Gear vs. Experience

[famous beagle]

First off, you didn't mention something that might be somewhat important: The musicians. The composition, performance and arrangement are what matters. The instruments and the room come next. Engineering is of course quite important, but it's the first categories that matter most.

Very true. I suppose I assumed that the song and musicianship were of a professional caliber. But that's not always the case by far.

 

[DavidK]

Very true. I suppose I assumed that the song and musicianship were of a professional caliber. But that's not always the case by far.

When I hear tracks in places like the mp3 clinic, the first thing that usually hits me is the instrumentation, or lack thereof. Example:

Most (many?) commercial recordings don't have a drum set. What they have= drum set+ samples+ tambourine+ shaker samples+ chimes etc. Obviously it varies wildly but you get the drift- the set was probably recorded to a click and the other stuff is a combo of real playing and more likely samples. That isn't engineering, it's arranging. The engineering comes in when the drum set snare is replaced/augmented with a sample, but anyone can add shakers, tambourines etc via midi and give it a more "pro" sound without much engineering. To make that sound "great" is engineering, but to make it sound very good is to start with the right instrumentation.

The same goes with backing vocals, string/synth pads, horns, piano, on and on. When one thinks of a group like The Clash, most would think "guitar, sparse instrumentation". It's not exactly true: Rock the Casbah has all kinds of stuff on it, I can hear drums, tambourine, drum machine claps, bongos, the famous piano part, a synth (strange sound about 1:50 into the track) numerous guitars with varied effects, bass, lots of backing vocals and a lot of sound effects. And that's The Clash, not King Crimson.

 

[grimtraveller]

Lb for Lb

A good old British phrase that means "pound for pound".

First off, you didn't mention something that might be somewhat important: The musicians. The composition, performance and arrangement are what matters. The instruments and the room come next. Engineering is of course quite important, but it's the first categories that matter most.

Agreed, but that's not really the thrust of the question.

If you had to break it down into those two categories only, what percentage do you think each contributes to the final product?

Regardless of what the engineer has before them, the question is what is the greater contributing factor in getting a decent final product. If, for example, you didn't have a great performance, what would be more important in getting a good product, the gear at your disposal or the experience of the engineer ? What constitutes great compositions and arrangements are always going to be subjective.
The question of whether higher quality gear is preferable or irrelevant is really outside the bounds of the question.
One thing I do find interesting; in the zillions of interviews or biographies or articles I've come across over the years, in which artists have not been satisfied with the results, it's never been, as far as I recall, because an engineer or producer was inexperienced. And when I've read engineers being critical of other engineers or producers' work, it wasn't because they didn't have enough experience.
So perhaps there's more to this than meets the eye.

 

[rayc]

ears + gear(s) = cheers
I'm cloth eared so no matter what I use there'll be some problems that I can't/don't hear & therefore won't be able to address.
there are some folk in HR who have exceptional ears - they can hear big picture & detail, can tell that there's too much mud at X, that the sizzle in the cymbal is veering toward harshness.
I can't/don't hear those things for the most part so experience and gear aren't going to make me an excellent.

 

[DavidK]

Agreed, but that's not really the thrust of the question.

For me, it is as it falls under "experience". Ye Olde "Garbage in, garbage out" mantra still applies today, regardless of technology. In today's world (and in terms of this forum), most people wear many hats. Unless it's truly a major league outing with a dedicated engineer or 3, a dedicated synth programmer/dedicated drum tuner/dedicated producer etc, it all gets lumped together. However, more back on-topic:

Will the gear listed get mind-blowing, "state of the art" results if used by Mutt Lange and a team of engineers ? Nope.

Can the gear listed get excellent, respectable and professionally usable results if used by those with considerable experience, pro-level musical skills and a good grasp on engineering? Yup.

 

[Cyparski]

As Maria Mauldier says..... It ain't the meat, it's the motion.
You can have the best gear in the world but if you don't know what to do with all those knobs and dials,you may just end up with a mediocre product no matter what. I'm an advocate of taking what you have and spending hours and hours in the studio tweaking it to the max and really learn your gear inside and out.
If you can think outside the box a bit and not always listen to what everyone else says is the only way to do it, you may be surprised at the results.
Am still looking for that "Talent" button on my mixing console.

 

[famous beagle]

If there's one thing I've learned so far, it's that pretty much anything goes. You can read something from 10 different pro mixing engineers, and you'll hear 10 different ways of doing things. And the same can be said for tracking and mastering, from what I've seen.

