J
jarrydee
Audiobay productions
+1..well said..ok next subject
+1..well said..ok next subject
Erockrazor
I mix in (2x) real-time
All these people are choosing "I'm proud that I did it at home, bla bla."
Wouldn't you prefer that you did it at home and people said, "wow I'm glad you guys went to a real studio!"
It's at that point the best of both worlds.
Unless of course you're into the whole lo-fi sound. Then put your boombox in the closet and sing through the door.
Wouldn't you prefer that you did it at home and people said, "wow I'm glad you guys went to a real studio!"
It's at that point the best of both worlds.
Unless of course you're into the whole lo-fi sound. Then put your boombox in the closet and sing through the door.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
just to add to the confusion
I've heard plenty of stuff that was recorded in "real" studios that sounded like crap and I've know more than one "real" engineer that I didn't think could mix/master his way out of a paper bag.
Obviously simply having a big building full of gear or a resume' that makes you a "real" engineer doesn't mix anything.
The skills still have to be there and the passion to want to do a good job has to be there.
I've also seen good studios and engineers that have the ability to be good not care about small projects for no-name bands where they're not paying the big-bucks. It's not unknown for studios in those situations to just rush thru the project and get it out the door and get paid.
So, in that case, you're surely gonna spend more time and sweat and love doing it on your own.
There's really lots more variables here than simply whether it' a "real" studio or "real" engineer.
I've heard plenty of stuff that was recorded in "real" studios that sounded like crap and I've know more than one "real" engineer that I didn't think could mix/master his way out of a paper bag.
Obviously simply having a big building full of gear or a resume' that makes you a "real" engineer doesn't mix anything.
The skills still have to be there and the passion to want to do a good job has to be there.
I've also seen good studios and engineers that have the ability to be good not care about small projects for no-name bands where they're not paying the big-bucks. It's not unknown for studios in those situations to just rush thru the project and get it out the door and get paid.
So, in that case, you're surely gonna spend more time and sweat and love doing it on your own.
There's really lots more variables here than simply whether it' a "real" studio or "real" engineer.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Personally, I would prefer that there were no comments or impressions about where they think it was recorded. I not only want that aspect of it to be transparent, I want the main comments from the listener to be about the content.
If the first (or second, or third) comment out of the listener's mouth is "that sounds like it was done in a pro studio", there's something seriously wrong; they should be saying something like "Wow, that's a great song" or "What a cool production" or something along those lines. The studio should be transparent, and all the listener should care about are the artists on each side of the glass. If one of the early comments is instead, "that sounds like it was done at" such and such location, that is to me an insult, even if that location is Abbey Road or Paisley Park.
And - on a separate point - since when does sounding like a "real", "big" or "pro" studio necessarily mean something good? Per capita, there's just as much crap coming out of multi-million dollar studios these days as there is coming out of $15,000 studios. EDIT: Oops, Captain Bob beat me to that point
.G.
Erockrazor
I mix in (2x) real-time
I can't argue with that point. But I think that often a person may be quick to judge the production value, as it is something that an opinion can be formed fairly quickly. I'm only saying that, when first listening to a cd, I can better judge the production before I can judge the songwriting. Of course there are exceptions.
But I'd rather have the person fooled, even though it has never been a real concern of mine. I guess it's subconscious. Well whatever you do, enjoy doing it.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Are you really saying that that opinion of sound quality forms quicker or takes mental priority over the opinion of the content? Is that why the Beatles took America by storm, because all the girls were screaming, "AAAAAAAHHH!! Abbey Road!!!! AAAAHHHHH!!!!"?
If I play something for a friend or associate, and the first words out of their mouths are "wow, that sounds like it was recorded in a big studio", that for me is the social and moral equivalent of a guy describing the girl he's trying to set his brother up with by first saying, "she's got a great personality."
I don't know; maybe there are those technicians out there that evaluate audio quality before they evaluate content quality. To each their own. But I'll bet you that 90% of the people here couldn't tell the difference between a good amateur recording and a bad pro recording on a reliable basis - and that's just people here, who are supposed to know the difference, it's worse among the general public.
