Equipment VS Technique!!! Everyone Should Read

[superspit]

This is easy enough to figure. The local garage band takes their lame ass songs and crappy instruments to Abbey Road to make a record. Van Morrison brings his band,engineers and songs to any one of our modest home setups to make a record.

Which record would you rather listen to?

is that a trick question?.....I would never record a lame ass garage band in my lame ass studio!!
I reckon that'd be like putting instant coffee into a microwave.....


**********************************************************

















****







*****











******






















unless they paid me heaps...!




(increasing message length by at least 10 characters)

 

[Yareek]

I keep learning that with the help of the guys here with experience.

I still think the line is blurred with recording because it's harder to separate musicality with tonality.

I can play a set of Pulse drums with B8 cymbals and rock the house because I've been playing drums for 20 years. But it'll probably sound like crap, even in a great studio with fresh heads tuned as well as possible.

Likewise, you can make great songs with cheap gear, mixing ITB, but the sonics will probably be less than stellar.

I think my problem is that I confuse the roles of musician, producer, and engineer. The musician plays the instrument and writes the music, the producer arranges all the pieces to fit together and determine what is and isn't appropriate for the song, and the engineer will make the recording sound as good as possible while tracking, mixing, and mastering.

Furthermore, it's hard for amateurs like myself to determine if the source of poor sonics are the equipment or the operator. Like my recent problems with monitors, I wasn't satisfied with my mixes. While I blamed the monitors, the problem started with my room and layout, then to my mixing experience, THEN with the monitors. So with some common sense help here, I switched up my room and now my monitors sound a lot better (meaning not so hyped or skewed).

What's most fun for me is reading techniques for mixing and mastering and going home to try them out. I'm in a real lull right now musically so it's fun to go to the other end and play with some songs I've recorded. And I'm learning about what I want it to sound like so I will track better in the future (i.e. drum sounds, guitar tones, etc.).

 

[BBad199]

I'll be the first to say I'm business minded. The first thing I do is look for a sample to run a linear regression on!!! Ha. Anywho, my point was just based out of frusturation...spur of the moment and it wasn't meant to criticize, but its like you need to read the manual before you use the product kinda thing. If everything works together in a recording, again, what are the most important variables in your predicted results? Which variables are the ones that are significant?

One day when I get up some effort I'll have to dig up my econometrics book from college and my marketing research guide and complete a worthwhile study for the marketing departments throughout the recording industry! All I need is 3 years and about 20 marketing majors and staticians. Then I'll let excel tell you what you should buy next. HA. Thanks all for the input.

 

[peopleperson]

"Is the record any good? Yeah? Cool...turn it up"

 

[chessrock]

There's really only one good answer to this age-old question:

It depends.
.

 

[flatfinger]

I want this thread to throw out all subjectivity. Concentrate on the meat and potatoes of your favorite recordings.

I completely do not agree with the importance that some of the audiophiles on this forum place on the equipment or tools used to record music at home. This is your chance to voice your opinion.

Given that the recorded material (regardless of style) is:
1. Well written
2. Well performed
3. Played on instruments that originate the sounds desired in the end result.




Here's what I think. I'm spliting this up into two sections...the MUST HAVES and the COSMETIC MAKEUP.


MUST HAVES
1. A quality recording environment that is capable of yeilding the desired results.
2. Mic placement that is capable of yeilding the desired results.
3. The right number and types of mics and inputs to complete the recording that is capable of yeilding the desired results.
4. A mix that translates well because it was completed by a professional who properly mixed all the recorded material in the proper mixing enviroment.


COSMENTIC MAKEUP
1. Exotic mics, pres, cables, converters, effects, mastering, and tools can all be replaced by effective alternatives that complete the same job. I bet only 1 in 10 people on this forum can actually use preference items to turn a great recording into an excellent one. Of course you get what you pay for, that is not the argument, but VALUE is the key. There are too many of us on these forums that ask ourselves, "Where can I get the greatest return on professional quality for my next dollar spent?" and just don't know where to start looking for answers.