One guy will say something like "If you're having to reach for too much EQ, you didn't record things properly. The more EQ you have to use, the worse it's going to sound in the end." Then someone else will go on and on about the importance of EQ and how it's more important than any other sound-shaper. And these will both be world-renowned engineers.

With that in mind, I generally tend to lean more towards the "it's not the gear but how you use it" side. Sure, they're mostly using great gear (though I read about one pro engineer that likes to use cheap guitar pedals for effects---as in ... in an aux send---instead of $1000 and $2000 rack units because he thinks they have more character), but I really think that the thing that's holding most people back in this forum is most likely due to lack of experience. That's just my .02.

 

[Bristol Posse]

It's both
Good gear without experience = nothing much
Experience without good gear = a little bettter
Experience and good gear = winner

Also, most pro engineers didn't start out at home on cheap gear, they started out as interns, helpers, tape ops etc in million dollar studios and learned on that gear, there really isn't a graduation process to work through levels of gear. They always had the best rooms, mics, outboard, desks, musicians, producers and engineers to watch and learn from. then they got to try out their own sh!t on the weekends and with lower echelon bands etc.

think about this. I can put an inexperienced driver in an F1 car in an F1 race and he won't win, he probably won't make it through turn one
I can put a very experienced race driver in a Honda civic in an F1 race and he won't win or even come close to catching any of the other cars although he'll probably make it around the track for at least as long as the car lasts through the abuse
But if I can put an experienced driver in an F1 car in an F1 race, now we have possibilities!

It's the same for most endeavors

Why do these theads always have to be a choice between one or the other

 

[JimmyS1969]

It's both
Good gear without experience = nothing much
Experience without good gear = a little bettter
Experience and good gear = winner

think about this. I can put an inexperienced driver in an F1 car in an F1 race and he won't win, he probably won't make it through turn one
I can put a very experienced race driver in a Honda civic in an F1 race and he won't win or even come close to catching any of the other cars although he'll probably make it around the track for at least as long as the car lasts through the abuse
But if I can put an experienced driver in an F1 car in an F1 race, now we have possibilities!

It's the same for most endeavors

Why do these threads always have to be a choice between one or the other

Right?!?

 

[famous beagle]

It's both
Good gear without experience = nothing much
Experience without good gear = a little bettter
Experience and good gear = winner

Also, most pro engineers didn't start out at home on cheap gear, they started out as interns, helpers, tape ops etc in million dollar studios and learned on that gear, there really isn't a graduation process to work through levels of gear. They always had the best rooms, mics, outboard, desks, musicians, producers and engineers to watch and learn from. then they got to try out their own sh!t on the weekends and with lower echelon bands etc.

think about this. I can put an inexperienced driver in an F1 car in an F1 race and he won't win, he probably won't make it through turn one
I can put a very experienced race driver in a Honda civic in an F1 race and he won't win or even come close to catching any of the other cars although he'll probably make it around the track for at least as long as the car lasts through the abuse
But if I can put an experienced driver in an F1 car in an F1 race, now we have possibilities!

It's the same for most endeavors

Why do these theads always have to be a choice between one or the other

Good points. It's not an entirely accurate analogy, because music is subjective, whereas car racing is not. But I take your meaning.

But it wasn't a choice between one or the other. The original question was what percentage do you think each (gear or experience) contributes to the final product.

 

[Xaaron1377]

I think experience is most important. Having nice gear is awesome, but it's up to the person using the gear to make the best out of it. You have to be willing to experiment with things and not limit yourself to your gear.

 

[Bristol Posse]

Good points. It's not an entirely accurate analogy, because music is subjective, whereas car racing is not. But I take your meaning.

But it wasn't a choice between one or the other. The original question was what percentage do you think each (gear or experience) contributes to the final product.

It's 100% both

Part of the experience piece is understanding that the *RIGHT* tools matter

An 1176 is a brilliant, expensive super fast compressor but not the right tool at all when you need a slower sound and the vibe of a *Cheap a$$* ART Pro VLA. Even if you know that no amount of experience can make an 1176 react like a Pro VLA or vice versa

A vintage U87 is a wonderful mic except when you need the sound of an SM57. Even if you know that no amount of experience can make an sm57 have transient response like a U87 or vice versa

Etc., etc., etc..

Only experience can tell you that but without the gear available you can't make the choice. Only experience will tell you that track 12 doesn't need any processing at all, but the vocal needs a lot of compression etc. but without the right compressor you can't make the adjustment you want

I don't think there is a separation, I guess you can have gear without experience but how to you get experience without gear?
You can't learn guitar without a guitar, you cant record without a mic, pre and some kind of medium and so on

Personally I'd rather learn on the best I can afford, It's usually easier since you don't seem to spend so much time actually fighting the gear itself.

