Encouragement

[darnold]

Me and a buddy actually did a mic shootout for fun last week.

Simple simple and not scientific tests but it was still fun.

We put up

Soundelux U195 (ive got one of these on its way yahoo)
Neumann TLM193
Audiotechnica AT4050
AKG C414 EB
Studio Projects B3
Shure SM7

I could post up the results. The reason why im mentioning this is because i was actually quite surprised at how well the B3 sounded. Definately more harsh in the mid range but it was surprisingly tight. However it still had the cheapest sound of the bunch but it was still surprising. Pretty good microphone for the money. Ive got two that just kind of sit as an extra mic in the studio.

Danny

 

[OneRoomStudios]

Anyone equiped with at least a PIII computer, a $99 EMU sound card, a $99 SP B1, a $175 RNC compressor and a $59 Art Pre can record music that ranks in listenability amongts the "greatest" recordings ever made.

I don't have the setup I wrote about at the beginning, but I used to until this year. Athlon 3200, Win2K, Layla3G, RNP, RNC, B1, TB1, TLM-103, MK-319, SM57 & 58, Some Marshall Mic that I don't care for, AT Stereo Mic, Art MP...hmmmm....I've got one other pretty nice SD Condenser...an old one I got for free that is great...anyhoo

This begs the question.....

If your original equipment was good enough to produce "music that ranks in listenability amongst the "greatest" recordings ever made," then why did you upgrade?

I agree with you that we presently have access to more equipment and at lower prices than ever before, but I can't agree with you that the equipment you listed is sufficient for a professional quality recording. If it was a lot of high-end audio equipment companies would be going out of business. I'm not saying that the gear you listed is bad - a B1 is probably one of the best mics a home-recordist can buy, but it isn't a miracle worker. Professional recording require professional equipment, and more importantly - professionals to operate it all.

-Peter

 

[Sonic Idiot]

It's all about what you consider "professional". What piece of gear do I need to buy to get into that club? Or what skill do I need before I can call myself "professional"? We all know that you can have a fancy studio, great gear, and still totally suck at making good recordings. This isn't eye surgery: this is art. I believe I'm a professional regardless of my gear. In fact, if you want to be a recording engineer or producer, well, just say the word and there you are. The best advice you could give anyone seeking a career as a recordist is to say, "just start considering yourself one."

There is a reason there isn't a significant professional recording association like the American Medical Association that requires rigorous educational, licensing, conduct and ongoing review in order to be a member. Recording is mostly trial and error and patience and love for the game. It's art! It's not a club. And with technology being what it is today, that club has gotten much bigger, and that's a great thing for artists.

As for my upgrade, I'm pretty much done and I'm drawing the line about where I'm at. (yeah, right.) Of course, I'm sick in the head and I like the gear just because I love this stuff, like so many of you on the forum. I'm a sucker. I'm an addict. But my first setup was great, and I made many recordings with it I'm very proud of, and I sold those recordings independently and used them to get gigs and used that humble setup to record other artists, who were most pleased with the results. (The sound produced by that setup didn't sound like Abbey Road, of course. But it has it's own sound--well tempered and unique and very listenable. That setup, if you care to spend lots of time using it and experimenting, will lend you beautiful results--results, because of the room and your own sensibilities, that have a sonic character all their own).

I say all this to encourage those starting out. You have to start somewhere. Thankfuly the starting point for gear these days is NOT THAT FAR OFF from the ending point, which apparently is pro, whatever that is. And I like the point made about compressing the shit out of records these days. Throws all the advantage of a big studio right down the toilet.

Now, also, I'm not trying to dis studio owners. Again, studios are great. Why did I upgrade? I wish I had a studio! (That is, a dedicated space for just recording music. My studio is currently outside of the kitchen. I have forgotten to turn the fridge back on one too many times.) Maybe I will someday. But I simply can not afford one right now, nor do I own a house I can rip apart. In the mean time, I'll continue making recordings that stand up to great scrutiny.

 

[ch2os7]

good thread

...to me the weakest link in the chain at this point is EASILY whatever is sitting in front of the mic. This gear is great--.

