Don't Believe The Hype

[xstatic]

What an amusing thread. I am glad someone revived it or I would not have seen it. I have some nice gear, and I do live in a suburb as well. I must be some sort of asshole just toddling away in my studio using expensive toys all with the sole purpose of killing rock'n'roll.

In the end, I would have to say that this panty poster does not have songs on the radio, does not perform regionally and probably does not do any of the things that he/she said. Why have we not heard any work yet? Even if the "new album" is not done, panty said that he had 4 mix tapes in stores. So lets hear it... But then again we won't hear it because it probably does not exist, or else he knows that it is so awful that we will all hate it. I love people like this. Reminds of of mixiescratchy or whomever from one of the other sections of this sight swearing that his CD's are better than ours because he burns them at 48khz. He swears up and down that the reason commercial CD's sound better is because they burn them at higher sampl rates and bit depths etc...

The cold hard truth is that high end gear IS better. If you only have a bunch of cheap ass stuff, you may still be able to do good work. However, you will be limited in what you can achieve if the equipment is not up to the task. Me however, I have the right equipment. As a result I am only limited by my own ability in conjunction with the ability and means of the person or group that I am recording. I do not need to be at the sessions to know that people just do not record a $100,000 Steinway Grand Piano with $10 Radio shack dynamic mics. What would be the point anyhow in using a piano like that? Panty told me that cheap shit was better so screw the Steinway. Instead maybe I should just go grab a $10 radio shack mic and throw it through a behringer mic\xer and just mic the speaker from my $20 Fisher Price piano. You know, since in the end it will just end up on a computer compressed to hell and burned with Nero. I don't need all that other stuff. According to Panty it will sound the same.

As a point of reference, I used to have a lot of cheap stuff. At the time I loved it and thought it was all cool. Then I started to get better. As my skill and ears developed I started to realize the limitations of what I had. So, I sold it and bought better stuff. Then I did that again and again and again.... I have never regretted it and yes i can hear the difference. Even more importantly I can feel the difference. So can my clients. I have compared nice Neumann mics and such against cheaper newer models. In recent years the cheaper mics have certainly gotten better, but there is still a HUGE difference in quality between them. YOU may not notice the difference right now, but as your ears and skills develop, you may start to later. Not only that, but testing a mic on its own is basically a worthless test. To really know how a mic will treat you then you need to record some stuff with it. If you really want to hear the difference then record two tracks of the same thing on different mics and then put them in a mix. THAT is where all of those worthless high end toys start to really shine and do their job. That is also why Panty is probably already done with his career.

 

[RAMI]

I lived in the sub-urbs until I was 20. I bought my first drum set when I was 11 years old by delivering papers for a summer. I've worked for every penny and bought every piece of equipment with my own money ever since. What the hell is this idiot fucking whining and yapping about? Nothing like people who spend their whole lives blaming everyone else for their incompetence and failures. What a pathetic joke.

 

[rayc]

I think the idea was that there is an anti newbie bias within the forum.
Funnily enough I entered as a newbie in January of this year, have asked heaps of questions & learnt enough to answer some.
The only bias I have found is in favour of wretched sounding NWOBHM guitar effects against which I argued until I realized that I was trying to convince people enjoying making loud, raucous sounds with a guitar. We all know that, as with sex, a guitar plugged into a big amp or amp sim disconnects the brain & engages the scrotum. As a result of my sudden awareness I keep my own counsel on that topic so as not to be a killjoy - the very thing you seem to want to be Pantyboy.
I started out with Soundblaster, Waverepair & a Y cable to connect my 4 track portastudio in January & have had almost 98.75% assistance, encouragement and ideas from this mob.
Getoverwhateveritisthatistroublingyou and record some music.
Enjoy

 

[mellowman]

Even though this post is simply elongating possibly one of the the most painful threads i've read here i just wanted to put in a thanks to all that have tried to wind panty kid's neck in.

Yep kit is expensive and yea it does suck not being able to afford it. But at no point have i ever been slapped down in HR because of my lack of gear. stupidity and lack of forethought - yes they've told me good n proper, but not for being a newbie to the home recording world.

Good luck with your recording pantyboy but you need to learn a way of voicing your opinions, as at the moment you've got a plain old dangerous way of doing it.

Toby (MM)

 

[cephus]

That simply isn't true. Gear DOES matter. It may not matter to you, and every once in a while an exception overcomes the rule, but in general a $10 radio shack mic is never going to capture the beautiful intricacies of a beautifully played grand piano or a great singer. You will end up with tinny shallow crap. The music may be wonderful, and that's good enough sometimes, but as a consumer I want a good quality recording that will allow me to be immersed in the music.

