Digital or Analog???

[FindingYorick]

Hello all,

My buddy and I have been playing together for a while now. We have decided to open a studio to record others. We have run into a fork in the road. Now-a-day you can do everything on computers. Instead of having to pay for a bunch of different equipment, you can have it all neat and tidy all in one package. You can even get that sound of a tube amp through digital effects. We have the money to get started, but not enough to buy everything twice.
What we want to do is run a full fleged recording studio. My question is, is it better to buy the programs such as the waves- dimond package or to invest in the big sound boards?

Thanks.

 

[manning1]

with respect it takes years of experience to become a good audio engineer.
i'm still trying. a computer/gear will only take you so far.
i suggest you do a lot of research on what it takes to make a living as a studio. its not as easy or simplistic as you might think.
ive seen many people invest a minor trust fund in a studio and have problems building a valid susyainable business model.
you might go to google groups to rec.audio.pro and search some of the back posts. my advice is to be prudent how much you invest.

 

[RD423]

Well just put it like this in the studio I work using pro tools and we also have the hd24 but we use plug ins for those effects and stuff like that but we have outboard gear as well focusrite preamp and then we also have an outboard effects unit. and we do work with some major artists and have no complaints.

 

[FindingYorick]

RD, I have no idea what you just said

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

My buddy and I have been playing together for a while now. We have decided to open a studio to record others.

Hmmm... ok... don't mean to be rude, but playing music doesn't necessarily qualify you to engineer music.... there is an art and skill to it.....

We have run into a fork in the road. Now-a-day you can do everything on computers.

Nope - not everything......

Instead of having to pay for a bunch of different equipment, you can have it all neat and tidy all in one package.

That *might* work for amateurs and hobbyists - I guarantee that doesn't work for a commercial facility. You have to be able to accommodate MANY applications/contexts and computers don't handle it all...

You can even get that sound of a tube amp through digital effects.

That's pretty debatable... and I for one, disagree.....

We have the money to get started, but not enough to buy everything twice. What we want to do is run a full fleged recording studio.

Then start off on the right foot by buying professional gear - don't start with budget gear.

My question is, is it better to buy the programs such as the waves- dimond package or to invest in the big sound boards?

You need to do a lot of research before you jump in - just the nature of your question indicates you haven't done enough homework yet on what you're getting into. There's a lot more to it than you appear to beleive.

 

[Farview]

What we want to do is run a full fleged recording studio. My question is, is it better to buy the programs such as the waves- dimond package or to invest in the big sound boards?

Thanks.

Waves Diamond package doesn't do the same thing as a mixing board, I have both.
If you don't go computer based, what will you use for a recording medium?
How much money do you have? Enough to build a decent facility. My studio is built in a barn that was already converted into a commercial space (bathroom, heat, air conditioning) All I had to do was put up walls (double walls) and treat the rooms and that cost almost $10,000 with me doing all the work myself (I have friends in the trades that lent a hand)
A big mixing console (used) will easily run into the mid 5 digits.
Are you sure you really have what it takes?

 

[Ronan]

RD, I have no idea what you just said

That being the case you should not be opening a studio. Granted the grammer is not the best, you should understand what he was saying. Jumping into a full fledged studio with out solid understanding of gear will probably loose you a lot of money and cause you a lot of greif.

 

[mattamatta]

"Originally Posted by FindingYorick
RD, I have no idea what you just said


That being the case you should not be opening a studio."

In his defense, I really dont understand quite what RD said either. I get that it's a description of what he uses, but it's worded in a very confusing way, and is like drinking drain-o; sure it will fill you up, but it will leave you feeling empty inside! Not really, but that's funny.

Anyway, yeah, findingyorick (please find him soon, I knew him well), if you dont know perfectly well what you are going to want/need to open up a studio, it's probably not a good idea to do it, as you probably dont know all you should know to be able to make it recording for a living.

Start out small, set up a small home studio, and expand as you improve your recording skills. Honestly, it'll be quite a while before your skills will not be the part that's holding you back - and even then, you'll always be improving, no matter how long you've been doing it for. Ah, the joys of recording.

The skills and experience of the person doing the recording is by far the most important thing you can have in a studio, and that's something you can only gain by failing miserably many times, as even the greatest have done in their n00b days.

So yeah, I suggest you take some time fiddling with a small home setup, and you'll really start to learn a lot. The more you learn, the more you'll see you have to learn before you'll feel ready to open up a commercial studio. But dont worry, it's a fun journey.

 

[LRosario]

My advice,

Get the expensive gear and when the studio goes under, I'll buy your gear half price.


That's an investment

 

[bigwillz24]

Have you considered starting a project studio instead of a full fledged one?

I'm no pro but I do get clients that are willing to pay me to record a short demo.

However these people are few and far in between (at least where i stay) for me to really consider calling myself a project studio although it might be a much more realistic goal for me than my prevoius and still ongoing idea of having an independant record label.

 

[Cyrokk]

I'm no professional, but to answer your original question of which is better, I'm 99% sure the answer is yes.

Digital still has its deficiencies, one of the main ones being summing tracks. Analog desks do a hell of a lot better job at mixing quality audio than click and point mixing, not to even mention the fact that different analog outboard effects processors do the best job in different circumstances (particularly compression and reverb), which isn't really practical if all of your work is in one box.

The best approach is to have a hybrid system, and some will rightfully argue that given the budget, recording should be done in analog to maximize warmth, digital should be used for editing, and mixing should be done analog.

Even more important is your room and monitoring environment, choices of which are directly proportional to how good your ears are at picking out audio deficiencies. If you think tube simulation is just as good as the real deal, then you need to spend enough time with quality equipment to be able to tell the difference.

 

[dgatwood]

Digital still has its deficiencies, one of the main ones being summing tracks. Analog desks do a hell of a lot better job at mixing quality audio than click and point mixing, not to even mention the fact that different analog outboard effects processors do the best job in different circumstances (particularly compression and reverb), which isn't really practical if all of your work is in one box.

I'm going to disagree on some of that. Analog desks are a lot better if you're trying to do a semi-live mix for a band, but digital setups give you the ability to go back and change your mind, which unless you have some very large 2" analog tape unit (or maybe you'd consider multitrack digital tape to be 'analog enough' ;-) you just can't do in the analog domain.

I do agree that analog outboard is better for some things, but compression and reverb could go either way. I've seen some really good and bad compression and reverb plug-ins. Some of the better reverb plug-ins actually do hall simulation based on imitating recordings of actual halls and... it's fascinating to read about the modeling they do. Those sorts of reverb plug-ins sound really good. Some of the simpler ones can, too, in some situations.

Many digital compressors are awful, but some are pretty decent. That said, if you're looking for that analog tape compression sound, you probably want to do that in the analog domain. Depends on the sound you're going for.

Even more important is your room and monitoring environment, choices of which are directly proportional to how good your ears are at picking out audio deficiencies. If you think tube simulation is just as good as the real deal, then you need to spend enough time with quality equipment to be able to tell the difference.

Hear, hear. :-D Possibly even more important than your monitoring environment is listening to the recording in different environments, since the people listening to your tracks will be listening in the car, on a home stereo, and even on a crappy pair of computer speakers.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Possibly even more important than your monitoring environment is listening to the recording in different environments, since the people listening to your tracks will be listening in the car, on a home stereo, and even on a crappy pair of computer speakers.

Actually, nothing's more important than the monitoring environment....... cross-checking on different systems is simply a normal part of the process...