ausrock
Well-known member
Newest, that ain't no "homestudio"............the guy looks to be running a pro set-up from home and that's about it.
Roel
That SMART guy.
Re: Here is my definition of a Home Studio
I'm all dizzy now...
Damn dude!!!Newest User said:This isn't fair, but its basically the kind of Studio Id like to have, its occupies 1400 sq/ft of his upstairs. He since has added a PT set up... But by definition...Its a home studio
http://www.vai.com/Machines/studios.html
Check it out....Its ok to dream a little right
I'm all dizzy now...
E
enemyofthesun
New member
ausrock said:OK, for the sake of this discussion, where do you draw the line between "Professional sounding" and "Homestudio sounding
I am at a point where I own alot of really nice gear, mixing skills are gettign very decent etc but now I see the real difference between pro and amateur and it is THE RECORDING ROOM(s)
I really see how I could use better sounding rooms and how that is the major obstacle I am up against when trying to put out a pro sounding mix
C
CyanJaguar
New member
crawdad said:
Yes, cheap gear dooms you to second rate results.
The question is, How much less can you settle for.
An engineer cant take the signature of the mackie preamp out of a mackie preamp, nor can he take the signature of a chinese mic out of the chinese mic, but that does not mean that he cannot make good, even great recordings with the cheap stuff.
When you get the good gear, the great mics, the great preamps, great compressors, great converters, great room, you would have to try really hard to make your stuff sound second rate. I mean really hard. Cos all you have to do is set a sweet vox combo before the singer and what is on tape is magic.
Then you have to look at it from the point of view of the music. If its about music, most anything will do, given decent engineering skills. If you want to be an engineer though , and you take pride in your quality, then go with the good stuff. Your ears will thank you.
Fed
New member
IMHO ear is the ultimate measure. As in "if it sounds good it is good". If it sounds good to you then that's how far you can take it. There is also stage where it's sounds good enough for ... (fill in the blank). If it sounds good to you BUT you also see some things that can be improved, then you got some "headroom on your meter" and if you are motivated try and find out how to get to where your ears want to take you.
Now whether or not what sounds good to you is good enough for other people to pay money to listen too is probably different discussion.
I think that's one of the points of mixing clinic. When you recorded something and you say to your self: "hey that sounds good to me, but will the others like it too".
By the way this is great discussion topic IMHO and very interesting to me personally. Props to crawdad for bringing it up.
Now whether or not what sounds good to you is good enough for other people to pay money to listen too is probably different discussion.
I think that's one of the points of mixing clinic. When you recorded something and you say to your self: "hey that sounds good to me, but will the others like it too".
By the way this is great discussion topic IMHO and very interesting to me personally. Props to crawdad for bringing it up.
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Re: Re: Gear Quality vs. Technical Expertise
A number of years ago, I did two songs in a pro studio for a recording class. I played all the instruments--bass, drums, piano, electric and acoustic guitars and some mandolin, plus vocals. They used Neumann and other mics, had a major board--it wasn't a Neve, but the other pupular one that was commonly used in the 70's. 2" 24 track tape.
I have achieved better results at home since then. So, having great gear doesn't guarantee anything. I could also argue that my performance wasn't top of the heap either!
I've had a few lucky occasions where I got to record an increduible vocalist. The difference is like night and day. All the sudden my recording started sounding pretty grand!
So whats Crawdad's point? I guess its that everything adds up in the end--performance, gear, engineering skills--even mastering. For now, I am just working on what I can work on--my ears and my ability to perform to a high level. I'm sure that down the line I will increase the quality of my signal chain too. In a way, I think everybodys right because everything you do to improve adds something, whether its buying top notch stuff or learning new skills.
CyanJaguar said:
A number of years ago, I did two songs in a pro studio for a recording class. I played all the instruments--bass, drums, piano, electric and acoustic guitars and some mandolin, plus vocals. They used Neumann and other mics, had a major board--it wasn't a Neve, but the other pupular one that was commonly used in the 70's. 2" 24 track tape.
I have achieved better results at home since then. So, having great gear doesn't guarantee anything. I could also argue that my performance wasn't top of the heap either!
I've had a few lucky occasions where I got to record an increduible vocalist. The difference is like night and day. All the sudden my recording started sounding pretty grand!
So whats Crawdad's point? I guess its that everything adds up in the end--performance, gear, engineering skills--even mastering. For now, I am just working on what I can work on--my ears and my ability to perform to a high level. I'm sure that down the line I will increase the quality of my signal chain too. In a way, I think everybodys right because everything you do to improve adds something, whether its buying top notch stuff or learning new skills.
C
chessrock
Banned
Hey Crawdad,
You've listened to this guy's stuff, haven't you? Listen to his results and then read his gear list. It says it all. Unfortunately, it puts me in a deep state of depression (jealous envy) when I hear it.
:
http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?postid=400475#post400475
You've listened to this guy's stuff, haven't you? Listen to his results and then read his gear list. It says it all. Unfortunately, it puts me in a deep state of depression (jealous envy) when I hear it.
:http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?postid=400475#post400475
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Chess--Oh yeah! I've listened to Erland. My opinion is that his recordings are just OK technically, but his performances are so good that any technical limitations are shoved to the bottom of my concerns. He has a voice (what a voice!) and a real gift for writing catchy tunes. Can you imagine him in a pro studio with all the goodies? He makes me not want to ever write or sing again!
The guy is so good, I've thought about mortgaging my house and doing an album on him, if he'd let me. The responses to his music have been universally good. Lets put it this way. If you could have grabbed Hendrix before he was a star, or if you had a Paul McCartney without the Beatles, you'd have the same talent potential I hear with Erland. He's a no brainer--sucess is written all over this guy, unless he's incredibly ugly!
The beauty is, he'd make our home studios sound like million dollar ones! Here's the rub. When you have supernova talent to work with, it makes you look like you really know your stuff. All that expensive signal path means squat unless there is talent on the other end!
The guy is so good, I've thought about mortgaging my house and doing an album on him, if he'd let me. The responses to his music have been universally good. Lets put it this way. If you could have grabbed Hendrix before he was a star, or if you had a Paul McCartney without the Beatles, you'd have the same talent potential I hear with Erland. He's a no brainer--sucess is written all over this guy, unless he's incredibly ugly!
The beauty is, he'd make our home studios sound like million dollar ones! Here's the rub. When you have supernova talent to work with, it makes you look like you really know your stuff. All that expensive signal path means squat unless there is talent on the other end!
D
dragnalus
New member
re: doolittle
i don't know the specifics on that record, but i see NO reason that would have been done on a 4 track (unless it was 1/2" or better) as they were well into their contract with 4ad and had recorded an albini engineered record at that point. if you have a source for that 4 track claim, i'd very be very interested.
p.s. did you mean 4 track cassette? if not, "4 tracks" is totally irrelevent as far as sonic quality.
i don't know the specifics on that record, but i see NO reason that would have been done on a 4 track (unless it was 1/2" or better) as they were well into their contract with 4ad and had recorded an albini engineered record at that point. if you have a source for that 4 track claim, i'd very be very interested.
p.s. did you mean 4 track cassette? if not, "4 tracks" is totally irrelevent as far as sonic quality.
Similar threads
- Lakeling
- Recording Techniques
