I've come to the conclusion that a studio sound is only found in ... a studio

[kcearl]

reverb sounds were from the rooms.

those were the days

 

[noisewreck]

those were the days

Meh... nostalgia is overrated.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I just found some studio sound in me guitar case
I wish there was a lock there to throw on this thread

 

[gecko zzed]

Meh... nostalgia is overrated.

I agree. From time to time some people applaud (not without good reason) songs from the past and how great they sound despite the (comparatively) low-tech treatment with which they were produced.

Then a curious thing happens. They decide that if they too adopted that low-tech treatment, they would get similar great sounding songs.

My thoughts are these:

1 At the time of recording, those performers and engineers were not, for the most part, deliberately setting out to create a low-fi recording. They were endeavouring to do the best thing they could with the gear they had available. I admit to being perplexed when someone asks how to create a lo-fi sound. To me that's like saying, "how can I make my racing car go slower".

2 What makes those songs great was not the lo-fi of the recording, but the quality of the song and the uniqueness of the performance. I am quite confident if that performance could be transported over the years to the present, and it was recorded with the gear available now, it would still be great.

 

[miroslav]

1 At the time of recording, those performers and engineers were not, for the most part, deliberately setting out to create a low-fi recording. They were endeavouring to do the best thing they could with the gear they had available. I admit to being perplexed when someone asks how to create a lo-fi sound. To me that's like saying, "how can I make my racing car go slower".

2 What makes those songs great was not the lo-fi of the recording, but the quality of the song and the uniqueness of the performance. I am quite confident if that performance could be transported over the years to the present, and it was recorded with the gear available now, it would still be great.

Exactly!

That is what I was saying in the other, "How to get lo-fi sound" thread...that back then, they weren't really trying to get a lo-fi sound...they were actually trying to get a great sound!
But the limitations of the technology, the surroundings, their techniques and overall mindset of how things should sound is what created those recordings.
And really...the song/performance ends up being the most key element of a great recording.

The home/pro argument is just a crutch, IMO for those who use it as a way out or to explain their less than stellar efforts...especially these days with the available, less expensive technology.
But it's also the Achilles heel for many newbies...because the technology provides shortcuts that sometimes don't help in the long run. For many, it can become a black box where they just put stuff in and expect great music to come out.
Also...I think the new technology has shifted some focus (for some) away from actual good song writing and good performances becuase there is that assumption that the *quality* actually comes from the technology.

 

[kcearl]

Some of my favourite songs have the poorest production values...especially those in the Northern Soul or 60's garage genre...in fact the rawness adds to their appeal..I think if many of them were recorded to today's standards it would ruin them, the rawness is like another instrument in the song imo

thing is with soul stuff is I love the musicianship and composition...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jlxOCwYJAc

one of my favourite tunes of all time

and this is a classic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qA04Y3iywQ


these are actually pretty good but I have one track by the birds and bees playing Hey Jo with no drummer just someone beating the floor...top tune lol

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

you can go on endlessly with this list (in fact, I'm half-inclined to ask others to add to it).

It really all boils down to either or both of, "What I like is good, what I don't like is bad" and "What I have is good, what I don't have is bad".

It's all just bias and a form of class warfare, none of which is helpful to anybody.

The only real split I have found is the one between those which put a premium on capturing and producing music, and those who put the premium on capturing and producing a recording. What's the difference? The former approaches getting the recording out as something to be done only once there's something worth putting out there. The later approaches getting the recording out as the primary goal, with the music little more than the excuse to do it.

IME, it's the later that usually has the most problems getting a satisfactory production.

because the technology provides shortcuts that sometimes don't help in the long run. For many, it can become a black box where they just put stuff in and expect great music to come out.
Also...I think the new technology has shifted some focus (for some) away from actual good song writing and good performances becuase there is that assumption that the *quality* actually comes from the technology.