G.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
Now I'm confused. Wasn't the point that a good amateur recording would sound good (and a bad pro recording would sound bad) regardless of where each was recorded?
I would probably define a "pro" studio (as far as this conversation goes) as a studio that has been used to record an album released on a major label or a studio that is employing an engineer who has recorded an album that was released on a major label. Granted, I myself call BS on that definition, but I'd think that would be what your average, uneducated listener thinks of when they think of a "pro" studio.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Yeah, I agree that for the purposes of this thread, that is probably a very good working definition.
The questions (as I see it at this point, FWTW) are a) what does "sound like a pro studio" mean? and 2) can we actually tell the difference most of the time?
These two questions are intertwined, most of the reasons already explained by the many fine folks who have contributed to this thread. I think what I'm basically concluding is that the REAL definition of "sounding like a pro studio" that is implied by this thread has nothing to do with the studio or even who did it, it comes down to the quality of the recording.
I could easily go through my "pro" (lets call it "commercial" for a second) recording playlists and CDs and find plenty of recordings from major labels by brand name engineers and experienced artists in big house studios where if I anonymously put them up on the MP3 clinic, most people would not only believe they were "home recordings", but would fairly quickly point out ideas and techniques (and gear) that they would use to make the recording sound "pro".
I could just as easily take several recordings that I have heard done by people here which, if I took those recordings and played them for someone under the assumption that they were Big Boy commercial releases, most listeners would not bat an eye and would not believe otherwise.
But either way, IMHO (FWTW), if the main impression that one gets after listening to a recorded song is the quality of the engineering, that does not bode well at all for the actual song or act that is being recorded.
G.
Erockrazor
I mix in (2x) real-time
Glen,
The girls were not screaming abbey road and that is not what I mean. But I'm only trying to say that (at least me) I can come to a subjective conclusion as to whether the recording is "pro" before I can say the songwriting is good.
Frankly, I don't think it is uncommon for a person to say "this is recorded well" or something along those lines when speaking about a band that isn't on a record label or shooting for the stars. When listening to a popular band (for me) a quality recording is assumed.
I think I'm putting off the wrong idea. I too would prefer production to be transparent. That is our highest goal right? Not to get in the way of the song, to help communicate best that which the artist intends.
But the question is would i want to fool people? And I answer "Its not that important but that's a nice goal."
We're not talking about an option of transparency in this case .. though as I said, should be a huge goal of ours.
All the best, eric
The girls were not screaming abbey road and that is not what I mean. But I'm only trying to say that (at least me) I can come to a subjective conclusion as to whether the recording is "pro" before I can say the songwriting is good.
Frankly, I don't think it is uncommon for a person to say "this is recorded well" or something along those lines when speaking about a band that isn't on a record label or shooting for the stars. When listening to a popular band (for me) a quality recording is assumed.
I think I'm putting off the wrong idea. I too would prefer production to be transparent. That is our highest goal right? Not to get in the way of the song, to help communicate best that which the artist intends.
But the question is would i want to fool people? And I answer "Its not that important but that's a nice goal."
We're not talking about an option of transparency in this case .. though as I said, should be a huge goal of ours.
All the best, eric
Erockrazor
I mix in (2x) real-time
The opinion forms quicker. I sure as hell hope it doesn't take priority over the content. If that were the case .. we'd all love the jonas brothers.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I suppose I could see this happening if I heard immediate excessive tape hiss or something (not purposely there to sound "retro"), but other than that...
I guess some folks just - either consciously or unconsciously - sort such things out in their head differently, because other than something like the above example, I don't even consider audio quality until after I have decided whether I even like the music itself.
A good example would be the first time I heard the White Stripes - it was "Seven Nation Army" and it was on the car radio. Yeah, I heard the low-tech production values, the hum from the git amp and all that, but it wasn't until I head the production itself that I could decide whether I thought a) that was on purpose or not and b) whether I thought it worked for or against the song. But even more so, I couldn't listen to the whole song to make those judgements and opinions unless/until the song held my interest long enough for me to care one way or another about the production.
Now, it's entirely possible that others may have a different listening experience in that regard than I do. Frankly, it's not a question I have thought all that much about until now. I (probably wrongly) made the assumption that everybody went through the same process. It's an interesting question.