 

[miroslav]

I don't think there is a separation, I guess you can have gear without experience but how to you get experience without gear?

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

Personally I'd rather learn on the best I can afford, It's usually easier since you don't seem to spend so much time actually fighting the gear itself.

Exactly.

I would give my left nut to be 25 again and have the gear that I now have....rather than the 4-track tape deck, small 8-channel mixer and a few gig-mics I had back then.
Of course...I would also want the experience I have now.

So yeah, good gear + experience is where you really want to be. Neither one alone can truly make up for the other.

 

[famous beagle]

So yeah, good gear + experience is where you really want to be. Neither one alone can truly make up for the other.

Well put. But let me ask you this: if you had, say 5 days to record an album, and had to choose between my gear (listed at front of thread) and the pro engineer of your choice or a fully pro studio with an engineer who didn't know sh*t (or knew very little - and you could only perform - you couldn't engineer), which would you choose? I'd pick the former in a heartbeat!

 

[miroslav]

...if you had, say 5 days to record an album, and had to choose between my gear (listed at front of thread) and the pro engineer of your choice or a fully pro studio with an engineer who didn't know sh*t (or knew very little - and you could only perform - you couldn't engineer), which would you choose? I'd pick the former in a heartbeat!

What's that got to do with anything?

I will go out on a limb and say that 99-out-of-100 "fully pro studios" have engineers that know 100 times more than 99-out-of-100 guys on any home-rec forum know about engineering...
...and 99-out-of-100 pro engineers probably won't be working with your gear list (as good as it is).

You can make up all kinds of "what if" senarios....but you have to consider *what is* reality.

So...what "pro engineer of your choice" is going to come record an album with your gear in 5 days...?

I'm not trying to beat down your expectations about your gear. I use to play the same mental game back in my early days..."what if __________ engineer came to my studio, would he be able to record well with it, or would he chuckle and walk out"...but after all these years I've accepted the fact that pro studios are a cut above, and pro engineers are also a cut above....and we're all just trying to measure up on at least some levels, gear-wise and experience-wise.

I got a ton invested in my studio...and I STILL don't think it measures up to *pro studio* standards....but I keep working on it. AFA experience....it too is a never-ending quest.

 

[CoolCat]

Well put. But let me ask you this: if you had, say 5 days to record an album, and had to choose between my gear (listed at front of thread) and the pro engineer of your choice or a fully pro studio with an engineer who didn't know sh*t (or knew very little - and you could only perform - you couldn't engineer), which would you choose? I'd pick the former in a heartbeat!

My sons band just had a similar experience, of that sort.

The high dollar studio with a beginner "trainee" , a friend of the band, for 3 days and the results didnt work out.
It was all free. and no hard feelings, the guy was learning but in a very big studio with very professional gear- pro level for sure.

In the end the band chose the home recorded versions over the big studio for their cd to sell at gigs. They learned alot , argued a lot, nearly broke up, struggled through it and spent a lot of time shooting in the dark, and listening to the mixes all over asking people what they thought and re-mixed.

(so another plug for HR, they were able to spend hundreds of hours working things out, versus a pro studio for 3 days only.)

I've never known anyone to have a professional engineer, record in a low budget studio...that would be interesting.

edit: you know I post this too often,but come to think of it again..Todd Rundgren/Producer/Artist, he did that Arena Cd on a Line 6 UX8 and a laptop, very minimal gear. so there's one data point for exp and cheap gear.

 

[famous beagle]

What's that got to do with anything?

I will go out on a limb and say that 99-out-of-100 "fully pro studios" have engineers that know 100 times more than 99-out-of-100 guys on any home-rec forum know about engineering...
...and 99-out-of-100 pro engineers probably won't be working with your gear list (as good as it is).

You can make up all kinds of "what if" senarios....but you have to consider *what is* reality.

So...what "pro engineer of your choice" is going to come record an album with your gear in 5 days...?

I'm not trying to beat down your expectations about your gear. I use to play the same mental game back in my early days..."what if __________ engineer came to my studio, would he be able to record well with it, or would he chuckle and walk out"...but after all these years I've accepted the fact that pro studios are a cut above, and pro engineers are also a cut above....and we're all just trying to measure up on at least some levels, gear-wise and experience-wise.