Yep, that's exactly right, and when they find out that it takes time and effort and practice on both sides of the glass to get good at this (regardless of the gear) they get all frustrated and either create threads that say that good work can only be done in a "real" studio (which has such a fuzzy definition as to be virtually meaningless), or take it out on the ones who walked the path before them for keeping "secrets" on how to make this task easy, or blame them as elitists for giving them the truth that it takes effort, and that digital technology is not an "easy button" to quality.

Much blame goes to the marketers of the technology. 30 years ago, 4 track open reels like a Teac or an Otari were NOT marketed as a way for a newb to get instant gratification and something for nothing the way today's technology is. "Sure, just buy this emulator for $200 and you'll have the equivalent of $25,000 worth of amps or microphones." "Who needs a huge church which took 200 years to build to get that reverb when you can get it for free on the Internet?" Hell, just the term "studio in a box" is baloney, as is "studio monitor" and almost anything marketed to the public with the word "studio" tacked onto it.

Then again, maybe the marketers aren't to blame so much as the consumer is. Can we blame the banks for the homeowner who signed onto a loan he should have figured out on his own he couldn't afford, because he was blinded by the silly idea of owning a house that was too big for his family? And should we blame the manufacturers because the average consumer is so blinded by the idea of becoming a "recording artist" that they don't see the non sense of expecting to get $25,000 of performance out of a $200 box?

Here's the truth: if the manufacturer really felt that what was in their box was worth $25k, they'd charge $25k for it. And when they do, they do.

Work has value, value has cost, and nothing is really free. This is a law of the universe, and it will never, ever change. The sooner we as consumers and home recordists get that, the happier we will be.

G.

 

[mattdee1]

I guess I'm a bit late to the fray here, but whatever.

To revisit the comments made by Bongsmoker or whatever his name was, he made some good points, but I might have cringed a bit when he bragged about being the arbiter of what constitutes good and bad music.

I'd have no problems with any of the statements if he made it clear that he was strictly talking about lowest-common-denominator-mass-appeal; something which, to me, is quite distinct from "quality".

Another argument that drives me absolutely batty is when people claim that those of us who detest certain big-selling radio bands do so because we're "envious" of their success. If I envied Nickelback, wouldn't that mean that I wanted Chad Kroeger's poodle mullet and hemp necklace for myself? I categorically DO NOT want a poodle mullet or hemp necklace. Furthermore, I don't give a crap how big his mansion is, how many Ferraris he owns, or what chicks he bangs... all I know is that whenever I hear his music, it makes me want to go take a shit (in a bad way). Yes, I realize it's all subjective, so no need to rehash the ubiquitous "that's just your opinion" thing.

And regarding the "shoegazer twerps" and their supposedly "crappy" music, it's probably not crappy to them. If that's what they truly want to be doing, then what better justification does one need to be doing it? To me, it's really that simple. I can assure you, if I had to make a choice between doing my best to emulate Tickelsack's sound and giving up music for good, my gear would be on eBay faster than you can say "angst ridden".

 

[miroslav]

I think before even getting into the *studio* discussions...or judging what is already out on the airwaves...
...everyone needs to first look at themselves and consider why they are making music.
(I'm assuming everyone here is actually *making* music either as a musician, performer or engineer/producer.)
If your goals are to make music for yourself, then there's really no need to worry about the state of the music industry AFA how it may affect your music because it doesn't matter...you don't have to care...you're just making music for yourself.

If however, you are interested in attracting some public attention...then you have to be attentive to what is out there already, and where/how your music might fit in, and will you be able to attract an audience with your music.
If you are making music that doesn't fit anywhere in the current, publicly driven genres...then you will have to fight harder to create your own genre and attract an audience.
But keep in mind that being angry or minimizing the public's opinions about music just 'cuz they differ from yours...isn't going to help you if you are looking for public attention for your music.
It's like arguing that you've come up with a new knee-high, bell-bottom jean...and because no one likes it, they all must be tasteless robots who only like what the fashion industry tells them to like.