I read each position with great interest. I think Sonic's premise is very sound. It is possible today to achieve recordings that are very listenable with equipment that is very affordable. This is something that was not possible just a few years ago.
Realistically I know the "proper studio" is going to have a more professional and polished sound. Experience and know-how along with high end gear will make a difference. (at least it should)
Not every home recording enthusiast will achieve the level of quality that Sonic does but the potential is there (even with modest priced gear) if you work at learning how to use the equipment, place the mics, etc. However I agree , "the weakest link in the chain is whatever is in front of the mic."

 

[OneRoomStudios]

It's all about what you consider "professional". What piece of gear do I need to buy to get into that club? Or what skill do I need before I can call myself "professional"? We all know that you can have a fancy studio, great gear, and still totally suck at making good recordings. This isn't eye surgery: this is art. I believe I'm a professional regardless of my gear. In fact, if you want to be a recording engineer or producer, well, just say the word and there you are. The best advice you could give anyone seeking a career as a recordist is to say, "just start considering yourself one."

There is a reason there isn't a significant professional recording association like the American Medical Association that requires rigorous educational, licensing, conduct and ongoing review in order to be a member. Recording is mostly trial and error and patience and love for the game. It's art! It's not a club. And with technology being what it is today, that club has gotten much bigger, and that's a great thing for artists.

Now that, I take issue with. Are you telling all of the engineers and producers out there who spent years in school or interning in studios so they could learn the skills they need to be professional that you have the same skill level? I certainly hope not. It's true, recording is an art. But the last time I checked, even professional artists went to art school or took an apprenticeship. Sure, you can call yourself an engineer or producer all you want, but without the training and experience your just a poseur.

Now, please don't take this the wrong way. I am NOT saying that home recordists or hobby recordists are poseurs or even necessarily "worse" at their craft than professionals. All I'm saying is that home recordists are by definition amateur. This is not meant as a jab at amateurs, I just wanted to point out that calling yourself something does not mean that you are that something. There are many actual professionals out there who have dedicated huge lengths of their lives to recording, and to surreptitiously give yourself the same title deprives them of all the respect they deserve.

Peter

 

[Sonic Idiot]

OneRoomStudios

I hear what your'e saying, I don't want to insult people who have paid dues. I don't want to take away from anyone. I think the blanket terms like professional simply do not apply, however, to this discussion.

We disagree on one main thing: In this field, I believe, you are a recording professional the moment you state it. There is no criteria you have to meet, no test you have to pass, no license you must renew. Now, you might be the worst recording professional on the planet (after all, someone has to have that title). Either way, your value as a "recording professional" will be vindicated by market forces.

OneRoom (and I ask because I DO want to know your take on this): At what point, in your thinking, can one call himself a professional?

(I've just searched out some stuff of interest, to be my own Devil's Advocate

http://www.aes.org/info/member_class.html

http://www.spars.com/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=52

 

[ROblows]

In this field, I believe, you are a recording professional the moment you state it.

The word "professional" implies a certain degree of competence and skill (i.e. "professionalism"). That's a simple matter of english usage. So, no, calling yourself a professional does not make you one.

 

[lexdrummer]

if I mix up a soft drink in my home and serve it to ten people who honestly think it tastes excellent, should i worry about the professional aspects of the mix? Fact is, I mixed up a helluva magic with a plastic spoon and 2 quarty jug. The pepsi Factory and lab were not at my disposal. Did I succeed?

I say listen more, disect less, and we will all find that even a recording from a couple hundred dollars worth of gear done properly can be slapped on plastic and sold to listeners who enjoy it.

http://3box3.com/grampahs_hats_sunshine_lady.htm

two fifty dollar mics, one take with a guitar solo dub five minutes later. Standard stage cords shot through two ratty old MP Tube pres to a $50 special tascam 4 track with only the left meter in working condition.

I've mixed thousands of microphones through the years on great gear, todays cheap stuff is getting better. This little test simply illustrates the exact thread, only regressively. I did throw the tracks into computer via direct unbalanced RCA, but I did NOT plugin stamp the hell out of them. Just a little "free" plugin verb to take the dead out and a little EQ (not much). The track is not production perfect and was not even focused on mastering wise. But it's an excellent "what about recording with today's lawn sale gear" test.

