Everything Sounds The Same

[barefoot]

Does anyone have an opinion on the role that "sameness" plays in the differences between home recordings and big studio recordings?

It seems to me that, apart from equipment quality or the talent of the engineer, the variety of equipment at the disposal of big studios is also factor in why their recordings generally sound better. Home studios most often have a very limited equipment set. Even if it's top notch equipment, the fact that every sound goes through pretty much the identical signal chain gives the music a stale and slightly claustrophobic quality IMHO.

What do you think?

barefoot

 

[Queue]

I think it is experience. I believe (to a certain extent) if you forced Ed or Bruce or Sjoko to trade setups with one of us, they'd still be able to produce a better recording than we would with all the cool toys at our disposal.

Having all the cool toys is futile if you don't know how to use them.

Queue

 

[barefoot]

Yeah, but all else being equal - skills of the engineer, equipment quality, etc - you don't think variety has an impact?

barefoot

 

[sonusman]

I will agree that a variety of mics will make a big factor. But preamps, eq's, comp's, etc.....Nahhhhhhhh.

It really comes down to capturing a sound that is appropriate to the song and the production goals. I tend to use the same preamp for many different things. I will use another preamp for other things mainly because it just works better for those instruments. But the difference is usually slight. I could make do, and have, with only two different preamps. I have done work with just one.

Ed

 

[Wallycleaver]

Also playing differnt guitar amps/settings, drum tunings, mic placement, mic selection, and other such factors are a big part of keeping it fresh. Same goes for gear, you can use tweek a reverb to make it sound completely differnt than what's been used on a diffrent track.

 

[sonusman]

Good points Wally. I would have listed them too, but thought they were givens. I forget that they are not sometimes.

I remember once recording with this guy. He used the SAME settings on the console, with the same effects, and dynamic processors. He had his kick drum channel, his overhead channel, his bass channel, his guitar channel...etc......It didn't matter to him that I had a different amp and playing style than he did, he used all the same things in the same way. When I started to mix this demo, he though it sounded like crap (even told me....LOL....). Of course, all the people who had heard his work before that agreed that my mix sounded much better than anything he ever did.

Anyway. It is called "getting the most out of what you got", and engineering takes skill AND imagination to do well. If you have little of either, you will tend to do things the same way every time. THAT is what makes things sound the same.

Ed

 

[Henri Devill]

Also a great sounding room/rooms...In the best studios all gear is reletivly the same.The rooms are the major difference ...tracking, isos,mix rooms.I've gone to different studios just for there rooms .

Don

 

[barefoot]

I will agree that a variety of mics will make a big factor. But preamps, eq's, comp's, etc.....Nahhhhhhhh.

Ed,

This makes a lot of sense. By far the biggest sound differences in audio come from transducers, both mics and speakers. Maybe this is why some of the "bedroom" electronic music artists can get such great results - no mics.

Would you characterize the sound of recording multiple tracks with the same mic as stale and claustrophobic like I described, or is this something different?

barefoot

 

[sonusman]

I have heard little "direct input" recordings that I would consider to be "great results". They mostly sound phoney and bland. None of the characteristics of live sound at all. If anything, it is these DI recordings that seem to sound the same to my ears.

Again, I don't think, and many other experienced engineers would probably agree that only having a limited selection of mics and preamps is going to make everything sound the same. If you are always using the same instruments, micing techniques, etc.....THAT will produce a situation where things sound the same all the time.

Most of the time, I only track with an ART and TL Audio preamp, and with SM-57's and AT 4033's. A lot of "sameness" there for sure, but, I manage to make things sound pretty good with it. It is all about the approach I take. If I don't like a sound I start moving the mic, or changing the source sound.

Many people have little experience and "history" you will in recording different styles, and have little to fall back on when they are trying to define a sound they need. If you know what you are after, you can usually get pretty close to it even with limited equipment IF you are diligent in your approach and keep your vision firmly placed in your mind.

I can go into the much more subjective area of "production goals" too, but few here excepts those that record other people all the time seem to agree with my views on this. In short though, many people try to make their production sound unappropriate to their style. But again, I am not going to go into that right now, because that discussion takes a LOT of writing to convey and I am not up for it right now.

I hired an "adviser" some years ago to help with my last studio. He used to say "Learning to record well is a matter of doing a bunch of things you will never do again". I have kept that saying in mind for most every session I have ever done. Working by this means I try different approaches all the time. THIS is what keeps the productions fresh and interesting.

Ed

 

[barefoot]

I have heard little "direct input" recordings that I would consider to be "great results". They mostly sound phoney and bland. None of the characteristics of live sound at all. If anything, it is these DI recordings that seem to sound the same to my ears.

There you go again Ed, capp'n on electronica

Either you can't get past your taste to hear the artistic and engineering merits (I have that problem with Country), or you really just haven't heard the GOOD stuff. It's not easy to find. You won't hear it on the radio or pick it up at Sam Goody.

I'm gonna have to send you a CD. But, I'm digressing from the topic

barefoot

 

[sonusman]

I have heard excellent "electronica".....and if you notice what I actually posted:

"I have heard LITTLE DI music....."

You have NO idea where my "artistic tastes" lie, and comments about that belong in your own mind. I seldom, if EVER comment on peoples choice of music (except RAP!!! I will not go there right now though.....). "Merits" are relative and silly to argue (unless it is RAP!!! ).

Young man, I will school you any day of the freakin' week in identifying excellent production! I don't have to like the genre of music to appreciate it's production approach. I HAVE to indentify excellent production to be able to gauge where I am at in it!

I hate having fucking words and meanings put in my mouth by those that don't take the time to read my posts carefully.