Point is, you can just do your art as you like it, and screw the public...but then you can't whine about the public's lack of attention to your art and call them tasteless robots.
Artists need to strike new territory, BUT, I think there is also a need to be aware of the general "vibe" of the public and what may or may not be pleasing/interesting to them IF you are trying to get their attention….to sell your music to them. If not...then be happy with yourself and just do your art for your own pleasure.
It's like all the guys that scoff at the music industry and it's "programming" and control of what makes for "good music"...and yet, many of those same musicians will gig out night after night playing the same old hits BECAUSE they know that's what the public wants to hear, and they want to please the public because that's how they get the gigs.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

And just to add to the mix (no, that's too awful to even be a pun), I think there's a problem with the phrase "the industry" as it's commonly used around these parts. The way it's used refers to only a small segment of the actual music industry when it come to actual volume of music produced and released out there. And no, I'm not talking about Internet stuff, I mean actual CDs put out by "actual" artists at "actual" studios by "actual" labels.

What's typically referred to around here as "the industry" is typically only the Billboard 200, which is probably somewhere on the order of one one-thousandth of the actual music that's published out there every year. That BB200 might well be where 99% of the money resides in large quantities, but when you consider a multi-billion dollar market, there's a living to be made out of your share of the remaining 1%.

The problem is that all most people ever get to hear is what Clear Channel wishes to play on the radio, and they then think that is what constitutes "the industry". Well, guess what folks, that's just the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg. There's a whole lot of other stuff that sounds nothing like that snowflake, either in artistic or engineering value.

If one is in this to be a "recording artist" and to make Madonna money, their probably better off playing Powerball or Monopoly at McDonalds, because the odds are better. And also because you'll wind up sounding like Madonna otherwise.

If one is in this to make music, their chances are better that they'll make far less money than Madonna, but far more money than a Madonna wannabe that doesn't make it. And they won't be wearing the Clear Channel straightjacket forcing their music to sound like the same artificial canned frosting that the rest of it sounds like.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Yes, as far as my musical tastes are concerned, I am living in the wrong coutry Although even in Europe the stuff that I find dear to my heart is definitely in the underground.

Bunch'a tasteless bastards!

 

[nbiehl]

I can assure you, if I had to make a choice between doing my best to emulate Tickelsack's sound and giving up music for good, my gear would be on eBay faster than you can say "angst ridden".

Precisely. I make music for fun. I'm lucky enough that I can make a little money doing what I'd ALREADY be doing on the weekends. If my "career" dries up, I've still got the fun part.

To me, corporate music is a lot like heaven. If the place is full of people I don't like hanging out with, why would I want to go?

 

[darrin_h2000]

To revisit the comments made by Bongsmoker or whatever his name was, he made some good points, but I might have cringed a bit when he bragged about being the arbiter of what constitutes good and bad music.

".

Im glad im on one here...keeps crap I hate off the radio.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Here's the truth: if the manufacturer really felt that what was in their box was worth $25k, they'd charge $25k for it. And when they do, they do.

Glen - I'll only toss one small exception out there - there's a bunch of "freeware" software engineers out there (not a large number, but enough to count) who for one reason or another believe in the freeware process and in writing and releasing software for free distribution over the net for moral reasons. Some of them are quite good - a lot of the better "modeled" guitar tones I've heard have come from impulse-based freeware plugins being distributed by guys who just feel like it's the right thing to do. I myself have a handful of freeware preamp and compressor/limiter software recreations of fairly well known studio rack gear (under the name of Antress, if I recall right?) that can be downloaded for free of their site which are pretty cool. They may not be as good as the real things, but they're a pretty decent way to add a bit of color here and there to a part.

Another argument that drives me absolutely batty is when people claim that those of us who detest certain big-selling radio bands do so because we're "envious" of their success. If I envied Nickelback, wouldn't that mean that I wanted Chad Kroeger's poodle mullet and hemp necklace for myself? I categorically DO NOT want a poodle mullet or hemp necklace. Furthermore, I don't give a crap how big his mansion is, how many Ferraris he owns, or what chicks he bangs... all I know is that whenever I hear his music, it makes me want to go take a shit (in a bad way). Yes, I realize it's all subjective, so no need to rehash the ubiquitous "that's just your opinion" thing.

