Gear vs. Experience

[DavidK]

So, the whole point of my question is trying to get at the fact of ... when do we reach the point where our experience --- not our gear --- is holding us back from getting pro-quality sounds?

It's a life-long journey. When one feels that they have finally reached that lofty summit, they should quit music. As musicians, the goal is not to be "pro" or anything like that. The goal is to make the best music at the highest possible level. That's a goal that is not attainable, which is why it's a life-long quest.

How that relates to gear: at some point, one will be able to pinpoint exactly what a certain piece of gear (or an instrument) is lacking. It won't be "it's not good enough" because there's no point of reference. It will be something like "the noise from the mixer is audible on my track and making it less pristine", or "the compressor is making the background vocals sound unnatural and I can hear it's sound in the mix". That's not easy to do- if one can hear the added noise from a mixer (enough to lower the overall quality), they probably have a good mix going. When someone can distinguish where the background noise from tracking ends and where the added noise from the pre begins, they have reason to look at upgrading the pre. The more specific the pinpointing is, the more likely the person is understanding the weakness in the gear and doesn't just want a fancy new toy.

 

[Beck]

Good question, especially since most music web forums revolve around gear by design. Not sure that I can nail it down to a percentage, but great skill and talent will benefit a person in many recording environments, yet the best gear won’t help someone without the skill to get the most out of it. Another aspect of experience is knowledge of what’s going on around you... like music recording history. Then you know as many great recordings have been made with SM58’s as with U87’s.

Put the question to any other profession or endeavor and it should answer the question...

- Could you design and build a magnificent house just because you can afford to buy the tools? That is, does a hammer build the house or does the carpenter build the house?

- Would you call yourself a fighter pilot simply because you can afford an F-16 fighter jet? Could you prevail in air-to-air combat against an experienced pilot who is flying an aircraft comparatively much inferior in performance?

- Would you be an expert marksman simply because you can afford the best firearms? Would you compete against seasoned shooters who are using firearms of lesser quality and performance?

It is mostly about skill and knowledge, which comes through study and experience, not to mention natural aptitude. A person who has that can get excellent results with what many would perceive as “Semi-pro” or “Inferior” gear. A person who doesn’t have the skill could be locked inside Abbey Road studios for a month and given the run of the place... and still come out with crap sounding results.

The quote in my sig says it all.

 

[miroslav]

The quote in my sig says it all.

"If you can’t make a hit record with a Tascam or a Fostex,
then you’re not going to able to do it with a Studer or Otari!" -David Mellor

I've loved my TASCAM for the last 20+ years....but I'll still take a Neve or SSL over it any day of the week...
...and I'll easily live with the guilt of being just another gear slut!

 

[Beck]

...and I'll easily live with the guilt of being just another gear slut!

For shame!

 

[Bristol Posse]

The quote in my sig says it all.

That's a good quote for if he can back it up with a list of #1 hits he's had where he used just a Tascam and a Fostex

 

[Beck]

That's a good quote for if he can back it up with a list of #1 hits he's had where he used just a Tascam and a Fostex

How about this?

"If you can't make a hit record with an SM58, then you're not going to be able to do it with a U87."

Or this?

"If you can't make a hit record with an Epiphone, then you're not going to be able to do it with a Taylor."

 

[DavidK]

That's a good quote for if he can back it up with a list of #1 hits he's had where he used just a Tascam and a Fostex

The Bruce Springsteen album "Nebraska" was recorded on a Portastudio 144. It went Platinum. Recorded in his bedroom.

 

[miroslav]

The Bruce Springsteen album "Nebraska" was recorded on a Portastudio 144. It went Platinum. Recorded in his bedroom.

Yeah...it went platinum 'cuz it it was from "The Bruce" at a time when he was still hot...but the album sucked, IMO.

 

[famous beagle]

Yeah...it went platinum 'cuz it it was from "The Bruce" at a time when he was still hot...but the album sucked, IMO.