 

[Sonic Idiot]

The word "professional" implies a certain degree of competence and skill (i.e. "professionalism"). That's a simple matter of english usage. So, no, calling yourself a professional does not make you one.

Yes it does, unless there is a legitimate governing body that regulates that profession, nothing is stopping anyone from opening a studio (i.e. there bedroom) and charging the public money to record anything. Anyone doing that is a professional. That word is very vague. (It must be defined: For instance, a "law professional" must have an advanced degree and pass rigorous testing to be able to claim professionalism. Not so in recording.)

The question is what degree of competence and skill is required before you can call yourself a "recording professional"? There is no agreement on what constitutes a good recording. Zero agreement. It's all subjective--it's all art. I can buy gear, rent a space, and open a studio tomorrow, even if I've never recorded a track in my life.

The term "engineer" is something that can be more easily quanitified, though. Claiming to be a "studio engineer" seems to have a bit more definition (but still diluted in the modern age). But "recording professional"? That now seems open to anyone with a handful of gear.

 

[omtayslick]

The word "professional" implies a certain degree of competence and skill (i.e. "professionalism"). That's a simple matter of english usage. So, no, calling yourself a professional does not make you one.

Being a "professional" simply means that you make a living exercising your profession. While that may imply a degree of competence, sad to say I have encountered incompetent professionals in many different fields. I have also encountered many gifted and talented amateurs in many fields as well. In audio, simply stated, the profesionals are the ones who get the work. The others who call themselves professionals are like the "actors" who bus tables for a living. Some of us (believe it or not) do not aspire to be "professional" audio engineers. But that doesn't mean we don't care about quality sound. And it also doesn't mean that we, as talented amateurs, cannot achieve good sound.

 

[lexdrummer]

here here... very good post tom.

 

[applejax]

Being a "professional" simply means that you make a living exercising your profession. While that may imply a degree of competence, sad to say I have encountered incompetent professionals in many different fields. I have also encountered many gifted and talented amateurs in many fields as well. In audio, simply stated, the profesionals are the ones who get the work. The others who call themselves professionals are like the "actors" who bus tables for a living. Some of us (believe it or not) do not aspire to be "professional" audio engineers. But that doesn't mean we don't care about quality sound. And it also doesn't mean that we, as talented amateurs, cannot achieve good sound.

I agree! I reff soccer at provincal (hopefully soon going to national level) and when I first started out 5 years ago, the "head reff" in charge of everyone else stated, "we are here to deliver our best services, we are all professionals". And he was saying this to the guys who were just starting out... just got out of the reffing course to start. Being a professional is doing the absolute best job you can do with what you've got...and getting paid for doing it. No this doesn't mean that if you go mow a lawn... your not a professional lawn mower... lol but when it comes to recording, you have to be a professional in your own eyes or else you wont get anywheres. You just need to be good at what your doing. But dont get me wrong... the guys that go to school for several years and do all the learning in "professional" studios are the experts and you can call them "professionals or experts"...but they still do the same thing we're all doing...just with more expensive gear, more money to charge per hour and they usually know alot more and have been around the block. All in all... I think we're all professionals and we're here to do our best job. So if we want to call ourselves professionals in our own minds...so be it. We all have most things in commum... we all enjoy music and recording. We're all professionals... but some have more experience and more gear/much "better" gear.

But I agree that you can also get really good results with "cheaper" gear. Thats my 2 cents.

 

[diogo]

if I mix up a soft drink in my home and serve it to ten people who honestly think it tastes excellent, should i worry about the professional aspects of the mix? Fact is, I mixed up a helluva magic with a plastic spoon and 2 quarty jug. The pepsi Factory and lab were not at my disposal. Did I succeed?

I say listen more, disect less, and we will all find that even a recording from a couple hundred dollars worth of gear done properly can be slapped on plastic and sold to listeners who enjoy it.

http://3box3.com/grampahs_hats_sunshine_lady.htm

two fifty dollar mics, one take with a guitar solo dub five minutes later. Standard stage cords shot through two ratty old MP Tube pres to a $50 special tascam 4 track with only the left meter in working condition.