Matt, not to single you out, but whenever I see something like this, my bullshit meter goes off. Are you saying you DON'T want to drive six Ferarris? That you DON'T want to bang supermodels and actresses? That you DON'T want a huge mansion overlooking the bay? Because I sure as hell would. The poodle mullet and hemp necklace I understand, but to single those out as things you'd "envy," and then kind of as an afterthought start listing off some of the big-dollar trappings of material success to me sort of sounds like you're countering your point - I read it getting the sense that somehow you don't think it's fair that he gets all that for writing simple, radio-ready pop music, and you ARE in fact envious of the success, simply because you think you're artistically "more pure" than he is. Which, of course, as a guy who has never heard your music so I can say this without it coming off as an insult I hope, a total opinion/judgement call thing.

 

[kcearl]

Glen - I'll only toss one small exception out there - there's a bunch of "freeware" software engineers out there (not a large number, but enough to count) who for one reason or another believe in the freeware process and in writing and releasing software for free distribution over the net for moral reasons. Some of them are quite good - a lot of the better "modeled" guitar tones I've heard have come from impulse-based freeware plugins being distributed by guys who just feel like it's the right thing to do. I myself have a handful of freeware preamp and compressor/limiter software recreations of fairly well known studio rack gear (under the name of Antress, if I recall right?) that can be downloaded for free of their site which are pretty cool. They may not be as good as the real things, but they're a pretty decent way to add a bit of color here and there to a part.

agreed, some great freeware out there...also some great companies with admirable business policies..

Matt, not to single you out, but whenever I see something like this, my bullshit meter goes off. Are you saying you DON'T want to drive six Ferarris? That you DON'T want to bang supermodels and actresses? That you DON'T want a huge mansion overlooking the bay? Because I sure as hell would. The poodle mullet and hemp necklace I understand, but to single those out as things you'd "envy," and then kind of as an afterthought start listing off some of the big-dollar trappings of material success to me sort of sounds like you're countering your point - I read it getting the sense that somehow you don't think it's fair that he gets all that for writing simple, radio-ready pop music, and you ARE in fact envious of the success, simply because you think you're artistically "more pure" than he is. Which, of course, as a guy who has never heard your music so I can say this without it coming off as an insult I hope, a total opinion/judgement call thing.

don't want the Ferraris, don't want to bang supermodels, I'm happily married with a pretty decent property as it is and I cant drive..I only ride motorcycles

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen - I'll only toss one small exception out there - there's a bunch of "freeware" software engineers out there (not a large number, but enough to count) who for one reason or another believe in the freeware process and in writing and releasing software for free distribution over the net for moral reasons. Some of them are quite good - a lot of the better "modeled" guitar tones I've heard have come from impulse-based freeware plugins being distributed by guys who just feel like it's the right thing to do. I myself have a handful of freeware preamp and compressor/limiter software recreations of fairly well known studio rack gear (under the name of Antress, if I recall right?) that can be downloaded for free of their site which are pretty cool. They may not be as good as the real things, but they're a pretty decent way to add a bit of color here and there to a part.

I don't disagree with that, Drew, and that's a good point, but that's not the point or the subject I was trying to address.

When I was talking about "manufacturer", I was referring to businesses that are in this to make money and that have employees to pay and so forth. And actually in this case, the question was about hardware devices like Toneports, and not about software.

If a business is charging $200 for a piece of hardware, that's because they feel that's what the market will bear. If they feel it's actually "worth" $25k - that is, that people will actually pay $25k for it, or that it's truly the equivalent of $25k of other gear - they won't settle for a $200 price tag, by a long shot. OK, maybe they might not actually charge a full $25k, but the resulting price will probably be solidly into the four digit range at the very least.