I hate to come down on the pantyboy's side, but I think, in essence, he's right. When you increase the resolution of your equipment, you may just be magnifying the warts, cracks and noise. I think it is wrong to say "Maybe YOU can't tell the difference, but I can." Who are you, anyway?

My opinion: In the hands of the majority of those that attempt to make recordings, high-end gear=bland, flat, common-sounding tracks. Tracks that are recorded with eclectic equipment used to the limits of its performance envelope have personality and color. I'm not saying it's impossible with high-end gear. I just think that it is easier for some people to throw money at their sound. I am just not impressed with the results.

My opinion is based on the results of commercial studios that local bands have used versus some scantily-equipped local recording artists' home studios. Eight tracks analog can be plenty. It can also be punchy and warm.

It seems like everyone who came out against panty-boy was saying that you can't record a grand piano with a $10 radio shack mic. I don't think that is the point at all. If you're trying to acheive a sound using the tools that you have available, a 57, a decent condensor mic, a pre-amp and a soundcard might just do it. Not everyone needs to record a grand piano.

It's pretty offensive to tell an artist that you can't paint a proper painting without $10000 worth of brushes. I'd much rather be the person saying I can build a castle from a single grain of sand.

 

[xstatic]

Sounds to me like your real gripe is with engineering that you don't care for. Hig end gear certainly does not mean bland. Creativity and talent will always outshine gear. However, creativity + talent + good decisions and good equipment will always far surpass anything else. There really are not that many peopel putting down newbies here. Nor are they criticizing their setups. But for some arrigant idiot to come in here and say that there is no reason for progression and expansion is actually damaging to any newbies that might buy into that kind of crap.

 

[BigRay]

I will take my chances with continuing to buy high end gear. Chances are, if you could afford high end gear, youd buy it, and this thread wouldnt exist.

 

[cephus]

Thanks for the anonymous negative rep, by the way.

I don't really understand the hostility. If you feel like you need the best that the "industry" has to offer to capture your muse, so be it. If you are saying that no one could ever record anything as beautiful using less expensive equipment, then you are full of shit.

The art will trump the technology every time. High technology betrays substandard art more than the sub-standard technology betrays high art.

You guys are something else. You think that someone saying that they can produce a sweet sound using a delta 44, a behringer preamp and a 57 is an affront to your virility.

Hey, I fold. You guys must be the real thing.

 

[mellowman]

Just thought id add to my comments earlier,

I have no problem whatsoever with people persuing their interest in home recording without spending a small fortune over it (most of thetime not all that small), but i just can't understand what kind of response you were expecting pantybloke when you are entering yourself into an environment packed with people spending every scrap of money they can on building on clarity, definition and overall quality of their recordings.

The reasoning behind higher priced equipment being of better quality and resulting in more audiophilic (not sure i can adapt that word like that but what the hell!) tracks is not myth but clear stated fact, any specsheet will show you what you are accomplishing by spending the extra dosh. If your aim is not to produce something that is representing the artists music (whether it be yourself or another band) in its best form then by all means feel free to skimp.

Ultimately its your OWN opinion of your OWN recordings that you should be worried about and not feel that its your mission to convert people who don't know you from adam!

I've really got to stop coming back to this thread it winds me up so much every time i read it!

Toby (MM)

 

[Dogman]

I posted early on in this thread. I say, go to the MP3 clinic, and listen to some tunes done by real homerecorders. Listen to the tune, and don't even think about gear. Then ask what they used. There is some real good music in there. Some made with expensive gear, and some done on the cheap. There is also some shit in there. No matter what gear they used, it is shit. Good gear won't guarantee good music, and cheap gear doesn't mean it has to be bad music. Your gear is only part of the equation.

 

[xstatic]

Cephus, maybe you should go back and re-read this thread. I don't think that anyone here has actually said that good stuff can not be done with cheaper gear. The idocy portrayed in the first post of this thread is what I am against. To tell people that there is no reason to buy expensive stuff because it sounds and acts the same as the cheap stuff is just plain wrong. Pantyboy has thrown down the gauntlet here by accusing all of those people who do have good equipment as being the people that ruin the industry and are spreading the "false word" about cheap equipment. I am not condescending to people that use cheaper gear. It does not make me wrong to stand up for myself and the equipment that I choose to use when someone tells me that my Chandler sounds the same as their Behringer. If they honestly think that, than the really can not hear the difference. A studio projects b1 sounds absolutely nothing like my Neumann U87. There is no similarity, there is not even a close amount of clarity, depth and smoothness between the two. Is my Neumann worth 25 times what the Studio Projects is? To me, yes, or I would not have bought it. I don't tell everyone to never buy anything less or it isn't worth it. I do however try and help people spend their money wisely and on equipment that can grow with them. If people like Pantyboy can not see this, then they are the people who are really ruining music and the industry. A lack of open mindedness is a bad thing no matter what equipment you are running.