Different strokes I guess. I agree that the sound of the album wasn't what most people consider "top notch," but I still spin that album occasionally and always enjoy it.

Did you happen to check out the Midlake samples I referenced? If so, what did you think of the sound?

 

[miroslav]

Different strokes I guess. I agree that the sound of the album wasn't what most people consider "top notch," but I still spin that album occasionally and always enjoy it.

I wasn't referring to the theme or the song content....rather to the sound quality.
There's a lot of music that we all like that maybe doesn't have the greatest recording/producution....but that's something else.
In this thread, the topic is more about audio quality and gear to achieve it VS pure experience, etc.
They had to do some work on Nebraska during mastering just to bring up to an acceptable quality prior to release...and if you listen to, it still sounds like "home demo" stuff....but yeah, the actual songs and their message is still good.

I think that's what happens a lot on forums when people talk about what music they think is good or crap....most are really listening to the music from a song/content perspective, and not so much from an audio quality perspective...which is something that certainly can be directly affected by gear quality, and of course, recording experience.

Did you happen to check out the Midlake samples I referenced? If so, what did you think of the sound?

I listened to the one song..."Roscoe"....it was OK song/content-wise, not my style of music, but AFA the audio quality, I kinda found the level balance to be somewhat off from my perspective. Vocals too much on top, the drums rather dull/subdued ....but that's just how I'm hearing it. AFA what Rolling Stone thinks, it's probably more to do with songs/content rather than sound quality.

 

[DavidK]

Yeah...it went platinum 'cuz it it was from "The Bruce" at a time when he was still hot...but the album sucked, IMO.

Somewhat irrelevant as to what you or I think, or even who it was. The fact that he did it speaks volumes about music, people who buy music, celebrity, songwriting, recording, marketing, on and on. One could teach an entire course on that album. I'm sure that in 1982 some band went into the studio and 200K was spent on an album that sold 12 copies. Bruce went into his bedroom with a POS recorder and sold 1 million.

 

[greenascanbe]

The trick I’m trying to learn is when does better gear make the difference?

At what point have you learned as much as you can about tracking, mixing, eq, compression etc.. that the investment in higher quality sound card, preamp, microphone is a wise choice and not just throwing money at a problem that can be solved with a little research and hard work. I’m sure everyone has read about this or that magic bullet guaranteed to get you pro results, be it hardware and software. And everyone has unlimited funds to spend on gear.

I’ve never had much luck at getting my guitar tone on down. But it’s gotten better working with a 57 and a Sennheiser e 609. Recently I got a MD 421-II and it made it easier to get the tone. Part of it was experience, part of it was mic I believe.

 

[famous beagle]

At what point have you learned as much as you can about tracking, mixing, eq, compression etc.. that the investment in higher quality sound card, preamp, microphone is a wise choice and not just throwing money at a problem that can be solved with a little research and hard work.

Yeah that's exactly where I am right now. I don't have unlimited funds to spend on gear; in fact, they're very limited. So I constantly have to choose between what I think will really help make the biggest difference in my recordings vs. what I want/think looks cool, etc.

Like you said ... Do I really need it? Or can I perfectly achieve the sounds with just a little more knowledge/experience under my belt?

 

[famous beagle]

I listened to the one song..."Roscoe"....it was OK song/content-wise, not my style of music, but AFA the audio quality, I kinda found the level balance to be somewhat off from my perspective. Vocals too much on top, the drums rather dull/subdued ....but that's just how I'm hearing it. AFA what Rolling Stone thinks, it's probably more to do with songs/content rather than sound quality.

That's cool. It's all subjective, of course. My point was that, IMO, that song/album clearly sounds acceptable as a "professional" recording and stands up easily against a stream of other professional recordings on the radio, etc. Of course, that line is getting blurrier all the time with the continually growing home rec revolution.