Am I noticing a trend that doesn't exist or is marketing these days really not screwing people into thinking they need every piece of gear in the world to make good recordings?

In terms of commercial viability, your leaving out one of the key elements to any hit record [I]PAYOLLA[/I]!!!

without deep pockets to promote , market and grease the skids, many a great song will perish on the vine, : ... Image over substance:: Don't forget to be young and beutifull or to wear makeup, cry social injustice or do plainly outrages things, ect. ect.. Get noticed and get attention. To End this ramble (your welcome) I quote Zappanista;

" people don't know what they like, they like what they know"





Sucks , don't it!

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

Way back in the dark ages when I was in college (the early 90's) I teamed up with a high school student with a mixer and we recorded an "album". It was my Tascam Porta Two HS, his Alesis mixer, a Quadraverb - and our creativity. It was a LOT of fun and the recordings turned out very well for the stuff we had.

Since then he has gone on to Full Sail, got a job before he finished and quit, worked for a pro studio for a couple years, started his own studio in a small mid-western town, sold that and built another one, and now runs a couple businesses including his own studio with several employees. He does *some* work for the majors but his bread and butter is smaller stuff. He writes for EQ now, too.

(If you read the EQ article about large format boards with the reference to channel 12 making the "screeching noise of doom"- that's him.)

He still tells me that his favorite times recording were with the 4-track in the bedroom "studio". Back then the accomplishement was in getting a great sound for what we had and capturing the soul of the song. With the Neve board he has now... the accomplishment is getting all the channels to work correctly for the session- good sound is a given if its working. The challenges are now paying the bills and keeping the clients happy- good sound is a given. The challenge is being able to spend some time with his family.

The larger the project, in fact, the less creativity is involved. The band and its marketing mahcinery already know *exactly* how they want the project recorded and mixed and his job is to make it work- like a blue collar construction worker following a blueprint. The creativity, if any, comes from making their decisions sound like good ones even if they aren't.

When I was last in his studio a couple years ago the Quadraverb was still in the rack next to gear 10 times its price. He saw me noticing it and said "Yup. I still have it and use it. It doesn't sound that great but I've had it so long that I can edit patches really fast." And it sits in the rack right next to all the other gear and no one even asks what it is. That's his job- to know how to get the sound the client wants without spending a lot of time on it.

So when I combine that with my own experiences- I conclude that making what you have work is what makes it fun, challenging and fulfilling. Doesn't matter what gear you have that's always the fun part.

So- if it isn't fun, why do we do it?

On the other hand, cool new gear is a lot of fun, too, isn't it? Just not for very long. Anyone else notice that? A few weeks after the new toy has settled in the rack some *new* gizmo is plastered across the pages of evey magazine and every review sings its praise...

So what really gives YOU the most bang for the buck? Fun projects (which are opportunities to use and increase your skills) or fun toys (which are also opportunities)? Screw the sound for the moment- what feeds YOU?

Take care,
Chris

 

[MCI2424]

Boy, this kind of thread is most prominant. For the record:
A good band needs no recording equipment at all. Any professional band that is talanted can go through life never setting foot inside a recording studio.

There are good bands and bad bands period.

So, recording equipment has nothing to do with performance of the artist at all.

Better recording equipment sounds better period. A really talanted engineer can use any equipment to create a logical and less problematic recording of any performance. Will it sound great? If the equipment is not capable of good sound, no.

Therfore, better recordings are made with better equipment period. I can take almost anyone into my studio, let them hook up a great mic through a great pre-amp and record any performance you can throw at them and the recording will sound good. Mic placement and other fancy techniques willl make the recording sound better, but with good equipment you would be very hard pressed to make a bad recording.



Taking the tracks beyond this into mixing is where you definately need experience and a good ear. It is when mixing all the tracks that good equipment becomes invaluable. The stackup really brings out the negatives with low cost equipment that on 1 track will sound "similar" to expesive stuff. It is easy to be fooled based on 1 source and I just can't get over the fact that most people here tend to post a track using some pre-amp or another (or mic etc.) and comment on how much ____ sounds like an Avalon, Neumann etc.