G.
W
Wirebird
New member
I kind of like the idea to achieve as much as possible by small means, so in a sense that could be called "fooling people", or trying to. But he boundaries between simple home studios and big studios are blurred today. You can make amazing recordings with comparatively low budget equipment and be portable to use suitable rooms for recordings. So I don't really think about it that much. But then again I've never even been in a big studio, so maybe I would reevaluate if I did.
B
baby britain
New member
I guess it depends on what your definition of is, is.
nate_dennis
Well-known member
IS–verb 1. 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of be.
Here's to Elliott Smith though (no particular reason except Baby Britains name)
Here's to Elliott Smith though (no particular reason except Baby Britains name)
noisewreck
New member
I think the question of a "real studio" vs "home studio" is more important when recording acoustic or mic'd instruments as the acoustic qualities of the actual recording space are a major factor. It is not that big a deal when doing electronic music, especially if you have taken care to acoustically treat your "control" room and your equipment (be it plugins or outboard hardware) complements the style of music you do.
B
BrentDomann
Has a Dedicated Member.
Of course, I recognize that what I am going to say rests on the assumption that the music itself has not turned me away. But once I get to that point, even before I try to pay attention to songwriting, structure, etc., I often get a quick thought like, "I really like this mix," or, "Boy, those drums sound like they were recorded with tin cans and string."
To put it otherwise, even an amateur listener will subconsciously like or dislike the overall sound of a recording or a portion thereof. Of course this highlights my age, but I remember being ten years old, never having touched a guitar, and hearing "Mary Jane's Last Dance" by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. I distinctly said to my little-kid self, "That guitar sounds badass." The general public doesn't really know it, but they have a sense of that love for tone. A good full snare, a nice tube amp just breaking up, or a bass with some low-midrange balls. People have an ear for stuff.
Even though I'd like to believe that songwriting and the art of music are first and foremost, and even though I have to admit that a lot of the stuff engineers and home-recordists (is that a word?) worry about (like whether a mic had a particular preamp, etc.) is inaudible to most, there is no doubt in my mind that the general public can tell when a recording has captured some magic. It's capturing magic that we all should be looking for, not manufacturing it.
didgijimmy
vexed
Man you should put that on a paperweight (that's a compliment)
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'll agree with that all the way. But I think that - for me, anyway, - "songwriting and the art of music" is a bit too cerebral of a take on what I'm thinking about.
I guess it comes down to what gets under one's skin on a more basic level first; i.e. where the magic comes from for the individual.
I'll admit that there are some productions where the sound and the music are so intertwined that it's difficult to separate them - the space rock of early Floyd comes to mind; You think YOU'RE old? Imagine witnessing "One Of These Days" being played on Chicago FM radio for the very first time as a new release
. But for the most part, I'm just not that impressed by "tone" alone. A great guitarist sounds great on a cheap shit $69 Harmony electric, a shitty guitarist will sound like shit on a $4000 Les Paul. Pink Floyd playing the spaciest version of "Chopsticks" will still be pretty freakin' boring For me, the judgment comes from whether my head bops, my eyes well, or my skin crawls (depending upon the type of song), and all three have happened while listening to to a scratchy old V disc from 1944 just as easily as they have from the best modern production. If tone and sound quality were really what mattered, I'd be listening to John Tesh instead of Canned Heat. I can guarantee you that'll *never* happen
But that's just one guy's feelings. YMMV.
G.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
This thread is taking two tangential paths; that of the perceptions of a listner, and that of the aspirations of a studio.
Taking the latter first, I observed to a mixing friend of mine when we were on a live job together (a folk festival) that I didn't want to be thanked for the sound (which they often do) and would much prefer to remain invisible and anonymous. He asked why and I replied that as far as I was concerned, we should be invisible in the process of people's enjoyment of the show; they should not even be aware that we exist. He agreed, but then went to point out that so many gigs like this endure bad sound that it can come as a bit of a surprise when they get good sound, and that it's okay to accept the credit.
In much the same way, when I undertake a recording project, I don't particularly want people to say "wow, that's great sound" when the artist plays the CD to someone else. I'd rather that they didn't even consider the recordng process when listening to it; that the CD would be so good that the means became invisible when they enjoyed the ends.