But I think it does speak volumes about the fact that the song, and what's in front of the microphone, truly is the most important thing. That's why millions of people listen to Robert Johnson, even though the recording sounds the way it does. (Obviously, they didn't have a choice back then.) Plenty of people still want to relate to good songs and good performances more than anything else, regardless of what the big labels try to push down our throats. I'm not saying that plenty of people aren't on board with the Top 40 radio too, but I'm just saying that it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as some people like to say it is with regards to a "professional" sound.

Kind of getting a little off topic, I guess.

 

[CoolCat]

The trick I’m trying to learn is when does better gear make the difference?

At what point have you learned as much as you can about tracking, mixing, eq, compression etc.. that the investment in higher quality sound card, preamp, microphone is a wise choice and not just throwing money at a problem that can be solved with a little research and hard work. I’m sure everyone has read about this or that magic bullet guaranteed to get you pro results, be it hardware and software. And everyone has unlimited funds to spend on gear.

I’ve never had much luck at getting my guitar tone on down. But it’s gotten better working with a 57 and a Sennheiser e 609. Recently I got a MD 421-II and it made it easier to get the tone. Part of it was experience, part of it was mic I believe.

I always go through the buyers brain fry, but Ive learned to take the unit home, and get it sounding as good as I can. Then if I can get the same tone tweaked in with my software, the unit goes back. Notes taken. I think to end some of the insanity is to buy known products that have proven them self, like a 57 on a guitar cab or a SM7 on vox...then if it sounds like crap I know for sure, 100% its my skills that suck. If someone buys a MXL $35 mic and wonders is it me or the mic, then thats another issue. Its the best thing of the forum is the guys who have the high end gear and can suggest lower end gear from personal comparison, without sales-motivations.

imo, The thing on this forum is the range of Home Recording, seems to go from a guy singing in a cardboard box, to what I consider, a professional-ability studio with separate rooms and paying customers and $100k in gear.
Thats a key thing in focusing on what you're trying to do, before buying.

Tracking seems to be all over the place from a greta room to being outside in a treehouse...capturing sounds..

What I find recently is the Mixing and Mastering are separate rooms, separate people/gear/skills...

seems Mastering is the new stage, under the microscope the past few years for HR. Polishing the Turd....

So I wonder...do we all tell the family, "Hey everyone I need another room now, for my HR Mastering gear and setup, Im going to buy...."

my point is when we feel the sounds arent right...is it Tracking, the Mix or the Mastering thats the weak link?

 

[miroslav]

Somewhat irrelevant as to what you or I think, or even who it was. The fact that he did it speaks volumes about music, people who buy music, celebrity, songwriting, recording, marketing, on and on. One could teach an entire course on that album. I'm sure that in 1982 some band went into the studio and 200K was spent on an album that sold 12 copies. Bruce went into his bedroom with a POS recorder and sold 1 million.

Well...you're the one who brought it up...

Of course you miss the real point a second time.
You are equating "sold 1 million" with recording audio quality....and as it has been proven many time, the two are not always the same thing.

This thread was referring to the audio quality of the production and can it be gotten with specific gear.

If you think anyone can do what Bruce did with Nebreska...cut a low-grade home demo and then sell millions....
...let me know all the folks besides Bruce that have done that, and let me know when a bunch of home-rec guys do it.

 

[DavidK]

Of course you miss the real point a second time.

I'm not missing a thing. We actually agree on things- I listened to that "Roscoe" track too. I agree with everything you said about it:

"I listened to the one song..."Roscoe"....it was OK song/content-wise, not my style of music, but AFA the audio quality, I kinda found the level balance to be somewhat off from my perspective. Vocals too much on top, the drums rather dull/subdued ....but that's just how I'm hearing it. AFA what Rolling Stone thinks, it's probably more to do with songs/content rather than sound quality."