I've mixed thousands of microphones through the years on great gear, todays cheap stuff is getting better. This little test simply illustrates the exact thread, only regressively. I did throw the tracks into computer via direct unbalanced RCA, but I did NOT plugin stamp the hell out of them. Just a little "free" plugin verb to take the dead out and a little EQ (not much). The track is not production perfect and was not even focused on mastering wise. But it's an excellent "what about recording with today's lawn sale gear" test.

lexdrummer,

i like the clip, exceptionaly clean for something recorded on a 4 track..

i know this is not exactly on topic, but nevertheless, i think it might be of some importance...for instance, i have all albums, bootlegs and whatnot, all you can imagine from my favourite band, the red house painters...but what i find myself going for, more and more in the last 4 or 5 months, is the 4 track demos they produced in the earlier years...i mean the albums are lo-fi enough you know, all amps were solid state in the beggining, not recorded on great studios, reverb drenched, etc...i love all of that, and still do, but, even though that sound has a great (for me) fingerprint, i find the 4 track demos much more interesting now...more appealing to me than the actual albums..and im going through this phase where i try to get the initial demos of every band i really like...for instance i got some dead can dance demos, and i feel exactly the same way..much more interesting than the actual albums, at this point (cause i know every album back and forth - yes, but im really sure thats not the only reason)...

i find that, most ppl, when refering to "studio quality" or whatever, look for clean, pristine, etc...the sound that really appeals to me has absolutely nothing to do with that. and im not refering to lo-fi either...i want stuff to sound interesting....for instance, my main concern with my personal demos, is not a clean sound..my one true obssession is wether or not im getting enough 3D feel and dimension from the mic and the pre, especially on vocals...if that quality is not there, it just sounds fake (to me)...once that's there, the rest is welcome, as long as its not a brutal hum or sizzle or whatever...it just adds to it.

of course this is not something one would want in classical music recording for instance...but for my stuff, i think it does wonders, especially if my room sucks (it clearly does)..lots of fx - wisely used of course; tape saturation, whatever...its all good.

a bit more on topic...how does everyone think most small indie labels record their albums...

most of the indies i know, that i get music from, that are putting out great music, record in bedrooms, with a lot less than we have avaliable these days. they cant even afford the budget studio across the street..

 

[lexdrummer]

just a little thought

I was thinking about all I read in this thread and there were good points all around. And then it occurred to me that the term Professional was a term I never related to in any sense. I consider myself a recordist, whatever is at hand, lets catch some sounds.
I do make money recording and sound engineering, so I guess you could relate that to professionalism in some way. Personally I don't care whether I am considered professional or not. When I hear the term "recorded professionally" the entire phrase escapes me. But in a sense of being music business minded, this term may simply relate to lots of money spent in a well equiped studio, or a damned good set of ears was on the job and knew the rig.

Anyway you slice or dice the subject, the term Professional Recording is mainly just a term musicians and music business personel use. After all, we record so that others can hear it. Only one in fifty "listeners", if that, even cares slightly about the method it was recorded. It sounds good or it doesn't. Plain and simple.

Same holds true with the performance. Some musicians hit the stage with the mindset that there is a full house of music critics just waiting to tear apart their every note. Subsequently their performance may suffer.

I say we all call ourselves recordists, song catchers if you will. Because fretting the discriptive details with marked scutiny is only playing for the critics. Lets record for the average listener, for they are the mass majority by a long shot.

 

[OneRoomStudios]

OneRoom (and I ask because I DO want to know your take on this): At what point, in your thinking, can one call himself a professional?

I think AES puts it eloquently (although I may be biased as a member):

"A Member may be anyone active in audio engineering or acoustics who has an academic degree or the equivalent in scientific or professional experience in audio engineering and its allied arts and is familiar with the application of engineering principles and data in that field."

If you were to insert "recording professional" in the place of "member," I think that sums it up nicely.