 

[dementedchord]

why do i monitor this thread

aaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! it makes me crazy but i cant put it down.....(not the pipe) the participation here is based (not entirely) on enlightenment.... we all on a personal level desire it.... i'm trying very hard to believe pantypunk is NOT stupid...and there's the rub... if someone is incapable of understanding so be it.... it doesnt require pity or anythingelse the alternetive is what troubles me and that is ignorance.... lets remember that it shares as its root.... ignore.... if a man can ask the question (or at least realizes there is one) and CHOOSES not to seek an answer he is by definition ignorant.... (one who ignores) as a tech ive seen some great equip and some real shit but i rarely saw a guy so vehemently attack admitedly better stuff as if its all the same.... and blame the world for begetting it..... its a poor workman that blames the tools....

 

[sloom]

This is just a general sentiment, and not one totally without base. Our popular American culture says "Bigger is better", "More expensive is better", etc. (look at the proliferation of Hummers in your neighborhood). The music commodities industry (or whatever is the proper term) is no less subject to this way of thinking. It's capitalism, pure and simple- and they are in it to make a buck! Of course you are being enticed to buy this "better" item every time you open the pages of your Musician's Friend catalogue (G.A.S. anyone?). Do you need it? Likely not... but you do need good material, and good performances.

Truth is, if you had just what you needed in your studio to make excellent music (assuming it's in you to do it, of course), your studio would probably be somehow a tad different. Come on, admit it. That's not such a bad thing- but it's true that most of us get swayed into buying according to the influence from a level of snob-appeal.

Nonetheless, I gotta admit I'd love to have an RME Multiface and Samplitude! Because they're super good quality items. But not everything is so great.

It's no good to get personally affronted at this post. This is the internet! The guy's got a right to express his mind, maybe frustration at what he sees as an issue. I see it too.

Ana DaSilva of the Raincoats did a record on a small Yamaha jig with an inexpensive mic. Maybe 2 mics, one might have been nicer than the other. And it's got good reviews. And all those other past records we grew up on that were done in bare-bones studios...

I'm not a pro engineer (here they come!), but I'm a person who lives in the world and has sized up a thing or two... no matter what 'neighborhood' you visit, people and the way they behave are the same. The same influences affect everything! Our culture is a consumer culture. Our news media caters to Martha Stewart fans- screw information that's relevant! I say there's a definite removal from the urgency of the moment in our culture... we go about with myths in our head about what we need

O.k., I've gotten a little 'deep' here! Pardon- and never mind the remarks about wading boots and manure! You making music? Good. It's good to pay attention to what you need to get it done, and to accept another's efforts based on their results, not how they got there.

 

[TheDewd]

You making music? Good. It's good to pay attention to what you need to get it done, and to accept another's efforts based on their results, not how they got there.

I couldn't have said it better.
Whenever I hear GREAT engineering, I don't ask myself "what compressor did the guy use?"...I ask myself, HOW did he get that sound and how can I get close to it with MY stuff.

 

[Soundmind??]

I used to fall for the same line (good gear is overhyped) untill I actually bought some and did A/B comparison. I admit that there is some snobbery and some gear is probably overhyped, but last week I compared some music by simply playing a recording that was done with this signal path: U87-Avalon 737-Apogee A/D clocked with Big Ben. I played it back through two seperate stereo channels, one through the Apogee D/A and one through the converters on a $400 sound card (VSL 2020). The Apogee Rosetta provided a much clearer, crisper sound, particularly on the accoustic guitar. The difference was clear. Then I did the same with an older recording through lower cost gear. Playing it back through the Apogee only slightly, bearly noticeable improvement was there. Why, because the signal quality was not there with the initial recording.

I used to think there was little difference, and even argued that in this forum. I compared music from professional studios to my work, but was playing it back through cheap gear and the quality was masked by my gear when played back. I'm not trying to discourage anyone with a tight budget from buying what they can afford and doing the best they can. Talent is the key to a good recording, but good talent captured with good gear will be all the better. Dig out an old 33 LP record of your favorite music. The talent was great and the finest gear available at the time was used, but it won't compare to what the same musician can do today.

Buying a some inexpensive gear to start with and learn is cool, but when you can afford it, get the best you can. I'm learning that patience, dealing with musice stores by making offers or waiting for sales, and saving up for one thing at the time will pay off in the long run. By all means, use cheap gear to train on, capture new music ideas, etc. When you want to do serious work, use good gear even if it means going to a studio and paying to get it done.

 

[Supercreep]

Thanks for the anonymous negative rep, by the way.