None of the things you mentioned have to do with gear, they have to do with humans. It's not a great mix, the vocals aren't very tight, nor is the whole thing particularly tight, drums sound lifeless,. In plain English: It ain't da gear. They could have used SSL dual-cyclonic flux capacitors with Kung-Fu grip, they would still have the same problems. It's not because they didn't have zircon-encrusted monitors to hear the mix: someone with serious skill and talent could have got a better mix in a car with a Delco radio. That's not a criticism of the band or the song, they are fine. It's just reality: there was still plenty of stuff they could have done with the gear at their disposal. Ummm, wouldn't you agree that's the point of this thread?????

Of course you miss the real point a second time.

Sorry but I think you're missing the point, my friend. Lemme give you all you need to know, I'll even put the main point in bold:

"Pro" anything happens when people with pro-level skills do something. That's it, that's the whole shebang. If for some other reason you think differently, then the advertisers and their glossy ads are doing their job. Stick Yo-Yo Ma and Mutt Lange on a desert island with no stuff and they will still create pro music. Yo-Yo will make a cello out of Bamboo and Mutt will make a recorder out of coconut shells. Yo-Yo will be more musical on that bamboo cello than some trust-fund kid with the $100K cello and limited skill. Their coconut-recorder recording will be good simply because 2 skilled pros made it. No, it won't sonically equal the one made with SSL and the million dollar cello, but will it be "pro"? Yes. People with pro-level skills made it. I GUARANTEE you that you would enjoy the bamboo/coconut recording far more than the SSL/trust fund kid recording. Isn't that what it's all about??

There is no "pro" litmus test when it comes to audio. Yeah, some gear sounds a lot better than others, no doubt. I personally think you're confusing "pro" with "State of the art". "Audio Quality" starts in the real world: great playing by a pro-level on a good instrument in a suitable room. THAT'S audio quality. Capturing pro players with a Radio Shack mic (used by a pro-level engineer) will get "Pro Quality" (at least in a relative way). Capturing them with a Schoeps will get "State of the art" quality. The opposite is NOT true: capturing mediocre musicality with a gazillion dollars of gear won't produce "pro" anything. It will produce fantastic-sounding crap.

 

[famous beagle]

I'm not missing a thing. We actually agree on things- I listened to that "Roscoe" track too. I agree with everything you said about it:



None of the things you mentioned have to do with gear, they have to do with humans. It's not a great mix, the vocals aren't very tight, nor is the whole thing particularly tight, drums sound lifeless,. In plain English: It ain't da gear. They could have used SSL dual-cyclonic flux capacitors with Kung-Fu grip, they would still have the same problems. It's not because they didn't have zircon-encrusted monitors to hear the mix: someone with serious skill and talent could have got a better mix in a car with a Delco radio. That's not a criticism of the band or the song, they are fine. It's just reality: there was still plenty of stuff they could have done with the gear at their disposal. Ummm, wouldn't you agree that's the point of this thread?????



Sorry but I think you're missing the point, my friend. Lemme give you all you need to know, I'll even put the main point in bold:

"Pro" anything happens when people with pro-level skills do something. That's it, that's the whole shebang. If for some other reason you think differently, then the advertisers and their glossy ads are doing their job. Stick Yo-Yo Ma and Mutt Lange on a desert island with no stuff and they will still create pro music. Yo-Yo will make a cello out of Bamboo and Mutt will make a recorder out of coconut shells. Yo-Yo will be more musical on that bamboo cello than some trust-fund kid with the $100K cello and limited skill. Their coconut-recorder recording will be good simply because 2 skilled pros made it. No, it won't sonically equal the one made with SSL and the million dollar cello, but will it be "pro"? Yes. People with pro-level skills made it. I GUARANTEE you that you would enjoy the bamboo/coconut recording far more than the SSL/trust fund kid recording. Isn't that what it's all about??