I got a ton invested in my studio...and I STILL don't think it measures up to *pro studio* standards....but I keep working on it. AFA experience....it too is a never-ending quest.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but I think the gap between pro studios and home studios is lessening all the time. And I'm not even talking about people having really expensive crap in their home. Maybe it has to do with a change in expectations from listeners, or maybe it's just that, as home recording gear became more affordable in the 80s, ever since then people have gotten better and better at using it. Since the digital/plug-in revolution, that's even accelerated (in some instances).

My point is that is a very real possibility now to produce an album in your home studio that sounds fully professional---no "pretty good for..." disclaimer needed.

Take for instance the band Midlake. If you've never heard of them, go check out one of these tunes (or both if you'd like) really quickly.

Midlake - Balloon Maker - YouTube

Midlake - Roscoe - YouTube

"Roscoe" sounds a little more "hi-fi" because they were going for more of an indie/lo-fi sound on their first album, from which "Balloon Maker" is. The second album, with "Roscoe," was more traditional in its approach.

Anyway, Midlake are from Denton, TX, which is where I went to school. I've met a few of the members, but I don't know them personally. However, one of my good friends does, and he told me in great detail about their recording process.

Both of these albums were recorded completely by the band in their home studio on a Roland VS-2480. They had one Neve preamp, a Fatman preamp, one MXL tube mic, and one AKG C414. Other than that, everything else was pretty pedestrian regarding mics and pres. Almost all of the effects and dynamic processing came from the Roland---the only exception being a Yamaha SPX90 for a few special reverbs. I think they had an RNC too. They were in the middle of recording their first album (Bamnan and Slivercork) when they got their deal with Bella Union records. They mixed it entirely by themselves in their home, and then it was mastered at Abbey Road. The same process was used for the second album, Van Occupanter.

I don't know about you, but I think the songs sound great, fully professional, and plenty of other people too. In fact, "Roscoe" showed up at #90 in Rolling Stone's 100 Best Songs of the 2000s list:

100 Best Songs of the 2000s: Midlake, 'Roscoe' | Rolling Stone

So, the whole point of my question is trying to get at the fact of ... when do we reach the point where our experience --- not our gear --- is holding us back from getting pro-quality sounds? Obviously, "pro-quality" is subjective, but then again everything with music is.

 

[CoolCat]

So, the whole point of my question is trying to get at the fact of ... when do we reach the point where our experience --- not our gear --- is holding us back from getting pro-quality sounds?.

when our money runs out!

...ahahah jus kiddin

 

[miroslav]

Maybe it has to do with a change in expectations from listeners...


.........


.... when do we reach the point where our experience --- not our gear --- is holding us back from getting pro-quality sounds? Obviously, "pro-quality" is subjective, but then again everything with music is.

Yes...expectations for sound quality changed a lot back in the late '80s. Things have improved in the last 10 years though, but there are still many who put sound quality low on their priority list and focus more on other aspects of the production process.

I'm a home-rec guy too, and I agree that inexpensive gear has gotten better and home-rec experience has evolved from the days of the 4-track...but for every home-rec band/artist that releases an album that is exceptionally engineered and that has great sound quality (not just songs you like)....there are thousands who release low-grade home-rec crap.
Like people who took the view that with just a computer, a bunch of software, a couple of mics and a $100 preamp, they could achieve audio engineering greatness just by working at it long enough....and most fail.
Of course, their expectations and biased perspectives often make them think they've actually cleared the pro quality bar.

One thing that is true...with so much crap out there flooding the interwebs....it's much easier to sound good if you have some decent gear and experience to back it.
Still, most of the albums that get serious recognition for engineering and sound quality tend to come from pro studios, not home studios, though a lot of "home studios" owned by pros are not the same as what most of us have at our disposal.
The entire home/project studio concept has changed a lot from the early 4-track days. Also, when dealing primarily with ITB productions...things have leveled out between pro and home in many cases, but on the hardware side, there's still a big difference between the two.

 

[Bobbsy]

I've just been reading through this thread and have one other thought. There's no clear cut dividing line between "cheap gear" and "good gear".

Oh, a $5.95 Skype mic is definitely cheap and a $2500 Neumann is definitely good but there's a huge grey area in the middle. A $100 MXL or AT can be a pretty good microphone and, by the time we're talking about a $500 sE or AKG, the differences between those and true top of the line stuff become very subtle (at least if you choose the right mics). There's a definite law of diminishing returns. I've taken mics as an example but it applies to everything.

And, as others have mentioned, choice makes a big difference. Not many people with experience are going to try doing everything on a "I want a mic to do vocals, guitar and my sax. What do you recommend for a budget of $100" special.

But, having said all that, other things being equal I'd choose experience and talent over gear in most cases.