The point was, expecting any kind of emulation of top shelf hardware that costs one-one hundredth of the original to actually sound just like the original is unreasonable. As I said earlier on in that post, that doesn't mean that the emulations won't have a good sound of their own, but at that point it's not an "emulation" - at least not with any real degree of accuracy - it's an original sound.

G.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I don't disagree with that, Drew, and that's a good point, but that's not the point or the subject I was trying to address.

When I was talking about "manufacturer", I was referring to businesses that are in this to make money and that have employees to pay and so forth. And actually in this case, the question was about hardware devices like Toneports, and not about software.

To be fair, I also think bringing it up in this context is a lot like pointing to the existence of anarchists during a discussion about various forms of representative government.

But yeah, otherwise agreed - the Toneport is cool, but it's not a substitute for a good amp. I won't even say "for $25k in amps" because really I think that's a false dichotomy - had it not been for modelers first giving people the ability to squeeze that many sounds into one box, and then marketing their collective asses off to convince people they NEEDED 36 amps for their studio, we'd never be having that discussion today. Countless classic albums were cut with a single amp, and even through the 80s it was common for bands to do an entire album with maybe a Marshall, a SLO, and a Fender Twin or something, if they wanted to go no holds barred. One good amp would be a perfectly adequate replacement for a Pod for a home studio, if Line6 hadn't had so much invested in convincing home engineers that it wasn't.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Countless classic albums were cut with a single amp, and even through the 80s it was common for bands to do an entire album with maybe a Marshall, a SLO, and a Fender Twin or something, if they wanted to go no holds barred. One good amp would be a perfectly adequate replacement for a Pod for a home studio, if Line6 hadn't had so much invested in convincing home engineers that it wasn't.

Having more than one amp per album is not what it's meant to be about, but rather have a choice of which one amp to use for that album. There are a lot of Big Boy studios that have an inventory of several amps and several guitars, which clients find attractive. Not so they can use twelve different amps and twelve different guitars per album (though that is a possibility), but rather so they can choose which *one* they want to use. Maybe for this album they may want an antique Vox sound, but for the next one a Fender Deville may be called for. Being able to go to a studio that lets you have that choice is a big plus for many of the brick and mortar studios, especially for the return client.

The cause of most of the controversy around "modelers" or "emulators" IMHO is one of the expectations built around those names. Notice nobody calls them "clones" . The folks out there that expect an emulator to should *exactly* like the original - ESPECIALLY when their playing their emulation though some 6" studio monitors or headphones, while mistakenly setting their own expectations of the air coming from four twelves on the floor, or something like that - are predestined to be disappointed by the double whammy. If I were king, there'd be a law that one couldn't call a position on their emulator switch to be called (for example) "Marshall JCM-2000", but rather they call it "Marshall-JCM2000-ish" or something like that. Of course their sales department would hate me, but I couldn't give a rat's patootie about those clowns.

Alternately, there'd be a law that any customer that actually believed that that switch, whatever it's named, is going to actually sound exactly like a 2000 probably should be shot on sight for their stupidity.

OTOH, those that actually understand that a $200 emulator can at the same time only *approximate* a type of sound and not reproduce it, yet also sound really good of it's own merits, will be perfectly happy with the $200 investment.

G.

 

[miroslav]

Kinda like wearing Air Jordans...and thinking you're Mike.

The only thing I dislike about guitar amp molders is their distortion/crunch sounds. I've not heard every molder/sim out there...but every one that I have, the distortion/crunch always has a homogenized sound....there is none of that organic quality to it that you get out of a good tube amp where it breaths and chugs and snorts as the tubes pump and churn all those electrons...not to mention the speaker's interaction with the amp.

Sure, they can be used to good results, and 7-out-of-10 times you may not tell them apart from a real amp when listening to a dense mix....or especially on an iPod or other dinky player...
...but in the room, when actually playing the guitar through one, I can't get past the homogenized crunch sound. Sometimes the homogenized quality is masked pretty good by the FX you add or whatnot...but it's always there, like bad aftertaste.

YMMV…

 

[kcearl]

I think Guitar Rig 4 Pro is getting seriously close though..check it out