There is no "pro" litmus test when it comes to audio. Yeah, some gear sounds a lot better than others, no doubt. I personally think you're confusing "pro" with "State of the art". "Audio Quality" starts in the real world: great playing by a pro-level on a good instrument in a suitable room. THAT'S audio quality. Capturing pro players with a Radio Shack mic (used by a pro-level engineer) will get "Pro Quality" (at least in a relative way). Capturing them with a Schoeps will get "State of the art" quality. The opposite is NOT true: capturing mediocre musicality with a gazillion dollars of gear won't produce "pro" anything. It will produce fantastic-sounding crap.

While I respectfully disagree with the statements about "Roscoe" (I think it sounds great all around), I think you really hit home with the idea of confusing "pro quality" with "state of the art."

Again, I reference Robert Johnson. The recording gear that captured him in the 1930s may have been state of the art at the time (I'm not sure), but it sure as hell wouldn't be now. But that doesn't matter. What sat in front of the microphone and behind the glass was surely pro.

And that's kind of the funny thing about all this. Our idea of "pro-sounding" constantly shifts with time, and that's due to several factors, including technology and pop culture to name a few.

Think about this: If you asked 1000 iYoungsters to choose between the gear used to record Johnson (which was certainly pro-level for the time) and their "crappy" (as some gear snobs would put it) iMac loaded with free plug-ins, what do you think they'd choose? Aside from maybe a few curious folks or fanatics, they'd all stick with their setup.

So I think it's all relative in that regard.

Again, I'm not pretending that a U87 isn't more desirable than an MXL or something, but I'm just trying to find the blurry line that exists when the gear is adequate and all that's needed is the experience and chops. And even this is entirely subjective, because different gear is better suited for different types of music, different instruments, etc. But I guess I was imaging the typical home recordist that's recording his pop/rock/etc. band and trying to compete with what people hear on the radio/youtube/etc.

 

[miroslav]

There is no "pro" litmus test when it comes to audio. Yeah, some gear sounds a lot better than others, no doubt. I personally think you're confusing "pro" with "State of the art".

Well...maybe not from some perspectives but when the "pros" (that you mention) talk audio and talk gear, there IS a major difference in the discussion than what you'll hear on a typical home-rec forum.
To them, pro gear IS pro gear (not just the "state of the art" stuff), and they rarely have discussions and "what if" scenarios about the possibility of doing pro level work utilizing pro-sumer gear.
They simply use pro level gear....period (granted, sometimes something lo-fi slips into the mix).
The only people that have these discussion are home-rec folks... mainly because their budgets are conservative, and they're trying to find a way to believe that they too CAN hit the same audio quality mark as the pros.
Mmmmm...sometimes that happens, a great recording and mix done on a porta-potty.... but no matter how much folks wish to deny it, high-end gear will consistently yield higher-end audio quality.
Will the public notice....possibly not, not the general public...but not everyone wwho records wants to use the lowest common denominator for their gear/production decisions just becuase of the "general public".

I'm also not disagreeing that what the *listening public* views as "great" has anything to do with gear...and for that matter, very often it also has little to do with experience.
There's some crappy audio done by no-experience people out there that still manages to sell and garner a large fan base.

My point (the one I said you were missing)...is that in this thread, the discussion wasn't about music tastes and what sells or doesn't sell, but about what gear would it take to have professional *sounding* recordings.
As the OP said "full-professional-sounding recording that would impress not only the general public, but other recordists/musicians as well"
Now...you can expand the discussion to say that anything that the public loves and that sells well is technically "pro"...but that's a different discussion, IMO.

 

[DavidK]

My point (the one I said you were missing)...is that in this thread, the discussion wasn't about music tastes and what sells or doesn't sell, but about what gear would it take to have professional *sounding* recordings.
As the OP said "full-professional-sounding recording that would impress not only the general public, but other recordists/musicians as well"

I would say that if one can't impress me (or anyone) with a recording made with an M-Audio interface and Cubase, they won't do it with Apogee and SSL either.