When listening to music, my reaction depends on context. When I've got the radio on in the car, I react to the emotional impact of the song, rather than any technical dimension. I don't even care about the lyrics (even though I spend a huge amount of effort working on my own lyrics) so long as the sound of the words and the way the consonants fit together line up with the general sound of the song.
On the other hand, when I am reviewing CDs, part of the review includes a technical assessment, so I pay attention to the process as well as the content. But even here, my reaction will vary. For example, sometimes I am doing something else, so I stick the CD and have it running while I'm otherwise engaged, and again it's the overall feel that grabs me first. But if I sit down and listen carefully, I notice the technical things first.
In my younger days, I didn't understand anything about musical quality, and I listened to and loved everything; whatever I could get my hands on. In those days, quality was invisible to me.
Over the years, and specially those spent heavily in music itself, my ears are a little more refined. Sometimes I play those songs I loved so much from the sixites, and most of them sound terrible, and my enjoyment is sadly diluted. When deliberately listening for pleasure (as opposed to for reviewing or as a peripheral to something else), I find I generally don't enjoy music as much if there are aspects of the recording that grate, even if I can appreciate the artistic endeavour behind it.
Taking the latter first, I observed to a mixing friend of mine when we were on a live job together (a folk festival) that I didn't want to be thanked for the sound (which they often do) and would much prefer to remain invisible and anonymous. He asked why and I replied that as far as I was concerned, we should be invisible in the process of people's enjoyment of the show; they should not even be aware that we exist. He agreed, but then went to point out that so many gigs like this endure bad sound that it can come as a bit of a surprise when they get good sound, and that it's okay to accept the credit.
In much the same way, when I undertake a recording project, I don't particularly want people to say "wow, that's great sound" when the artist plays the CD to someone else. I'd rather that they didn't even consider the recordng process when listening to it; that the CD would be so good that the means became invisible when they enjoyed the ends.
When listening to music, my reaction depends on context. When I've got the radio on in the car, I react to the emotional impact of the song, rather than any technical dimension. I don't even care about the lyrics (even though I spend a huge amount of effort working on my own lyrics) so long as the sound of the words and the way the consonants fit together line up with the general sound of the song.
On the other hand, when I am reviewing CDs, part of the review includes a technical assessment, so I pay attention to the process as well as the content. But even here, my reaction will vary. For example, sometimes I am doing something else, so I stick the CD and have it running while I'm otherwise engaged, and again it's the overall feel that grabs me first. But if I sit down and listen carefully, I notice the technical things first.
In my younger days, I didn't understand anything about musical quality, and I listened to and loved everything; whatever I could get my hands on. In those days, quality was invisible to me.
Over the years, and specially those spent heavily in music itself, my ears are a little more refined. Sometimes I play those songs I loved so much from the sixites, and most of them sound terrible, and my enjoyment is sadly diluted. When deliberately listening for pleasure (as opposed to for reviewing or as a peripheral to something else), I find I generally don't enjoy music as much if there are aspects of the recording that grate, even if I can appreciate the artistic endeavour behind it.
B
BrentDomann
Has a Dedicated Member.
You think YOU'RE old?
...
For me, the judgment comes from whether my head bops, my eyes well, or my skin crawls (depending upon the type of song), and all three have happened while listening to to a scratchy old V disc from 1944 just as easily as they have from the best modern production. If tone and sound quality were really what mattered, I'd be listening to John Tesh instead of Canned Heat. I can guarantee you that'll *never* happen
But that's just one guy's feelings. YMMV.
G.
Actually, I meant young! And I agree with you totally about the song. I think we're just talking about two subtly different things: the situations you mention (head bops, eyes welling, skin crawling) just don't happen that often for me, at least listening to the radio - a song has to be truly exceptional. 90% of the stuff I listen to while driving around town (which is where I do a lot of listening) is "just OK." When something's just OK, it's not so much of a distraction to pay attention to the guitar tone, or the mix, or whatever. But you are absolutely correct that when the song is there, the quality of the medium is irrelevant as long as it gets the sound to your ears.