Sorry, you are not the first, and certainly I don't per se hold it against you, but, it pays to read closely my posts. I usually cover my bases quite well thank you....




Now that I have slapped your sorrying not-reading-my-post-carefully ass around a bit, what my comment about DI music meant is from those that use drum machines and POD's and Synth's for what would traditionally be recorded with "real" instruments. Any dimwit knows that electronica is simply that, electronic music, and I seldom make reference to it because it is mostly very easy to mix and not very prevelent in the music industry. I AGREE that you have to look deep into electronica to find the stuff that actually sound pretty good. I worked the dance club circuit as a soundman for many years and have been exposed to the "underground" stuff the whole time.

The unfortunate thing about electronica is that while you need little to actually record it well (actually, that is not true, but relative to recording full drum set's and horn lines, etc....you don't need much. Usually just one okay mic and a pair of excellent DI boxes) you spend a fortune in instrument cost. Really, there is no replacing the analog modules and filter sets that the good sounding stuff uses. This stuff is VERY expensive now to find in good working order.

Anyway.....
Ed

 

[barefoot]

Damn , no quarter Ed?

I just rely on dimwit logic of the type “All monkeys are apes, but not all apes are monkeys”, or in this case “All electronica is DI, but not all DI is electronica.” So when I read your broad but not total statement regarding DI recordings, and other posts of yours saying things like “I detest drum machines except as a ‘augment’ to a ‘real’ drum track”, and the fact that you were responding to my comments specifically about electronica, my faulty logic led me to conclude that electronica fell under the general category of your criticism.

My apologies for not recognizing the unquestionable, air tight, crystal clarity of your post. And thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. I mean, looking back on it, how could I have ever arrived at such outlandish conclusions? I must have been insane!

barefoot

PS – Maybe you can also enlighten me on the intense calculus you used to derive that I am a “young man”?

 

[sonusman]

I never took calculus!!! Sue me!!!

Aside from the reference about words being put in my mouth, the rest of the post was in fun. I admit, it is often hard for people to tell when I am joking, and when I am having a bad day and attacking. Usually, at least one smile and one wink tells the difference (hint). Sorry if I offended......

I have nothing further to offer in this thread that is meaningful.

Ed

(btw....I STILL detest drum machines, no matter how good their programming is....they will never rival the real drummer!)

 

[barefoot]

No offense taken.

I knew you were talking tongue-in-cheek. So was I. Anyhow, I'm on this bbs to learn and have fun. My days of taking things too personally are over. I can take it.

Btw, I've taken more calculus than it's probably cool to admit, but your tax board folks up there in Oregon are still out maneuvering me from getting the 2000 return they owe me. They use a brand of arithmetic my brain just cannot fathom!

barefoot

 

[Wallycleaver]

Look at daft punk's homework. A good album, but it sounds like they used the same drum sounds the entire time. Even though they are using diffrent effects on it but it still sounds the same. That is the biggest down fall of most electronic musicians, they drop money for one really good sounding module and expect to be able to tweek new sounds out of it. What if an entire album started in the key of G?

 

[Shailat]

I will agree that a variety of mics will make a big factor. But preamps, eq's, comp's, etc.....Nahhhhhhhh.

It really comes down to capturing a sound that is appropriate to the song and the production goals. I tend to use the same preamp for many different things. I will use another preamp for other things mainly because it just works better for those instruments. But the difference is usually slight. I could make do, and have, with only two different preamps. I have done work with just one.

Ed

I do agree on what else you wrote on this thread but this point.

I feel (and hear) a difference when using different comps and pre's and EQ's. I know you do as well as we have talked about it before so I am not sure what you mean.

It's all a build up process. Some pre's will bring depth to a sound that others can not. Some compressors can yank down unlike others. Some Eq's are smoother then others. As you work and build up the process you start to hear the difference.
For me it is one of importance.
Although it might not be considered a major factor in the chain but my veiw is - it all matters and it's placed on the same platform as anything else. I'm sure you feel the same...or not?!?

This one youre going to have to explain to me Ed.

 

[barefoot]

It was my understanding (I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth!) that Ed was specifically referring to my question of lack of variety causing a sound deficit. It doesn't read to me like he's saying there's not differences among these components.

barefoot

 

[Shailat]

Exactly !

The dimensions change when you use different pre's.
That brings the sound to a different world as far as I'm considered.

Using a single pre will sound like it was recorded through a "single pre". One dimension.......all those that use a single mixer suffer from this.

 

[barefoot]

Cool. It makes me feel all tweaked out when there's too much agreement on something.

 

[sonusman]

Shailat, would you consider most of my work to sound like it came from "one pipe"?

I seldom use more than 2 pre's throughout a project. I will use a lot of different mics, and will use differing micing techniques, but I still stay with 2 and at the most 3 preamps.

I don't disagree with your points at all. My point is that transducers and applying them effectively will make the BIGGEST difference overall in a production. Next, a variety of instruments to use. Next, a very good idea of what you want to hear, because then you start playing with what you have to get that sound. Then the electronic goodies start coming into the play.

Give me a nice clean, and a nice dirty preamp to play with and I am a happy camper. No doubt that having a few clean and a couple dirty pre's is nice, but I just don't see that as being the biggest difference compared to other things I have listed.

Many diverse sounds on recordings were achieved in studios using nothing but Neve, API, or Telefunken pre's. But, those very same studios offered a vast selection of mics, and had engineers that worked hard at finding mic positions that achieved what they wanted in the sound.

But again, I indeed would want as much variety as I can get my hands on, I just don't consider it to be the most important thing.

Ed