The mix is where most complaints occur and most home recordists will never understand until they actually use decent equipment. I totally understand how non-affordable this stuff is, but I am just telling the truth as it is.

 

[Middleman]

So I finally got myself a new set of golf clubs. Very expensive around $2000 but I know they run up to $10K if you have the money. I noticed two things when I used these clubs.

1. It was easier to shave a few strokes off my game.
2. I still sucked at golf and needed to improve my game.

So in the end, I spent 3 times what I could have for about a 15% improvement in my game. Was it worth it? Heck yeah because nobody looks despairingly at my clubs anymore and I can tell my wife I am playing much better.

All this applies to recording gear.

 

[warble2]

So I finally got myself a new set of golf clubs. Very expensive around $2000 but I know they run up to $10K if you have the money. I noticed two things when I used these clubs.

1. It was easier to shave a few strokes off my game.
2. I still sucked at golf and needed to improve my game.

So in the end, I spent 3 times what I could have for about a 15% improvement in my game. Was it worth it? Heck yeah because nobody looks despairingly at my clubs anymore and I can tell my wife I am playing much better.

All this applies to recording gear.

Yeah, but sometimes better (or cool) looking gear doesn't always make an improvement Just kidding. I know what you mean, but I thought of all the cool looking crap gear out there.

 

[Yareek]

Or how about simplifying it to the musician and his instrument mentality;

An instrument may limit the potential quality or inspire creativity. The musician will determine how much of that potential quality and creativity is utilized.

In other words, Chris Lord Alge with a Tascam Portastudio and a Quadraverb could still probably make a solid mix with a lot of bouncing and fading. It would probably be an interesting mix if poor sonically.

Likewise, sit me behind an SSL console and racks of gear and I'd have no idea what to use and when but just on the SSL alone I could probably make an interesting sounding mix and I'm sure the balance and translation would be bad.

While I'm at it, here's another observation and diversion.

My first "studio" equipment was a Tascam Portastudio 02 and a Digitech RP20 that I used for reverb and "outboard" stuff by plugging the mic into an XLR-1/4" converter (I didn't know what a preamp was). It was really fun! I used to mix weird guitar stuff direct from the TERRIBLE RP20 with old Art Bell UFO discussions and spacey vocals on top. And I'd record drums in mono and bounce with guitar and vocals which really made some noise.

Likewise, my favorite "sketchpad" recording setup was a portable Minidisc walkman and a pair of Sony 7506 headphones running into the mic input. I got the coolest reverb by sitting on my bed in a big apartment and putting the headphone "mics" in the corner and letting the natural room reverb do its thing. Plus it took two minutes to setup so I could keep the creative flow going.

When I eventually started dropping thousands on microphones, preamps, interfaces, software, plugins, monitors, etc, I found it was such a pain to set up and so much work that I stopped recording. As of right now, I'm just sitting in my room mixing stuff because it's easier than moving all my equipment around the house to track instruments. I don't even finish mixes because I end up screwing around with different techniques and mixes.

So at the end of the day, I have to remind myself it's HOME recording. And the purpose of HOME recording is to act as a sketchpad, spur creativity, and do DEMO recordings. I don't know how many of you guys are musicians, but at least that was my intention jumping down the rabbit hole and kind of where I'm trying to return. Getting a laptop, firewire interface, scaling down the mic collection, and setting up a room for guitar/vocal sketchpad is my priority now. And hopefully I'll pick up a guitar instead of sitting behind the desk and get back into some of the fun behind it.

Don't know where that fits, but that's what's on my mind.

 

[Drewcifer666]

But wait! I thought the Recording Engineer's Diploma came in the box with the Digi 002!!?? It does right? I thought all I had to do was go to guitar-mart, put three grand on a credit-card and I'd be able to make a CD in my garage that sounds like the latest Jon Mayer Album!

