Fooling people?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Definition of the word "Studio" (according to Google):

. The results for a definition request for a "real studio" fall apart, though .

G.

 

[nate_dennis]

According to the New Dennis Dictionary; Second Edition; Volume One

"real studio" (reel stoodeeoh): A facility housing many rooms that have been designed for the recording of audio via either analog or digital means. Such rooms have been acoustically designed for either a dead response (for mixing/monitoring) or a lively response (used for tracking instruments also known as a "live room") to audio waves. This facility will likely also contain copious amounts of professional level signal processing, recording, and monitoring equipment. Usually these facilities will also have at least one individual with grossly enlarged egos and and an over-inflated sense of self-worth.

 

[nate_dennis]

sorry; computer problems. . . .posted three times.

 

[nate_dennis]

again . . . . .

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Usually these facilities will also have at least one individual with grossly enlarged egos and and an over-inflated sense of self-worth

Now THAT'S getting close to the true definition!

G.

 

[KineticSound]

This facility will likely also contain copious amounts of professional level signal processing, recording, and monitoring equipment. Usually these facilities will also have at least one individual with grossly enlarged egos and and an over-inflated sense of self-worth.

Shoot. That's my living room (ego included).

 

[jasonbmerrill]

I picked number 3, but even that doesn't say it perfectly. If sounding like crap equals sounding like a home studio, and sounding great equals sounding like a professional studio, then I want it sound like a pro studio.

But my goal isn't to fool anyone. My goal is for my home studio to sound so professional, the point becomes moot.

+1

....................

 

[HB1978]

It's not totally the equipment, but it is a factor, that makes the recording sound good, it's the person behind the equipment.

 

[MCI2424]

I agree that it's the ear more than the gear, but let's look at the first sentence in bold. There are three major conditions basically postulated there;

1) that it has "enough equipment" and other physicalities.
What is "enough equipment"? Again, I dare anybody to actually define a line.

2) that it has a reputation "on the commercial level".
If someone has the well-designed and well-equipped studio, and is run by somebody who has the chops to use it properly and well, but has not yet gained a "reputation on the commercial level", is it then not a real studio?

Also, there is a second line to be defined here: what is "commercial level"? How big of a printing or a sales figure or amount of airplay does a recording need to accumulate before it's considered "commercial level", and how many of those must a studio have their hands in making before they rate as a "real studio"?

And what does "commercial" really mean in these days of independent production and release, not to mention the inexorable replacement on the "commercial level" of the Big Box rent-a-studio with the "professional quality" personal studio run by the people who used to rent out?

3) that it generates regular business.
Would this include the PTLE guy who (unfortunately) manages to actually make a steady income with a wannabe "Mastering by Internet" business?

I think that the term "real studio" is pure bullshit. There are only recordings. And those recordings either sound good or they don't, regardless of who makes them or where they come from.

G.

Abbey Road is a real commercial professional studio. It generates a ton of buisiness and will in the future. All others are posers. Abbey Road is the only professional recording studio in the world.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Abbey Road is a real commercial professional studio. It generates a ton of buisiness and will in the future. All others are posers. Abbey Road is the only professional recording studio in the world.

Ugh, I keep forgetting; there is only the Beatles and Metallica on this board. Silly me... .

G.

 

[nate_dennis]

Ugh, I keep forgetting; there is only the Beatles and Metallica on this board.

But Metallica sucks so it's really just the Beatles

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But Metallica sucks so it's really just the Beatles

After the 300,000,000th listen, the Beatles kinda disappear too.

So I guess we can just shut this board down! (j/k)

G.

 

[nate_dennis]

LOL That's great!

 

[Waffleness]

Ugh, I keep forgetting; there is only the Beatles and Metallica on this board. Silly me... .

G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatallica

 

[nate_dennis]

so wrong on so many levels.

 

[Seafroggys]

....but I love The Beatles.....

 

[stevieb]

Actually, I think the only true answer is #1. Let me explain:

Including those who do not say they set out to fool anyone, EVERYONE wants their recording to sound like it was done by a seasoned pro, in an accoustically tuned, fully-equipped dedicated recording studio- and that includes so-called "low-fi" and "in the sticks" recordings.

 

[GOYA]

Actually, I think the only true answer is #1. Let me explain:

Including those who do not say they set out to fool anyone, EVERYONE wants their recording to sound like it was done by a seasoned pro, in an accoustically tuned, fully-equipped dedicated recording studio- and that includes so-called "low-fi" and "in the sticks" recordings.

I think it is unwise to speak about what EVERYONE wants. I record for myself. I'm not opposed to letting someone hear my stuff but if they do, chances are very high that they already know I record at home. And sounding great does not preclude home recording.

 

[BushmasterM4]

Real studio. Hmmm. Google how "Machine Head" was recorded. Thats Deep Purple for you younger guys. Oh, there may be some who dont know who that is. They were a country bluegrass group from Mongolia

 

[Seafroggys]

Hell, I think their next two albums were recorded in a mobile studio as well.