that some of my favorite recordings were made by bands who had limited gear and resources but made solid efforts to record and perform their best work....

I am still learning the best uses for my Firepod and running it into Logic or Reaper but to be honest I have found that my signal chain can sound really good with my Firepod and a $75 dollar mic that was made by an infamous Russian maker... A $100 acoustic guitar with fresh strings and a good tuning... I also have been known to use my Karma K Micro's since they are better sounding than they get credit for.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top