I can...right?

There's no actual skill or learning curve to audio recording, is there?

God I hope not!

 

[Yareek]

Because I can't stay away...

Taking the musician/instrument analogy further,

I started playing guitar just with an electric, no amp, no effects, just the guitar. Eventually I got an amp and then a distortion pedal. Down the road I added and removed effects, delay, chorus, channel switching amps, different guitars, different pickups, different strings, etc. But I started out with just a guitar.

Likewise, I started recording with just a Portastudio and a guitar effects pedal. Eventually I got a mixer and a couple mics and worked from there.

I like the Garageband approach to recording...it's a fun, free program (for newer Macs anyway) that's easy to use and easy to get going. It's simple...it's easy to use, not cluttered, but can still produce good music. You can get the fundamentals of recording down without MIDI, plugins, bussing, all that. And work your way up from there.

Could be another thing that's missing from the Home Recording thing. You wouldn't teach guitar to someone using a rack full of gear and a multi-amp rig...you'd probably use an acoustic or an electric into a clean amp. And then work your way from there.

 

[travelin travis]

So at the end of the day, I have to remind myself it's HOME recording. And the purpose of HOME recording is to act as a sketchpad, spur creativity, and do DEMO recordings.

Those are my reasons for getting into recording too. It's really easy to get carried away with all this recording mess. It can become very obsessive. Maybe that's what good engineers have to do.......become obsessed with it all. I'm not an engineer though. I'm a guitar player and obsessing over mics or learning every mic technique under the sun doesn't improve my guitar playing or boost my creativity.

 

[Dogman]

Those are my reasons for getting into recording too. It's really easy to get carried away with all this recording mess. It can become very obsessive. Maybe that's what good engineers have to do.......become obsessed with it all. I'm not an engineer though. I'm a guitar player and obsessing over mics or learning every mic technique under the sun doesn't improve my guitar playing or boost my creativity.

Exactly...I do this for fun. I know that if I become a better player, then my recordings will sound much better. That's what I'm striving for, just to become a better player.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So I finally got myself a new set of golf clubs.

Now there's a very interesting field. Look at all the technological improvements to clubs, balls, training gear, etc. in the golf industry in the last forty years or so.

Then look at the virtual flatness of average golf scores (both pro and am) over that same period of time.

Then keep that information away from your wife

So at the end of the day, I have to remind myself it's HOME recording. And the purpose of HOME recording is to act as a sketchpad, spur creativity, and do DEMO recordings.

This is true for many. But for an increasing number, it's not our daddy's "home recording" any more.

The average "home studio" these days has actually higher capacity, higher complexity - and in some ways and many instances - higher quality gear than the average "pro studio" had just 15 or 20 years ago.

We have kids who can barely operate an automobile wanting to side chain parametric EQs to their multi-band compressors, and who can't play drums to save their lives trying to make pro-level 8-track recordings of their oversized kits.

On the other side of the fence, we have an ever increasing number of serious artists using their "home" to actuially make professional indie releases, and not just demos.

And no matter the size of the studio, the experience of the artist or the purpose of the recording, there is one common denominator: they all are disappointed when the fruits of their labors do not sound like the commercial tracks on the CD they just bought, and will not be happy until they at least get close.

If this is "home recording" then why do 9 out of 10 folks who comes on this board ask about how to make a pro recording? They're not asking how to make a demo, they're asking how to make a pro recording.

And they've almost to a person been led to believe that gear will get them there: I can make my horseshit drumming sound good by putting more mics on it. I can make my horseshit tracking sound good by throwing ever more expensive EQs on it and pressing the "pro" button. I can make my even moire horseshit mix sound good by strapping more compressors than an air conditioning factory on the two mix.

As much as the Sweetwater catalogs and Electronic Musician interviews with The Usual Engineering Suspects may tell us otherwise, it just don't work that way.