I don't really understand the hostility. If you feel like you need the best that the "industry" has to offer to capture your muse, so be it. If you are saying that no one could ever record anything as beautiful using less expensive equipment, then you are full of shit.

The art will trump the technology every time. High technology betrays substandard art more than the sub-standard technology betrays high art.

You guys are something else. You think that someone saying that they can produce a sweet sound using a delta 44, a behringer preamp and a 57 is an affront to your virility.

Hey, I fold. You guys must be the real thing.

Cephus, I think it's mostly backlash to Panty's condescending attitude that did him in. Whatever valid point he was making was lost in his self-congratulatory diatribes.

You can get good sounds out of inexpensive equipment, as you and I have discovered. You can get better sounds out of better equipment more easily than cheap equipment. Some cheap equipment will never do what you want it to do, and some cheap equipment is exactly what you're looking for.

There's no formulaic answer to these questions. Ultimately you have to trust your own ears. We're all susceptible to herd mentality and groupthink and hype of "the next best thing".

But I can hear a big difference when I listen to my stuff and then to (insert name of favorite AE here). There is no talent bridge that is going to get me to that quality; you can't get there from here.

 

[Treeline]

This is a pretty weird thread.

I'll side with Richie. When I started out I was using an old Dell with a SB gamer card. It worked. In fact, once I figured out a way to get a digital signal going, it worked pretty well. But I didn't claim that it, or the results I got from it, would equal or approach that of a professional studio. That's plain silly.

Now I have better gear. It's stuff that I've picked up here and there as I learned something and had a few bucks to try out something new. It's cheaper than a constant drunk and its way less hazardous than collecting bimbos.

Now my stuff has a flying chance of making someone actually enjoy listening to it - rather than trying hard to find ways to be polite about it. And some of my gear is far better than it used to be. But I won't claim that it, or the results I get from it, will equal or approach that of a professional studio. That's plain silly.

 

[EDAN]

Talent is the key to a good recording, but good talent captured with good gear will be all the better. Dig out an old 33 LP record of your favorite music. The talent was great and the finest gear available at the time was used, but it won't compare to what the same musician can do today.

Many of the old 4 and 8 track Beatles recordings still sound better than many CD's today. They aren't overcompressed, they aren't too dense, over stuffed as it were. The dynamics of those Thirty five plus year old recordings blow most of todays popular radio recordings away, Imo.

 

[sloom]

Many of the old 4 and 8 track Beatles recordings still sound better than many CD's today. They aren't overcompressed, they aren't too dense, over stuffed as it were. The dynamics of those Thirty five plus year old recordings blow most of todays popular radio recordings away, Imo.

You want a dynamic record? Abbey Road. Artistry, good playing, tension/release you can stand on/collapse into, great arrangements, great, lush production, and judicious use (or not use!) of all things available.

You want crap? Pick one of a plethora of modern rock records made in a state-of-the-art studio. Granted, there is some stuff that's 'pretty good', I guess... but you're not getting Abbey Road.

Not necessarily the studio or the gear... but I'm guessing there's a real change of emphasis these days, from artistic to technical. For better or for worse, digital has a built-in hype. Sometimes you don't need everything to be so dastardly clear and forward. Ears are analogue. So is every sound in the natural world.

I'm becoming more and more one of those who calls modern production "cold".

Note I find interesting: Is it possible that listening for things like clarity, and whatever other better quality you seek from your gear in a studio environment, is like testing dog food in a laboratory? I never know what my song really sounds like until it's on a player with other people in the room. That's reality. A studio environment is not reality.

The sum of the parts is not the whole.

 

[Soundmind??]

You want a dynamic record? Abbey Road. Artistry, good playing, tension/release you can stand on/collapse into, great arrangements, great, lush production, and judicious use (or not use!) of all things available.

You want crap? Pick one of a plethora of modern rock records made in a state-of-the-art studio. Granted, there is some stuff that's 'pretty good', I guess... but you're not getting Abbey Road.

Not necessarily the studio or the gear... but I'm guessing there's a real change of emphasis these days, from artistic to technical. For better or for worse, digital has a built-in hype. Sometimes you don't need everything to be so dastardly clear and forward. Ears are analogue. So is every sound in the natural world.

I'm becoming more and more one of those who calls modern production "cold".

Note I find interesting: Is it possible that listening for things like clarity, and whatever other better quality you seek from your gear in a studio environment, is like testing dog food in a laboratory? I never know what my song really sounds like until it's on a player with other people in the room. That's reality. A studio environment is not reality.

The sum of the parts is not the whole.

True, but this is what consumers demand. I'm talking about the ability of modern studios to capture greater dynamic range, crystal clear sound, lower noise, etc. Compression is waaaay overused in my opinion. It's like the rest of our modern society....fast food....a quick buck....supersize it!....etc.