I think the confusion here is the difference between the words "professional" and "professionalism." I agree, amateurs can exercise professionalism in their recording endeavors, i.e. they can act in a professional manor, and make great recordings. But that does not make them professionals. As Tom pointed out, a professional is someone who gets paid to do his or her craft. Sure, you could get some gear and rent out some space and start a studio, but do you think you could keep a constant influx of clients? Could you mix and produce albums in the varying different genres that your clients would demand? Could you take jobs that you dislike just to pay the bills? Could you keep all this up for an extended amount of time? If so then quit your day job, do those things, and hey - you can call yourself a professional.

 

[lexdrummer]

in reference to:
\-i find that, most ppl, when refering to "studio quality" or whatever, look for clean, pristine, etc...the sound that really appeals to me has absolutely nothing to do with that. and im not refering to lo-fi either...i want stuff to sound interesting.-/

a true soldier of true tone. look for it in the saturation and the mic, not in the effects and it will be yours. A true grunt. I love this guy...

 

[ROblows]

Yes it does, unless there is a legitimate governing body that regulates that profession...

I'm not sure where you get this "professional governing body" thing. The fact, if you are setting in your basement recording yourself and you have no skill and no competence, and you still call yourself a "professional", you are not using the word correctly - govering body or not. I'm not telling you that you can't record yourself and your friends. I'm not even saying you might not make great sounding recordings. But, you are definately not using the word correctly. This is a question of grammar, not music. There are enough people around who don't understand the meanings of the words they use. Don't be another one.

 

[ROblows]

Being a "professional" simply means that you make a living exercising your profession. While that may imply a degree of competence, sad to say I have encountered incompetent professionals in many different fields. I have also encountered many gifted and talented amateurs in many fields as well. In audio, simply stated, the profesionals are the ones who get the work. The others who call themselves professionals are like the "actors" who bus tables for a living. Some of us (believe it or not) do not aspire to be "professional" audio engineers. But that doesn't mean we don't care about quality sound. And it also doesn't mean that we, as talented amateurs, cannot achieve good sound.

Professionalism is a quality to be desired and worked towards. If anybody is a professional who decides that he is one, the word has no meaning.

And "professional" means more than that you make your living doing something. That is part of it, but the word has more meaning than that. In any event, I somehow doubt that "Sonic Idiot" makes his living as a recording engineer.

 

[Sonic Idiot]

I'm not sure where you get this "professional governing body" thing. The fact, if you are setting in your basement recording yourself and you have no skill and no competence, and you still call yourself a "professional", you are not using the word correctly - govering body or not. I'm not telling you that you can't record yourself and your friends. I'm not even saying you might not make great sounding recordings. But, you are definately not using the word correctly. This is a question of grammar, not music. There are enough people around who don't understand the meanings of the words they use. Don't be another one.

I'll try to rephrase to help you understand where I get the "governing body" idea:

If you look up the definition of the word professional, it's very vague. It only becomes well defined when placed within the context of various "professions." In some professions, these pointed definitions are purposefully carved out and enforced to keep out hacks. I've used the example of both lawyers and doctors and how those professions are very clearly defined. How? They have "governing bodies" that self regulate their professions and limit those who can actually carry the title of doctor or lawyer, not to mention state and federal laws that require certain licenses to practice those professions. Thankfully, these do not exist in the world of art, recording being part of that large world.

Since the product of recording is art, there is no way quantify who is and who is not an "artist" in the recording field. Or, a "professional", if you must. This is for the best. If you are adamant against the inclusion of others into an artistic field, and unwilling to stand behind, on a message board of ideas, much less in real life, the movement of legitimate art into the larger field of humanity, I can't imagine how shitty it must be trying and create something beautiful in the midst of your "professional" studio. [I just edited this post to add this: I say "your" in a generic sense. I'm not addressing anyone specifically on this fine forum. ]

 

[ch2os7]

thanks

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I think both sides have made excellent arguments for their positions. This thread started out as an encouragement to home recording hobbyists and ended up being a debate about what constitutes a professional recording.
I accept that "my" home recordings aren't up to the level of a professional studio but I'm not on that par as a musician or a singer either. I just enjoy it.
However, I have heard some home studio recordings that were very professional sounding. I believe the proof is in the product. It doesn't matter who records it or where it's recorded, if it sounds great...it is great! IMHO