Contrary to what's been said a bit ago, it is extremely easy to make a bad production on quality gear. It's done all the time. Grab a random major label CD from the rack at your local music store; there's at least a 1 out of 3 chance that you are holding an extremely flawed recording/mix/master that sounds quite flawed, and was made on the best gear in the business.

As Middleman discovered, $2000 golf clubs will not turn him into Tiger Woods. Nor will A-list gear turn Joe Shredder into the next Alan Parsons.

For those who are not interested in becoming the next Parsons or Albini or Rubin or Sweiden Or Nichols, that's fine. If you just want to make demos or practice or even just have fun, more power to ya. All I ask is that you all remember that the next time you reach for the next plug du jour, drool over the new GML in the catalog, or come on a forum and ask "how do I make my stuff sound like [insert famous name here]?" Because one you cross that line, you are no longer asking about "home recording".

G.

 

[ofajen]

I'd go even further and say that the worse the gear one starts out on, the better the engineer one will turn out to be. Nothing will build skills like learning how to depend upn one's skills to get past the surface limitations of the gear. Nobody will ever be able to take those skills away from them, and they can take and use those skills to push any gear, regardless of quality. OTOH, put somebody in nothing but a million-dollar studio, and they will be come dependant upon their equipment to do half the job for them. Take any part of that gear away and their dependancy becomes a weakness.

G.

Normally I agree with you on just about everything, Glen, but I have a slightly different take here. I agree that it could be a problem to start out with a million dollar studio, but I also think that there is a benefit to starting out with only a few, relatively accurate tools to learn what stuff really sounds like, rather than, say, crappy mikes that change the sound no matter what you do. That needn't cost much: I have four RE-55s that cost an average of $80 each, and those Naiant mikes sell for like $20 each. The preamps on my old Mackie 1604 are actually pretty clean and a used 1202 costs like $80. I think I benefitted from starting with a little 4-track Otari. I'm all for limitations and overcoming them with creativity and good musical ideas, but I also think there's no good reason not to start out with a few low-cost accurate tools.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Normally I agree with you on just about everything, Glen, but I have a slightly different take here. I agree that it could be a problem to start out with a million dollar studio, but I also think that there is a benefit to starting out with only a few, relatively accurate tools to learn what stuff really sounds like

Yeah, that's a good and valid point too; not exactly the same, but not too far off from what RobD was saying earlier, which also was a good point.

I don't think it's necessarily a black/white, either/or situation. I think you both bring up valid points which I agree with, and yet I still beleive in what I presented, for the reasons I gave. While the two points of view may seem contradictory, they both find a way to coexist in my mind.

Technique will still trump gear any given day, IMHO. Roger Nichols will always be able to make a better recording with a Portastudio and 4 mics than Joe Gearhead Rookie can with Paisley Park but no clue as to tracking technique, gain staging, mixing fundamentals, etc.

But I can see some advantages to exposing Mr. Rookie to the good stuff just so he knows what *can* be.

G.

 

[BBad199]

For the sake of the golf club analogy...

I'm a mortgage broker. I golf quite a bit. I loath that guy with the $2000 set of golf clubs that just plain sucks. Every year its bound to happen...you just end up golfing with that guy.

My point: he probably can find a cheaper way to improve his game that will be more beneficial than any amount of gear. What's 5 strokes if your 30 over every round? What's 5 if your 10 over every round? Big difference. Value

Lets take a look at cars for another analogy. Determine your objective. If it is to increase horse power, nobody in their right mind would put on headers before you first increase the intake air flow. There is a logical process...a chain that you follow to complete your objective. If you've done everything else, $600 on a new exhaust to gain 5 horses might be worth it. Should it be your first upgrade? No.

Good thread. I like the unveiling of the home recording artists true intentions. Who doesn't ultimately want to hear, "YOU recorded that?" WOW!

 

[fraserhutch]

Good thread. I like the unveiling of the home recording artists true intentions. Who doesn't ultimately want to hear, "YOU recorded that?" WOW!

I hear that ALL the time - "YOU recorded that?" WOW! That sucks!"